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.
First, where do they get the power of judicial review. Check the link to the Constitution in my post.
Also, if they make a wrong decision, why should that decision stand for all time? If Congress would get their act together and check both the Executive and Judicial branches of government we would all be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
So in your opinion do we citizens, have the right to bear any type of arms?
Yes. That was covered a few months ago in a long thread like this one. I'm all for individuals owning everything from a .22 single shot pistol to field artillery.
The vast majority of "straw purchases" of firearms are gifts. How many boy friends or husbands buy their girl friends or wives a firearm? I got my first firearm from my father on my tenth birthday. How many other boys grew up just like me?
One will never be able to eliminate "straw purchases," nor should one.
I agree. No one wants to go to the local gun shop to transfer a gift to a family member. My first gun was a Savage 20 gauge double barrel from my grandfather. That would have been around 4th or 5th grade since he passed when I was in the 6th grade.
Most of my collection of all metal pistols cam from my father. Most date back to the mid 60's to mid 70's based on serial number searches. I've only bought polymer framed models.
Well that depends on what state you live in. The feds will have you fill out form 4 to own a machine gun, but that doesn't mean all states allow you to keep one.
The following states allow private ownership of machine guns if registered with ATF: AL, AK, AZ, AR, CO, CT, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, WV, WI, WY.
First, where do they get the power of judicial review. Check the link to the Constitution in my post.
That's the purpose of the Supreme Court. They make sure all laws passed by Congress are Constitutional. However, the wording of the Constitution allows for some interpretation. Read the Federalist Papers and you will see, that this was the intent of the Founding Fathers.
Quote:
Also, if they make a wrong decision, why should that decision stand for all time?
Only the Supreme Court can overturn its own rulings. One of the most famous examples of a Supreme Court case being overturned is Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturned by the ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. It's rare, but it can happen. Since only one decision has been overturned the idea of "stare decisis" has withstood the test of time.
Quote:
If Congress would get their act together and check both the Executive and Judicial branches of government we would all be better.
The Legislative Branch makes the laws
The Executive Branch enforces the laws
The Judicial Branch interprets the laws
Quote:
Yes. That was covered a few months ago in a long thread like this one. I'm all for individuals owning everything from a .22 single shot pistol to field artillery.
I believe that there should be limits, but those limits need to be decided on the state level.
The Heller decision:
Quote:
1. The Second Amendment 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. Pp. 2–53.
Quote:
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
Quote:
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Quote:
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
Quote:
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
Quote:
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
Quote:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
Quote:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
registration does in fact lead to confiscation. this fact is now public so even democrats/liberals cannot say that the opposite anymore. if they do, this will in fact prove them to be nothing more than liars.
Over time, numerous lawsuits have arisen that have referenced the 14th amendment. The fact that the amendment uses the word state in the Privileges and Immunities clause along with interpretation of the Due Process Clause has meant that state as well as federal power is subject to the Bill of Rights
In other words, if it's unconstitutional at the federal level, it's unconstitutional at the state level as well. The 14th amendment makes it possible to apply the 2nd amendment to not only the power of the Feds, but the states as well.
I do think that the second amendment was in part a check and balance of power between the states and the federal government, but at the same time, states CANNOT ban guns because of the second amendment. They can set limits as to what types of firearms can be used. The Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the individual right to keep arms that are "common use".
I do think that the second amendment was in part a check and balance of power between the states and the federal government, but at the same time, states CANNOT ban guns because of the second amendment. They can set limits as to what types of firearms can be used. The Supreme Court ruled that citizens have the individual right to keep arms that are "common use".
common use, as in what the common soldier carries. too bad the feds themselves will not let the people have and keep the common use firearms of the individual soldier.
Even the founders supported keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill.
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceablecitizens from keeping their own arms … ” — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Felons are not "peaceable" citizens, and depending on the degree and severity of a mental condition, neither are the mentally ill.
You're one of those "national guard = militia" keyword sniffers eh?
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.
