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.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of normal people to KBA cannot be restricted.
This is clearly a flat ban on any govt in the country making any law restricting our ability to purchase, own, and carry a gun. Yet a number of governments (Federal, State, local) have made laws restricting exactly those things.
What should we obey? The 2nd amendment? Or the government officials making the "gun control" laws?
The law, as interpreted by the courts. That's what they do for a living, and their opinions change as times change, thus the law changes.
The Constitution was designed as a living document, to be changed in light of new situations. It has been changed many times in our history. If you can give a legal definition of "arms", it will greatly bolster your case.
As said before that is the essential Madison versus Hamilton argument. The Hamilton faction won. The strict constructionists lost in 1937 and since.
"The strict constructionists lost in 1937 and since" When FDR had LIBERAL COURT and by the time he left office EVERY SINGLE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WAS APPOINTED BY HIM!
And as Justice Jackson said "We are not final because we are right, we are right because we are final".
The decisions are the court are fully enforceable. If an entity refuses to comply with a SC order, they can order a lower court to hold a Show Cause hearing to determine why they should not be held in Contempt, similar to the Shipp case where the Supreme's held their own Contempt trial.
"held in Contempt". Then what? The court CANNOT ENFORCE ANYTHING. It can ONLY give decisions.
"The Constitution did not give the Federal government the authority to interfere in "states' rights" when it came to what kinds of gun-control measures they implemented."
What about abortions, gay rights, voter ID, etc?
How did the Supreme Court override the Ca. law that banned gay marriage?
How can the Supreme Cout override all the varios BViter ID laews?
HOW does the the fed government "legislate" THESE types of things and NOT the 2nd amendment"
A state CAN pass any law it wants. That law CAN be challenged in court. The courts determine IF the law ADHERES to the CONSTITUTION.
A state CANNOT override the Constitution.
Any law passed that does NOT meet the criteria of the Constitutions is voided.
Or, at the very least, those whose Constitutional Rights have been violated receive an exemption from the law. That even happens to federal laws, as we saw with the Hobby Lobby win at SCOTUS. The ACA, in part, violated the Hobby Lobby owners' Constitutional Rights. SCOTUS granted them a partial exemption.
Quote:
I find it funny how so many SUPPORT all the overturning of state laws as long as it is the 1ST AMENDMENT but, do NOT support the same when applies to the 2ND AMENDMENT.
That's because they have ZERO critical thinking ability.
A LAW is passed. Do you believe it is, or is NOT a law?
A court says it is not a "law". Another court says it is.
Considering most ruling lately have been 5-4 or 4-5. If MOST judges cannot agree overwhelming, why should we?
Most of us recognize even judges are POLITICAL and rule based on their political leanings.
Our President is the CHIEF EXECUTIVE of ALL of our laws. Do YOU believe in the "rule of law" giving the President THAT power?
People are "selective" depending on their political leanings.
Just the same as the DEA isn't in Colorado shutting down marijuana.
Add in Caetano v. Massachusetts established 200,000 stun guns/tasers to be the basis of in common use. And well, as cuebald wants to say the constitution is a living breathing document, Massachusetts stun gun law was ruled unconstitutional.
Well according to NFA records.
Destructive Devices-2,709,704.
(I bought a registered transferable M203 launcher 3 weeks ago it sits in NFA jail until the ATF issues me the tax stamp to take possession of it)
Suppressors-1,360,023
(I own 4 that took the ATF a year and a half to come up with the tax stamps)
Machine Guns-630,019
Short Barreled rifles-297,626
(Form 1 3 receivers awaiting tax stamps on)
Short Barreled Shotguns-146,098
So...
Machine guns are in common use.
Suppressors are in common use.
Short barreled rifles are in common use.
Destructive Devices are in common use.
Hughes-unconstitutional.
NFA-Unconstitutional. For a right delayed is a right denied. Should not take 6 months to a year to take possession of lawfully purchased property.
I'll take back my right to keep and bear newly manufactured full autos thank you.
The law, as interpreted by the courts. That's what they do for a living
No, it is not. According to their Oath of Office, their duty is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It says nothing about interpreting anything. They're to remain neutral and enforce the Constitution, NOT "interpret" it.
Quote:
The Constitution was designed as a living document, to be changed in light of new situations.
That's what the Constitution's specific Amendment procedure is for, and it has been used several times.
No, it is not. According to their Oath of Office, their duty is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It says nothing about interpreting anything. They're to remain neutral and enforce the Constitution, NOT "interpret" it.
That's what the Constitution's specific Amendment procedure is for, and it has been used several times.
No, let him believe that.
Seriously. Let him believe it. We will get machine guns back real quick and bumpstocks unbanned.
Caetano v. Massachusetts.
Quote:
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Citing District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States". The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court. First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”. Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller. Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.
No, it is not. According to their Oath of Office, their duty is to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." It says nothing about interpreting anything. They're to remain neutral and enforce the Constitution, NOT "interpret" it.
That's what the Constitution's specific Amendment procedure is for, and it has been used several times.
Pro Tip:
Don't try using that argument in court.
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.
