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.
But one of the advantages of having a jury as sole repository of the power to decide who can carry a gun and who can't, is that it completely locks out the government from having any voice in the decision.
The advantage FAR outweighs the disadvantage.
Which probably contributes to the reason the Framers made that method, the Supreme Law of the Land.
The "after the fact" problem is only one of the limitations on leaving such matters up to a jury.
Another is the fact that juries are often wrong -- consider, for example, the juries that acquitted O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Lorena Bobbitt, Casey Anthony, etc.
As I thought. You guys just made up the part where the Constitution allows you to be armed everywhere you go, so you got nuthin' to back it up.
I had to ask, what, 6 times, just to force you to evade the question?
LOL.
Do you think the Constitution enumerates your rights or tells the government what it cannot do? Lots of people see the purpose of the Constitution differently. I think the OP is saying "shall not be infringed" does not include any exceptions (e.g. can or cannot carry in specific places). While SCOTUS has determined some restrictions, a strict Constitutionalist would not agree with those restrictions.
Do you think the Constitution enumerates your rights or tells the government what it cannot do? Lots of people see the purpose of the Constitution differently. I think the OP is saying "shall not be infringed" does not include any exceptions (e.g. can or cannot carry in specific places). While SCOTUS has determined some restrictions, a strict Constitutionalist would not agree with those restrictions.
Well, a personal interpretation of the Constitution is one thing … insults and condescension, accompanied by absolute certainty that a poster can't possibly be wrong and all others are morons, in support of that personal interpretation, is another.
The point of the thread is, of course, that banning a law-abiding citizen from carrying a gun in a Federal building, is constitutionally no different from telling a black person he can't go into the Federal building because he is black.
The Constitution forbids either act, to an equal degree, and with equal force of law.
So why are liberals fine with one act and not fine with the other?
Because there is a certain segment of liberals that don't actually care about the constitution. They decide what's good and bad first. Then, if the constitution happens to support what they like, they will point to the constitution. If the constitution doesn't support what they like, they will ignore it. It is a "living document", ie "only applies when we want it to"
How did the Constitution change in 1814, concerning arms?
How did the Constitution change in 1914, concerning arms?
How did the Constitution change in 2014, concerning arms?
The "after the fact" problem is only one of the limitations on leaving such matters up to a jury.
Another is the fact that juries are often wrong -- consider, for example, the juries that acquitted O.J. Simpson, Michael Jackson, Lorena Bobbitt, Casey Anthony, etc.
And this is different from any other group (such as lawmakers)....how?
BTW, you left out the other 342,453,237 juries that returned correct verdicts. I always get a kick out of these "Effen it ain't perfect then it ain't shiite" troglodytes, who then turn around and announce that government (which is far less perfect than the group they are opposing) is the group that should make the decisions.
Again, the fact that a jury is NOT part of government and owes it no loyalty, but is instead concerned with the safety and well-being of regular people like itself, makes it by far the best group to decide whether someone should be punished for a putative violation of the 2nd amendment's flat ban on government having anything to do with deciding who can own and carry, and who can't.
By the same standard, government is about the worst possible group to make such decisions... which is why the Framers make the 2nd as absolute as they did.
If the purpose of having arms is to support a "well regulated militia" as the Constitution says - why do you think the right to bear arms can't have regulations? If we are a militia, then the Constitution says it can be "well regulated."
So restricting the ability to carry arms in certain places is valid.
Also if a militia is to be "Well-Regulated" those who job it is to command such a force need to know who has guns, what type of gun, whether they are proficient in the use of the guns they have, and where they can be found so they can be called up or mustered or recieve timely orders in time of a national or community emergency . It also means that militia members fully understand the basic proceddures and tactics used by the militia so there is not chaos and comfusion when the militai unit has to go into service or combat. Sometimes there might not be time to drill or train militia recruits because the emergency may be upon us . Since we don't maitain National or State firearms registries, require prospective members of citizenn militias to prove they are proficient in gun use or report for periodic training in marksmanship or demonstrate firearms proficiency one can argue our prsent gun laws are failing a basic Constitutional test since we would find it all but impossible to create Well-Regulated National or State or Loical Militias in a timely basis to meet the challenges of a national, state or local ememrgency.
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.
You have it wrong. Members of a Jury are sworn in as temporary parts of the our system of jusripurdence. A jurer takes and Oath and if he violates his Oath he can be prosecuted for a criminal offense just like any officier of the Court system. Being a Jurer is an important part of our system of justice and governance and sould be treasured by all American citizens.
You cant bring your gun into my home if I tell you otherwise. In fact, you shouldnt bring your gun into my home without my prior consent.
If a business (private property) says no guns allowed, why do you think that you can overwrite those rules of private property?
If an airline says no guns allowed, why do you think you should be able to carry on an airline, which, after all, is private property.
Government buildings? I understand the ambiguity here, but in the end, somebody can set the rules, and government buildings can, in many respects, be considered private property.
Is it OK for a business to not serve blacks, or gays?
How about an airline, Say KKK airlines would it be OK if they refused to serve Blacks, Gays, Jews? Is that OK?
How about a Bakery that refuse's to make a cake for a Gay couple's wedding, Is that OK
bill
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.
