Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So that pesky "...shall not be infringed" in the 2nd doesn't have as much meaning to you as the 4th Amendment does in relation to the SQF issue? I'm just trying to figure out if you are truly a Constitutionalist or just picking and choosing from it.
I agree with the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.
"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[15][16] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[17]"
Constitutionally people are permitted to bear arms.
Wha!? Permitted?? By Whom?
We are NOT permitted to bear arms -- we have the right to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed upon. Permitted vs. Right!!! Two very different things...
I agree with the most recent Supreme Court ruling on the right to bear arms.
"In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[15][16] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.[17]"
That makes very clear that the current court cannot read a simple sentence but chooses to rewrite the constitution as it sees fit.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I AM a strict constitutionalist and I know the meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I wish that right did not exist but until it is amended by THE PEOPLE and not the courts, congress, or President it is the law of the land...supreme courts notwithstanding.
You gotta wonder what kind of tortured imaginary logic can distort the meaning of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?
I guess similar to the inability to stand a simple dictate like THOU SHALT NOT KILL.
I doubt there is still a Bill of Rights Amendment left standing except perhaps the one about billeting soldiers in your bedroom.
If WE the people want to dump the Constitution, DUMP it, most of it is awful...but don't fiddle fart it to death with nonsensical court "interpretations" that give the Supreme Court supreme lawmaking authority.
We are NOT permitted to bear arms -- we have the right to bear arms, and this right shall not be infringed upon. Permitted vs. Right!!! Two very different things...
In fact "permitting" is infringement.
No. You do not have the unlimited right to bear arms. Try bringing a weapon into a court house, upon an airplane, in a school, or any other place that has security and a metal detector.
Constitutionally you have the right to bear arms to defend your home or say go hunting. It doesn' mean you can have your gun wherever or do whatever with it.
So yes, constitutionally people are PERMITTED to bear arms, as there is no UNLIMITED right to bear arms. The court has ruled on this repeatedly. You may not like it, but whatever.
That makes very clear that the current court cannot read a simple sentence but chooses to rewrite the constitution as it sees fit.
I doubt there is still a Bill of Rights Amendment left standing except perhaps the one about billeting soldiers in your bedroom.
If WE the people want to dump the Constitution, DUMP it, most of it is awful...but don't fiddle fart it to death with nonsensical court "interpretations" that give the Supreme Court supreme lawmaking authority.
This was the purpose of the Supreme Court from its very inception. To essentially have supreme lawmaking authority. There is one way around a supreme court edict, to change the constitution which requires a 2/3rds majority in Congress and 3/4th majority among the states. The court system interprets the constitution, which acts as a guideline for government. As a guideline the constitution promotes a certain amount of consistency between administrations and congresses.
This was the purpose of the Supreme Court from its very inception. To
essentially have supreme lawmaking authority.
No it was not...that imagined authority was USURPED. Congress is the Supreme Lawmaking authority in the United States. Anyone who doubts this Congressional authority need only remember that it is Congress who can remove presidents and judges for any reason or indeed no reason.
Congressional BENDING to the Supreme Court acting a "lawmaker" is a relatively new and odious thing.
No it was not...that imagined authority was USURPED. Congress is the Supreme Lawmaking authority in the United States. Anyone who doubts this Congressional authority need only remember that it is Congress who can remove presidents and judges for any reason or indeed no reason.
Congressional BENDING to the Supreme Court acting a "lawmaker" is a relatively new and odious thing.
Kefir is 100% right. Anytime the court creates law, it is working outside of its intended and codified purpose and permissions. The Court exists to ensure Congress and the President work within the confines of the Constitution, nothing more.
"...shall not be infringed," doesn't need to be interpreted by SCOTUS and cannot legally be changed by Congress without an amendment being approved. ALL guns laws are unconstitutional, plain and simple, just as much police searches without warrants are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
