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.
Exactly...the general population..not the villiage loon that everybody keeps their kids from.
The village loon has rights too....
If the government thinks he's too unstable to own a gun, let them prove it in court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
Sounds fine to me. However due process is typically reserved to those who have already committed a crime, not to those that haven't but think Elvis is talking to them telling them to do stuff while holding a rocket launcher in their hands. At that point I think we should rely on the "well trained militia" aspect which is literally documented in the constitution. A militia consist of citizens who're deemed at least competent enough to follow orders and protect the population from danger, not a bunch loons making up their own thing.
That is inaccurate. Due process applies any time the government wishes to deprive a person of "life, liberty, or property"....
Think a person's too unstable to own a gun? Take them in front of a judge and have them adjudicated mentally defective. You don't get to just say "you seem weird to me, no gun for you"
If the government thinks he's too unstable to own a gun, let them prove it in court.
That is inaccurate. Due process applies any time the government wishes to deprive a person of "life, liberty, or property"....
Think a person's too unstable to own a gun? Take them in front of a judge and have them adjudicated mentally defective. You don't get to just say "you seem weird to me, no gun for you"
People who are drafted or otherwise volunteer for military or law enforcement service have to prove stability in some fashion which meets the intent of the constitution. No military unit is going to give me access to the armory if I go around saying stupid nonsense. No due process is required.
What you're proposing isn't in the constitution at all. It says just what it says.
I'm afraid this sounds like it has become an example of partisan interpretation of the constitution for the sole sake of picking one extreme over the other. From a rational standpoint it makes no sense.
I walked into the gun shop, selected my preferred weapon, purchased it and walked out within 30 minutes. My background is in criminal investigations and I can tell you there is NO WAY you can do a thorough background check in 30 minutes. So, my answer is that no we do not do a good enough job of screening people prior to allowing them to purchase a firearm.
Not passing a BGC doesn't mean you can't legally obtain a firearm. You know that, right? So, yes, I agree BGC is useless. 80,000 restricted people try it every year and we do almost nothing about it.
I said this twice: "The Constitution, when written, did not dip into the internal governance of the states until after the Civil War."
Did you not understand the English that I wrote?
If so, why did you present to me a 2010 case?
I had also said: "Even then, it has been applied only on a case-by-case basis...in fact, the 2nd Amendment not applied to the States until a few years ago."
And then you presented a 2010 case that proved my point.
The 10th amendment has been there since the beginning. The separation has been there the entire time.
In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated.
Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias. Several of the post-Miller lower court opinions are discussed here (PDF).
[UPDATE: In McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed this issue, ruling that Second Amendment rights are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.]
Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” 307 U.S. at 178.
The Court concludedthat the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional.
But the other question is, did anything negative happen as a consequence of the Brady Law?
Actually the correct question would be, did anything positive happen because of it. If a law is enacted that has no beneficial effect, the fact that it had no negative effect is rather a moot point.
The phrase that mentions a militia, is there simply to explain WHY the right of the people to KBA cannot be infringed. Even if that phrase was never put in, the effect of the 2nd amendment wouldn't change. It would still ban all governments in the U.S. (Federal, state, local) from making any laws that restrict guns, or their owners from owning or carrying.
There was never an intent by the Founding Fathers to give the federal government the power to ban any element of the internal governance of the separate states. The states would never have ratified the Constitution if that had been the intention.
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.
