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 claim was that the USSC never said any thing definitive about restrictions on the Second. But they did.
It depends on where you take you claims from.
Quote:
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Here's a larger section first bold you claim that its definitive...
Second bold, the more nuanced ruling specific statement.
The first statement is a matter of fact, you can't carry a gun to your premeditated murder location legally. It covers all bases so that it does not wipe out every gun law inadvertently.
The second statement is a matter of opinion, it neither commits nor denys current prohibitions are constitutional. Its merely stating that in this case (which was not about anything but DCs handgun possession and storage regulations) the decision doesn't affect any other regulations, nor should be considered to affect them That's to be expected, since the case didn't consider other regulations.
Only one case has received judgement in regards to the 2nd since McDonald (which really is just extending Heller Federally), Caetano v. Massachusetts, which found for the plaintiff, stating...
Quote:
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 this*Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.
That bold right there opens the door wide to challenges on full auto.
However as with all law, until a law is challenged it's not completely settled. The SCOTUS has never determined specifically prohibitions on felons owning guns is constitutional, it's never found that prohibition on select fire is constitutional, even Millar could be challenged given the circumstances of its decision (the defendant had died, thus no defense was presented, as they had filed a dismissal on the grounds Millar was extinct). It just needs someone to have standing and the SCOTUS to hear the case.
While the 1st amendment DID only apply to congress (It specifically says in its text "Congress shall make no law..."), the 2nd made no such confinement of its command to only Congress. The 2nd said "Since X is true, the right shall not be restricted or taken away." Since it didn't mention WHO shall not take it away, that meant that the command applied to EVERYBODY. Including Fed govt, states, and local.
Next thing you know, you'll be telling us that while an accused person gets a jury trial if he breaks a Federal law, he DOESN'T get one if he breaks a state or local law (6th amendment).
And while the Fed govt isn't allowed to beat a confession out of a suspect, a state or local govt CAN (5th amendment).
And while A Fed govt agent must get a warrant before entering your house and searching it, a state cop can just walk in any time and search it from top to bottom, whenever he wants, for any reason or no reason (4th amendment).
And on and on.
Are you sure you want to continue this ludicrous dream that the entire BOR originally only applied to the Fed govt?
It didn't... except for the parts that specifically said so, like the 1st amendment.
And later adoption of the 14th amendment changed that, too.
You don't have a clue, sorry. The first ten amendments all were designed to limit the powers of Congress. Not the states. The Supreme Court already settled this issue over 100 years ago in its Barron v. Baltimore case from 1833.
But we didn't need a Supreme Court to tell us what was evident to those who looked to the historical record. Indeed, during the debate over the Bill of Rights, James Madison explicitly tried to apply some of the Bill of Rights to the state governments, but his efforts were rejected:
Quote:
Another item that Madison proposed was making sure at least three of the liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights applied to all states.
“No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases,” Madison said in the fifth part of his original Bill of Rights proposal.
The selective incorporation of parts of the Bill of Rights to the states didn’t happen until the early part of the twentieth century as the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause in a series of cases.
Note, Madison's efforts to have the right to trial by jury in criminal trial apply to the states (which, as I show, was rejected) is especially important to my argument as the text of that right (which is found via the 6th Amendment) also does not mention "Congress." Yet, it was understood that Congress/federal government is what the amendment referred to/limited. Again, Madison wanted to expand this to the states, but was defeated.
But not only are you ignorant of the historical significance of the Bill of Rights in terms of what government it applied to as ratified, you clearly aren't following the argument here as is evidenced by your ridiculous attempts to poke holes in what I've posited. Of course, nearly all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated against the state governments; and I haven't argued otherwise. In fact, I've been clear that this is the case via the Supreme Court making up the incorporation principle once the 14th Amendment was passed. Still, I write most of the Bill of Rights, as certain parts have not been incorporated to apply to the states, to include the right of indictment by a grand jury and the prohibition against quartering soldiers in your home.
Walking back to the 2nd Amendment specifically, it refers to a singular "free State." The only "state" that the Constitution created was the federal government whose proper name is the United States of America. The original 13 colonies were "states" in the plural sense whose existence predates the Constitution. This is important as the Constitution refers to "States" in the plural sense when talking about the state governments such as via the language in the 10th Amendment as one of many examples. The notion that the 2nd Amendment or any part of the Bill of Rights (as originally adopted) limited the power of the states in any way is pure historical revisionism. The States limited their own power via their state constitutions and via the express grants of power given to the federal government that they created. Everything else in the Constitution as originally adopted limits the power of the federal government.
Folks should really stop discussing matters that they clearly don't understand.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 03-11-2020 at 02:12 AM..
You have to admit that many on the Left, especially Democrat politicians, SAY they support the Second Amendment then proceed to push every and any INFRINGEMENT upon it they can think of. So, essentially they are lying to get the sound bite out, and then proceed to violate the Constitution.
If most people want law abiding citizens to be disarmed, they must amend the Constitution. It has been done several times before, and if enough people want the Second Amendment repealed, or modified, they can do it.
"and if enough people want the Second Amendment repealed, or modified, they can do it." and has NEVER been tried. Instead dem states cities pass their own laws in direct contradiction of the Constitution.
They have gotten away with it because the dems have controlled most of the lower and upper courts. Look at the 9th court where libs ran to every time they wanted to challenge a law or EO.
That is NOW changing.
Obama, believing hillary would win, left office with over 100 vacant judge position.Trump is now putting Constitutional judges on those courts. In Trump's 2nd term I see another Trump judge put on the Supreme Court, THEN many of these UN-Constitutional laws will be overturned.
All State, and City gun control laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All of them are Infringements, and have been upheld by Corrupt Courts, or the Corrupt Courts refuse to hear the cases. Most of the Federal laws are also UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
If you (or a government agent such as a cop or judge) takes someone's gun away, he can sue you for violating his 2nd amendment rights. And a jury will have to decide whether the 2nd amendment's prohibition on govt regulation or restriction should apply to that particular case. And the jury has the power to decide that despite the ironclad language of the 2nd, they can find you Not Guilty if they decide you a good enough reason to take the gun away. And their verdict is final.
"If you (or a government agent such as a cop or judge) takes someone's gun away, he can sue you for violating his 2nd amendment rights"
This was discussed earlier in this thread. The New Orleans POLICE confiscated citizens shotguns during hurricane Katrina. The court ruled the mayor and police acts were ILLEGAL and WRONG.
Whoever argues the founders thought the following people should be armed and members of a well regulated militia, has thrown all common sense out the window:
- Criminals
- Children
- Mentally ill
- Drunkards and junkies
- People who are physically unable to operate firearms
Even NRA agrees with me in this.
It would be like asking a guy who is too drunk to walk (or a 5 yr old kid) to operate a heavy duty excavator aka it is reckless & irresponsible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
For the millionth time, "well regulated" meant at the time the 2nd was written meant, "in good working order".
Yes, exactly, which means you dont want 5 yr old kids and crazy people running around with firearms. The militia is made up of private citizens, but since it may be required to operate as a militia it needs to be in good working order, and as such some common sense requirements must exist.
Last edited by Finn_Jarber; 03-11-2020 at 06:32 AM..
For the millionth time, "well regulated" meant at the time the 2nd was written meant, "in good working order".
Same old tired arguments that have been proven wrong, over and over. The 2A is an individual right, not tied to a Militia that is well "regulated" meaning well trained, well equipped, and in good working order. It has nothing to do with government restriction on guns.
Also, the Militia is made up of PRIVATE CITIZENS not government employees, so even it if WERE tied to a militia, and it is NOT, private citizens would still be able to legally possess guns.
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.
