U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-17-2018, 04:26 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,065 posts, read 1,387,710 times
Reputation: 3640

Advertisements

Looks like the liberals are pretending, for the umpteenth time, that there can be exceptions to the 2nd amendment's flat ban on government taking away or restricting people's guns.

I suggest there's only one way government can do that: By Jury Nullification on a case by case basis.

A cop could jimmy the lock on my door right now, walk in, cuff me, and then break open my gun safe and take my gun. Today, even as I type this. And my only recourse is to sue him, and maybe sue the city for violating my 2nd amendment rights. And a jury would find the cops (and city govt) guilty, and punish them in various severe ways.

UNLESS they could show that I had habitually threatened people with my gun, regularly tortured and killed animals, posted on potatobook that I wanted to kill everybody, shoot up a school someplace etc., and the cops had received numerous complaints that I had acted dangerously etc. etc. (There are the things Nikolas Cruz did long before he shot up a high school in Florida.)

Then the jury might say, "Well, the 2nd amendment is still a ironclad command that govt can't take his gun away, no exceptions. However, we the jury decide that in this case the cops should be able to take them anyway since this guy is an obvious whacko who is a clear danger to people around him, so we will find the cop and the city Not Guilty."

That's the ONLY way government can take my gun away. Not by "gun control" laws. Not by "due process". ONLY by Jury Nullification, on a case by case basis.

The jury might say that because I've made dozens of scary threats. Or because I just murdered someone. Or etc. The 2nd says the govt cannot take my gun away, and doesn't even make exceptions for those things.

But a jury can invalidate the 2nd amendment, on a case-by-case basis. And no one else can.

A cop could have walked into Nikolas Cruz's house and take his guns after seeing the dozens of threats, complaints, etc. about his being a danger to others.

And if/when Cruz sued him for violating his second amendment rights, no jury in the country (who was correctly briefed on the legality and effectiveness of Jury Nullification) would have ruled him guilty. They would let the cop walk, for good and just reasons, as they should.

And if the cop had gotten a judge to give him a warrant to take Cruz's guns, the judge might have been on the docket with him... and the jury would let both walk, for the same good reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-17-2018, 04:49 PM
 
5,443 posts, read 2,013,160 times
Reputation: 6898
Liberals aren't pretending anything. The Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment is _not_ absolute right for anyone to own guns.

"The Heller majority opinion did not, in the words of its author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, secure an “unlimited” right to buy or carry weapons. The Second Amendment would not, for example, scuttle bans on concealed weapons or machine guns. And Justice Scalia emphasised that nothing in Heller “should 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”. Nearly every gun regulation under discussion today—from expanded background checks to bans on military-style weapons—would seem to pass constitutional muster."

This nation, any state, any city could put a total ban on AR-15 or other assault rifles and it would be Constitutional. No jury nullification required.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:07 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,065 posts, read 1,387,710 times
Reputation: 3640
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Liberals aren't pretending anything. The Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment is _not_ absolute right for anyone to own guns.
If the Supreme Court "determined" that we should have two Presidents and three Vice Presidents, despite the clear Constitutional command to the contrary, would that make it true?

The 2nd amendment is just as clear a Constitutional command.

Quote:
The Second Amendment would not, for example, scuttle bans on concealed weapons or machine guns.
Actually, that's exactly what it would do. The fact that the USSC hasn't said so, still doesn't repeal the clear command of the 2nd amendment.

Or do you believe that the Constitution isn't the "Supreme Law of the Land", and the USSC has somehow gained the power to supersede it?
Quote:
And Justice Scalia emphasised that nothing in Heller “should 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”.
Scalia was employing the common lawyer's tactic of saying that the Heller decision was not addressing certain former issues... but that they were still fair game for any future Supreme Court cases. Again, those issues are clearly unconstitutional according to the what the document says. Scalia was picking his battles.

The idea that the USSC can contradict a clear Constitutional command, is one of the sillier bits of wishful thinking invented by the desperate big-government left.

Last edited by Roboteer; 03-18-2018 at 10:16 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:09 AM
 
Location: Downtown Phoenix, AZ
18,927 posts, read 6,868,792 times
Reputation: 5856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
If the Supreme Court "determined" that we should have two Presidents and three Vice Presidents, despite the clear Constitutional command to the contrary, would that make it true?

The 2nd amendment is just as clear a Constitutional command.
So you think that people with mental health issues should be able to buy and carry guns?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:16 AM
 
29,743 posts, read 16,439,768 times
Reputation: 13821
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
So you think that people with mental health issues should be able to buy and carry guns?
There shouldnt any law prohibiting gun ownership, just as there arent laws prohibiting the ownership of screwdrivers, hammers, forks, spoons, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:19 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,065 posts, read 1,387,710 times
Reputation: 3640
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
So you think that people with mental health issues should be able to buy and carry guns?
Didn't even bother reading the OP, did we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:19 AM
 
18,870 posts, read 9,629,862 times
Reputation: 5294
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
So you think that people with mental health issues should be able to buy and carry guns?
Not if they are determined by the court as mentally ill.

Everyone is supporting that position, and it has been in place for over 50 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:22 AM
 
Location: San Diego
35,182 posts, read 32,161,514 times
Reputation: 19743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elliott_CA View Post
Liberals aren't pretending anything. The Supreme Court determined that the 2nd Amendment is _not_ absolute right for anyone to own guns.

"The Heller majority opinion did not, in the words of its author, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, secure an “unlimited” right to buy or carry weapons. The Second Amendment would not, for example, scuttle bans on concealed weapons or machine guns. And Justice Scalia emphasised that nothing in Heller “should 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”. Nearly every gun regulation under discussion today—from expanded background checks to bans on military-style weapons—would seem to pass constitutional muster."

This nation, any state, any city could put a total ban on AR-15 or other assault rifles and it would be Constitutional. No jury nullification required.
We've already had a "total ban" and I bought them at that time. That's what little a ban actually does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs
4,371 posts, read 1,812,281 times
Reputation: 3299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest View Post
There shouldnt any law prohibiting gun ownership
No I disagree guns should be more controlled.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2018, 10:23 AM
 
Location: SGV
24,798 posts, read 9,660,987 times
Reputation: 9724
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220 View Post
So you think that people with mental health issues should be able to buy and carry guns?
What qualifies as a "mental health issue" and who decides? Also, do these same "violators" get to keep their steak knives, power drills, hedge clippers, and even their hands?

Yes, hands. You can strangle someone with them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top