Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

Fourth Circuit shreds civil liberties for public gun carry

SCOTUS and other courts of Appellate Jurisdiction, cases and opinions

Re: Fourth Circuit shreds civil liberties for public gun car

Postby wealllbe20 » Tue Mar 14, 2017 10:55 am

country_hick wrote:Current Maine Constitution
Article 1 Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

This change came by amendment and was voted on in 1986 or 1987. This was a result of judges saying people did not have an individual right to bear arms in other states. After this amendment was adopted a felon got out of jail. He asked to be able to carry a gun again. A low level judge said he could because the constitution means what it says. The Maine Supreme judicial Court overruled. It said no right is absolute. The court works hard to remove any and all existing rights. The judges will continue removing rights until a revolution whether peaceful or not causes massive change to happen.


Well, then Maine believes in the death penalty.
I do too, if you are dangerous enough any of your rights can be taken away.

Sounds like a setup case to me.
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
------
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
How to Make Atheists Squirm:
"Make them explain Agrippa's Trilemma then ask why they hold the presupposition that logic takes precedence over a god/gods" -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1404
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 89 time

 

Re: Fourth Circuit shreds civil liberties for public gun car

Postby country_hick » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:56 am

The court made its decision based on what the AG thought instead of what the people voted on. That is corruption of the highest magnitude. Words eman what they say not what the AG thinks they should say.

State v. Brown, 571 A. 2d 816 - Me: Supreme Judicial Court 1990

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7657784593541349938&q=article+section+16&hl=en&as_sdt=4,20

For the State to prevail on its appeal from that dismissal, it must persuade us both that, contrary to defendant's contention, the citizen's right to keep and bear arms under amended section 16 is not absolute and that the possession-by-a-felon statute represents a reasonable exercise of the State's constitutional police power. The State does persuade us on both scores

Prior to the 1987 amendment the Maine Constitution afforded no absolute right to keep and bear arms and we now hold that no absolute right was created by the amendment. Both prior to and after its amendment, section 16 provided that the right to keep and bear arms "shall never be questioned"; the amendment to section 16 merely deleted the words "for the common defense." Before those four words were deleted, the section 16 right was not absolute, as declared by our prior case law, and the evident purpose of the amendment was merely to transform a collective right to bear arms into an individual right and nothing more.

1987 the Attorney General did prepare and publish the required explanation of the proposed amendment to section 16. The explanation provided:
The proposal would amend the Maine Constitution to establish a new personal right to keep and carry weapons, in place of the existing right to bear arms for the 818*818 common defense. In proposing the amendment, several legislators formally expressed their understanding and intention that the proposed personal right, like the existing collective right, would be subject to reasonable limitation by legislation enacted at the state or local level. The Attorney General has issued an opinion to the same effect.

The amendment would repeal the collective right of Maine citizens to keep and carry weapons as may be necessary to participate in the defense of the State or community through a broadly based, organized militia. The existing provision, as interpreted by the Maine Supreme Judicial Court in State v. Friel, 508 A.2d 123 (Me.1986), establishes no constitutional right to bear arms except this collective right of defense.
If approved, the amendment would take effect on the date of the Governor's proclamation of the vote.
A "YES" vote favors establishing a personal constitutional right to keep and carry weapons, subject to reasonable regulation.
A "NO" vote opposes establishment of such a constitutional right.

(Emphasis added) By the legislative resolution proposing the amendment of section 16, the question appearing on the ballot in November 1987 read, "Shall the Constitution of Maine be amended to clarify the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms?" Resolves 1987, ch. 2. That question standing by itself was at best uninformative[5] and required the voter to look elsewhere to learn how the amendment would "clarify" the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms. That necessary information was provided by the statutorily required statement prepared by the Attorney General. After he had discharged his obligations of explanation and publication, "[t]he electorate... must be held to have had full knowledge of the terms of the amendment. In voting `yes' on a question so submitted an elector does not vote upon or adopt the question as part of the amendment, but thereby merely expresses his assent to the amendment as proposed." Opinion of the Justices, 125 Me. 529, 532, 133 A. 265, 266 (1926); see also Fellows v. Eastman, 126 Me. 147, 150, 136 A. 810, 811 (1927). In the absence of a challenge to the Attorney General's official explanation of the amendment, we assume that the voters intended to adopt the constitutional amendment on the terms in which it was presented to them, including the interpretation that the individual right created by the amendment, like its predecessor collective right, is not absolute but rather remains subject to reasonable regulation by the legislature.
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 54 time

Previous

Return to Appellate Decisions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

suspicion-preferred