|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 11, 2011, 02:50 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
|
Just, if you were to bring your arguments to a court in Oregon, they would tell you taht you have a right to carry...openly...or if you must be a fox and hide your weapon, you can do that on the property you own.
You are not being prevented from protecting yoruself, you are only not allowed to cover your weapon in public. |
August 11, 2011, 04:14 PM | #27 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
A little late to this argument, but....
The Court declared that the core of this right, was the right to be armed to defend self and family, in the face of immediate confrontation: There is no insinuation in the above that holds only to "in the home." The problem is that the various State Defendants and the Courts are seeing only the exact holding in Heller, as opposed to the reasoning that the Court used in making its determination. That reasoning is being called obiter dicta. But is it dicta? It's not just the immediate result of the case (the so-called "holding"), but the reasoning the Court used to get that result. There are other citations where the Court says much same thing. What it boils down to is that the lower courts are ignoring the reasoning of the Supreme Court and applying only the specific holding and regarding all else as dicta, which they then ignore. This is exemplified at the definition of Quote:
The fact that the lower courts are ignoring this, means absolutely nothing. You will notice that the 7th Circuit took what the Heller Court said as fact. The 4th Circuit, 9th Circuit and the Maryland Supreme Court of Appeals have ignored this, and they will get slapped down for their efforts. |
|||
|
|