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.
There is such thing as an illegal gun purchase and states are allowed to place reasonable restrictions on sales. The supreme Court has stated this.
Your interpretation is meaningless.
No there isn't. It would be unconstitutional to do so, if the text of the Constitution is followed.
The government has no say in what arms a person has. That is a persons individual right, not a privilege granted by the collective.
They, nor you have any ability to police it.
McDonald v. Chicago overturned all gun legislation.
All gun legislation is based upon the very first challenge to the 2nd amendment, right after the civil war and denying black Americans their rights. It was not hard to convince 9 judges, freemen should not be armed.
That has been overturned.
It was the precedence for all gun legislation.
Why isn't law enforcement doing something about this now?
Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement give them a "slap on the wrist" and cut 'em lose.
Prisons are full, court dockets are full and Mama's cry about their baby boy who didn't do nuttin.
Mexico made it extremely difficult for a Citizen to own a gun -- but no problems with the Narco Gangs getting guns and attacking anyone/everyone in their Drug Wars.
THIS is what the Leftists want for the USA ..... Mexico
Bull****.
If a 16 year old uses a stolen Glock with the serial numbers filed off in a car jacking , that is an illegal firearm.
When some gangbanger modifies his stolen AK to full auto, that now becomes an illegal firearm.
Just having an unregistered handgun in Michigan is a felony, so that would be an illegal firearm.
Anyone with a felony that has a firearm in their possession is breaking the law, therefore those are illegal firearms.
I think what Bentbow was trying to say is, yes these laws are in place, but the people should not comply with them, as they are infringements on the 2nd.
Its up to the people to band together at some point, if they want to accomplish anything, its not like the Govt itself is going to one day tell people its time to rise up and revolt! Its only natural a tyrannical govt is going to enact tyrannical laws and regulations, but its the peoples fault if we do nothing but obey and be model subjects.
Bull****.
If a 16 year old uses a stolen Glock with the serial numbers filed off in a car jacking , that is an illegal firearm.
When some gangbanger modifies his stolen AK to full auto, that now becomes an illegal firearm.
Just having an unregistered handgun in Michigan is a felony, so that would be an illegal firearm.
Anyone with a felony that has a firearm in their possession is breaking the law, therefore those are illegal firearms.
The crime and key word, is stolen. Other than that according to the second amendment, filing serial numbers government uses to track guns, is not unconstitutional. It is not even a 10th amendment issue.
Sure, a collective of men can make laws that take rights and liberties, but that does not make them constitutional.
9 guys in robes can surely say the constitution doesn't say what it actually says, that doesn't make their opinion right. It is just their opinion. 320 million people have an opinion too. That doesn't mean they can take my rights without a fight.
A firearm in the possession of a person forbidden by law to own, possess, or control one. That is all inclusive of firearms not generally available to the public which require special licensing not permitted to the person.
Now, I'm sure that does not suit you because as soon as you cite the Constitution I know you are going to cite, "shall not be infringed." How can you have a "Well Regulated Militia" without some infringement? "You are in a maze of twisty passages"
But that would require rewriting the 2nd amendment to accommodate the change. Would it not?
What has been done to date is all unconstitutional.
the 1934 and 1986 Firearms Act, would require a change to the 2nd amendment to read in the effect, The privilege to keep but never bear, the small arms the government deems acceptable. It would also require a change to, shall not be infringed. To, can be altered, when emotions run high.
But that would require rewriting the 2nd amendment to accommodate the change. Would it not? What has been done to date is all unconstitutional.
the 1934 and 1986 Firearms Act, would require a change to the 2nd amendment to read in the effect, The privilege to keep but never bear, the small arms the government deems acceptable. It would also require a change to, shall not be infringed. To, can be altered, when emotions run high.
Love the way you insist on your interpretation without answering any of the rebuttals.The Supreme Court of the United States is positioned to interpret the Constitution. Otherwise the 45 States with constitutional clauses related to gun ownership would have to be rejected, which is specifically forbidden by the Constitution. "You are in twisty passages, all in a maze"
Love the way you insist on your interpretation without answering any of the rebuttals.The Supreme Court of the United States is positioned to interpret the Constitution. Otherwise the 45 States with constitutional clauses related to gun ownership would have to be rejected, which is specifically forbidden by the Constitution. "You are in twisty passages, all in a maze"
The Supreme court is also under a lot of pressure from this very powerful tyrannical govt...so of course that will have a huge impact on their 'interpretations' imo.
At some point, its up to the people to do something, Im sorry but even the supreme court would never ever suggest the people rise up and remove a govt from power, no matter how tyrannical it had become.
But that would require rewriting the 2nd amendment to accommodate the change. Would it not?<>
That is not how it would be done. Read the 21st Amendment to see how the 18th Amendment was repealed. Then read Article 5 to see what it takes to amend the US CONSTITUTION. Then you have 45 more State constitutions to deal with.
So your 2nd Amendment rights are safe. "YOU ARE IN A LITTLE MAZE OF TWISTING PASSAGES, all the same."
..........If all or most of the legally owned firearms in this country were banned and confiscated, what could be done about all the illegally owned weapons in the hands of criminals across our great nation?............
I am in favor of banning assault weapons, and the associated accoutrements like high capacity magazines and bump stocks.
No one hopes to get all guns out of the hands of all criminals. The 2nd amendment must stand.
But many of us hope that mass homicides will be prevented.
Assault weapons should be taken off the shelves and never be offered to civilians again. Not ever. At any price.
The right to carry concealed weapons and the right to own guns should not only be upheld, but should be expanded. A concealed weapon permit in one state should be recognized by all states.
The bad guys can bang away at each other if they wish. More good guys will have their gun with them and will be able to bang back.
Gradually, assault weapons will disappear through attrition. This is America, and our second amendment gives us the right to arm ourselves, but we are foolish if we give homicidal maniacs the tools to use when the voices in their heads get out of control.
If it were all up to me:
The only thing sold would be handguns with 5 shot capabilities, actual hunting rifles and so forth. The concealed carry permit would be expanded. A buyback program for assault rifles would be in permanent place.
Yes. You may carry your Glock. But you will be unable to own or buy any magazine that holds more than 5 rounds.
That is not how it would be done. Read the 21st Amendment to see how the 18th Amendment was repealed. Then read Article 5 to see what it takes to amend the US CONSTITUTION. Then you have 45 more State constitutions to deal with.
So your 2nd Amendment rights are safe. "YOU ARE IN A LITTLE MAZE OF TWISTING PASSAGES, all the same."
Yes, it took and amendment to alter a previous amendment, yet they both appear today in the document.
Like I said, to do what the supreme court wants the 2nd to say today, it would require an amendment to the constitution to alter the 2nd amendment, like the 21st did to the 18th, to say in the effect,
****Militia is illegal as the police state has suppressed the free state, the privilege of citizens 21 years or older who are mentally sane and non-felons may keep but never bear the small arms the collective deems acceptable, this may be altered anytime emotions run high.
Would it not?
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.
