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.
Even though the 2nd amendment flatly prohibits such a restriction?
The 14th amendment also flatly prohibits a restriction saying black people cannot enter that same Federal building.
I can dig up more than one person (usually from the deep South) who believes that that restriction on black people is completely "reasonable". And that Southerner is just as sincere as you are (and just as wrong).
Does your sincere belief (or the southerner's) make it OK to violate a clear constitutional prohibition?
Does 51% of the popular vote, make it OK to violate a clear constitutional prohibition? Whether it's about guns or about black people?
Where does it say that?
I keep looking, and I find no protections as to location of bearing arms, nor any commandment that you MUST bear arms everywhere you go.
Actually, the question is whether you have the right to carry an inanimate object that the Constitution says you can carry wherever you want into a Federal building.
Again: Please quote where it says what you just posted it says.
Actually, the question is whether you have the right to carry an inanimate object that the Constitution says you can carry wherever you want into a Federal building.
Not just an inanimate object, but a deadly weapon.
Let's say you are a judge and you are hearing my ex-wife's complaint against me for back alimony and child support, which I have resisted because she won't let me see the kids and is spending the money on her new live-in boyfriend. Are you okay with both me and her sporting pistols on our hips during this hearing?
Or suppose you work for the IRS and I've come up to advise you that I want that lien you put on my property removed immediately. Is it okay if I've got AR-15 strapped across my chest?
Does the fact that I've got a deadly weapon at my fingertips have any bearing on these situations?
This is actually an interesting argument on its premise. A sound one actually. I can only say that the Founders set up SCOTUS to answer these types of Constitutional questions.
I've pointed out elsewhere, that the did NOT set up SCOTUS to answer such questions. Instead, they set up juries.
I gave the example of a guy who goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun, and blows away half a dozen people. The cops arrive, and one of them says to him, "Give me your gun right now." The murderer says, "The 2nd amendment says no government person can take away anyone's gun, so you can't make me give you mine."
Whereupon the cop cracks him over the head with his billy club and takes his gun away anyway.
Later the murderer sues the cop on grounds that the cop violated his 2nd amendment rights, and the case goes before a jury of the cop's peers. And despite the clear command of the 2nd, no jury in the world would find the cop "guilty" in this case, and the cop walks, for obvious reasons. It's called "jury nullification", the decision that the law should not apply in this case, and it is theirs to make. And it is irrevocable - NO ONE can overrule the jury who decides that.
What's the difference between the jury ruling that, and the government making a law saying murderers can't have guns?
The jury is not part of the government, owes it nothing, and has reason to not be loyal to it. And as long as a jury is the ONLY body that has the power to overrule the 2nd amendment's flat prohibition, then it can make "reasonable restrictions" (like that one) on a case-by-case basis.... and government remains 100% prohibited from having ANY say in who can carry a gun and who can't. Even in obvious cases like that one.
And it was vitally important to the Framers, that government be 100% prohibited from having any say in who could carry a gun and who couldn't... while a non-govt body still COULD make "reasonable restrictions", via jury nullification.
People here have said that it's not a bad idea to have "reasonable restrictions" on who can own and carry a gun. And I agree.
But when they give government the power to make those restrictions, no matter how "reasonable", that's where they flatly violate the Constitution. And no, the Framers did NOT intend for them to do that. They wrote the 2nd with a 100% ban, to make sure that government couldn't... and gave that power instead to juries of your peers. But it has to be done on a case-by-case basis... because to do it any other way, creates far more harm than good.
BTW, if govt can't violate the 14th amendment ban on keeping black people out of a Federal building,
what gives govt the power to violate the 2nd amendment ban on keeping law-abiding people carrying a gun, out of a Federal building?
BTW, if govt can't violate the 14th amendment ban on keeping black people out of a Federal building,
what gives govt the power to violate the 2nd amendment ban on keeping law-abiding people carrying a gun, out of a Federal building?
Still waiting for the citation of where it says in the Constitution that you have a right to bear arms in a specific location, or all locations.
I've pointed out elsewhere, that the did NOT set up SCOTUS to answer such questions. Instead, they set up juries.
I gave the example of a guy who goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun, and blows away half a dozen people. The cops arrive, and one of them says to him, "Give me your gun right now." The murderer says, "The 2nd amendment says no government person can take away anyone's gun, so you can't make me give you mine."
Whereupon the cop cracks him over the head with his billy club and takes his gun away anyway.
Later the murderer sues the cop on grounds that the cop violated his 2nd amendment rights, and the case goes before a jury of the cop's peers. And despite the clear command of the 2nd, no jury in the world would find the cop "guilty" in this case, and the cop walks, for obvious reasons. It's called "jury nullification", the decision that the law should not apply in this case, and it is theirs to make. And it is irrevocable - NO ONE can overrule the jury who decides that.
What's the difference between the jury ruling that, and the government making a law saying murderers can't have guns?
The jury is not part of the government, owes it nothing, and has reason to not be loyal to it. And as long as a jury is the ONLY body that has the power to overrule the 2nd amendment's flat prohibition, then it can make "reasonable restrictions" (like that one) on a case-by-case basis.... and government remains 100% prohibited from having ANY say in who can carry a gun and who can't. Even in obvious cases like that one.
And it was vitally important to the Framers, that government be 100% prohibited from having any say in who could carry a gun and who couldn't... while a non-govt body still COULD make "reasonable restrictions", via jury nullification.
People here have said that it's not a bad idea to have "reasonable restrictions" on who can own and carry a gun. And I agree.
But when they give government the power to make them, that's where they flatly violate the Constitution. And no, the Framers did NOT intend for them to do that. They wrote the 2nd with a 100% ban, to make sure that government couldn't... and gave that power instead to juries of your peers. But it has to be done on a case-by-case basis... because to do it any other way, creates far more harm than good.
Well, we have to go back to the root to determine if you're right or not. The root question is 'did the Framers intend to have SCOTUS interpret the Constitution or be strict Constitutionalists'? If they existed only to rule in cases where one case has a dispute with another, they would not be called upon to decide Constitutionality of appeals. I personally believe one of their core fundamental functions is to interpret the Constitution.
It's been discussed at length before. Yes, it is OK to yell "fire" or "bomb" in a crowded room. If there is a threat, then you have become a hero. If there is no threat and everyone ignores you, then you just look stupid. If there is no threat and there are injuries during the evacuation then you are at minimum criminally negligent and responsible for what you have done.
The in United States Supreme Court case Schenck vs The United States, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. penned the following famous quotes:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
I suggest you and CD discuss it some more until you get it right.
It's high time to repeal the constitution and replace it with something that is not so archaic. Gun rights should be the first to go. Guns have no place in modern society except in the hands of the police who need them to keep order.
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.
