Supreme Court takes on first 2nd Amendment case in 11 years

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

I always want less regulation. I want practical regulation. In terms of the 2nd amendment... we have WAY too much conflicting regulation that is politically motivated. With that said... no one should own nuclear submarines or a battle ready Abrams tank or artillery.... unless it shoots potatoes.

Ummm, please. Let's get over the private ownership of things like the M1 Abrams and nuclear submarines. Again, these are highly classified for one, and no citizens short of the VERY rich could afford one anyway.

We are talking about rifles, pistols and shotguns. For personal defense, hunting, target shooting and plinking and worse case scenario militia use. The latter is light infantry. Which does not even use heavy artillery let alone need platforms like aircraft and submarines.

An argument can be made for fully automatic weapons. But these can be had they are just prohibitively expensive. So technically that's a moot point. Firearms like the AR 15 are part and parcel to the 2A. Service style and compatible with the military for parts and ammunition.

Shall not be infringed applies. Irrefutably. The SCOTUS should immediately rule that states and municipalities that ban or heavily restrict personal arms cease and desist and restore citizens rights to to such arms forthwith.

[Dave_n_Tenn]

Originally Posted by NVplumber

Ummm, please. Let's get over the private ownership of things like the M1 Abrams and nuclear submarines. Again, these are highly classified for one, and no citizens short of the VERY rich could afford one anyway.

We are talking about rifles, pistols and shotguns. For personal defense, hunting, target shooting and plinking and worse case scenario militia use. The latter is light infantry. Which does not even use heavy artillery let alone need platforms like aircraft and submarines.

An argument can be made for fully automatic weapons. But these can be had they are just prohibitively expensive. So technically that's a moot point. Firearms like the AR 15 are part and parcel to the 2A. Service style and compatible with the military for parts and ammunition.

Shall not be infringed applies. Irrefutably. The SCOTUS should immediately rule that states and municipalities that ban or heavily restrict personal arms cease and desist and restore citizens rights to to such arms forthwith.

We are in agreement... my comment was sarcasm regarding the ownership of highly sophisticated weapons.

I have no issue with automatic weapons, but I understand the argument on both sides. The rate of fire would deplete my fun money in no time.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by Dave_n_Tenn

We are in agreement... my comment was sarcasm regarding the ownership of highly sophisticated weapons.

I have no issue with automatic weapons, but I understand the argument on both sides. The rate of fire would deplete my fun money in no time.

Personally I have no use or desire for full auto either. Az you say, ammunition is precious and I like every round fired to be a hit. Full auto is wasteful.

Alvin York is proof that accurate well aimed rounds are the way to go. One shot that hits beats 10000 that dont.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber

What's the point when NYC had already repealed the law on their own initiative?

You do know they have LOTS of gun laws, right!

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Jeerleader

I do agree with the quotes you posted on what the RKBA is; I don't agree WITH YOU that those quotes alone are what we (or the Court) should rely on to decide the constitutionality of challenged laws today.

I'm saying that in the immediate discussion, of what the Court is doing and saying and how it applies the 2nd Amendment in 2020 (which means applying the 2nd Amendment to state laws), quotes of the founders / framers can not be the primary source . . . especially given the fact that those guys declined making the Bill of Rights enforceable on the states.

So, are you saying we should follow the gospel of the founders, erase the 14th Amendment and allow states like NJ, NY, MD and CA to do whatever they want, within the confines of their state constitutions -- given the fact that those states have no RKBA provision in their constitutions?



To be true to that, only the quotes of the framers when debating the proposed Amendments would be informative. None of the quotes you have provided are from those debates and thus are not examining "why the [2nd Amendment] was written", anymore than a Senator on Meet the Press discussing a law would be the binding legal explanation of Congressional intent for that law.

So, about this "history" that you so deeply revere . . . How do you address the 14th Amendment? The people you quote were long dead and were quite content with the 2nd Amendment not having any effect on state gun control. Are you OK with that?



In effect and action, the framers did not intend the Bill of Rights to have any action on state laws. That was changed by the 14th Amendment and not recognized for the 2nd Amendment until 2010 by SCOTUS who examined the intent of the framers of that Amendment.

You can not ignore the 14th Amendment and how it profoundly altered "the intent of the founders / framers". The job of examining and defining how the federal Bill of Rights is enforced on the states by the 14th is the job and duty of the Supreme Court whether you like it or not.



But in fact I don't disagree, my opinion and belief about the 2nd Amendment is perfectly in-line with the founders / framers. In fact the SCOTUS isn't far from it either now and will get closer if it grants cert in a couple of the cases it is discussing today.

But to the point of your claim, can you point out anything (especially in post 107) I have said that conflicts with the founders / framers?



Again, it would be good if you could quote something I said that conflicts with any sentiment represented in the quotes you provided.



Why did Madison oppose adding a bill of rights to the Constitution? Would Madison (even after he was persuaded to agree with adding a bill of rights) approve of your reliance on words as the descriptor and substance of the right?

Don't you realize that you waving around words as the essence and protector of the right, are wedging yourself into being forced to accept the (evolving) definition of those words? Your leaning so heavily on the words of the 2nd Amendment and pointing to them in such a "simple" manner, is what gives fancy-pants lawyers the wiggle room to redefine and dilute and negate what those words meant to the founders / framers and in action, dilute and negate the right.


.

"To be true to that, only the quotes of the framers when debating the proposed Amendments would be informative. None of the quotes you have provided are from those debates and thus are not examining "why the [2nd Amendment] was written","


Because the MAJORITY ruled.


" How do you address the 14th Amendment?" There is rule here about hijacking" a thread. If you want to discuss the 14th start a thread on it yourself.

[Jeerleader]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"To be true to that, only the quotes of the framers when debating the proposed Amendments would be informative. None of the quotes you have provided are from those debates and thus are not examining "why the [2nd Amendment] was written","


Because the MAJORITY ruled.

Huh? The current focus is on your standard of 2nd Amendment "interpretation" and that you, "go by what the Founding Fathers actually said and NOT what someone decades later "interprets" what they said" and consider those quotes to be the principal guidelines and rules for understanding and enforcing the right to arms in 2020. You cherry pick and chop quotes that span some 74 years and interpret them as being the definitive explanation of what the RKBA is today.

Now you want to say there was a majority consensus without any supporting explanation; you include quotes from Federalists and anti-Federalists as having the exact same viewpoint. You include Franklin's 1759 infamous “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" quote, obviously without any understanding of the context of the quote. Hilariously and ironically substituting YOUR modern "interpretation" of it, an interpretation that is woefully misguided.

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

" How do you address the 14th Amendment?" There is rule here about hijacking" a thread. If you want to discuss the 14th start a thread on it yourself.

Dude, you are flopping like a flounder here. I understand you are lost right now being challenged to defend your indefensible position, but that's no reason to devolve into total incoherence.

Bringing the 14th into the discussion is not a hijack since the case this thread is focused on (actually any challenge to a state law in federal court claiming a violation of the 2ndA) would never reach federal court without the 14th incorporating the 2nd. That is a major hurdle to you applying your 18th Century standard to ANYTHING in this thread; a hurdle that you must avoid, lest you accept those quotes are irrelevant today, except for theoretical / philosophical discussions.


.