2nd Amendment and Interpretation(s):

Discussion in 'Judicial Interpretation' started by Dante, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    While I disagree with the author's disagreement in Heller...

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled seven years ago in District of Columbia vs. Heller that the 2nd Amendment "conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms," but it also said that right was "not unlimited."

    ...

    And interestingly, the court rejected the requirement that a gun be presented when it is registered because doing so could risk public safety — an idea that may come into play in an unrelated case before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which hinges on whether the 2nd Amendment confers a right to carry a weapon in public.


    Where are the boundaries on owning guns?
    Lots of gun nuts gloss over the above references to what is contained within Heller

    Is there a 2nd Amendment right to carry in public and why do some people still think the right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd is unlimited?
     
  2. Bob Blaylock
    Online

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    6,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +7,393
    What do you think the word “bear” means, as used in the Second Amendment?

    Where, in language that states that a right “…shall not be infringed”, do you find any authority on the part of government to infringe that right?
     
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    now you use the tactic of those who cut out parts of the amendment to suggest ONLY militias?

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    step up your game or forever be irrelevant
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Second Amendment | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute

    -------------

    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: ​

     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    What were people speaking to when they ratified the US Constitution and later the Bill of Rights?

    "The right to keep and bear arms"

    to regulate how is not to infringe upon that right, unless one considers it an absolute right. Yet states had regulations early on. Does one get to pick and choose what words to keep and what words to throw away, what thoughts the ratifiers had, what reality on the ground was?
     
  6. Bob Blaylock
    Online

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    6,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +7,393
    No tactic at all, beyond pointing out the actual words of the Amendment, and asking you to explain why you don't think they mean what they very clearly say.

    Not that I expect that any such explanation will be forthcoming.
     
  7. Bob Blaylock
    Online

    Bob Blaylock Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    Messages:
    6,304
    Thanks Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    38°29′ North 121°26′ West
    Ratings:
    +7,393
    It doesn't say anything about regulating the people's right to keep and bear arms, beyond forbidding any infringement of that right. It is the need for a militia, and the need for that militia to be regulated (which, in this context, does not mean what you think it means) that is cited as one reason why the right is so strongly and absolutely affirmed.
     
  8. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075

    the tactic is using actual words taken out of the full context

    exact same tactic used by those who insist on focusing on the 'militia' portion
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,327
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,075
    This forum is titled US Constitution: Judicial Interpretation

    You obviously disagree with the Court in a piecemeal fashion as it suits your seemingly ignorant knowledge of the constitutionality and history of the matter
     
  10. KokomoJojo
    Offline

    KokomoJojo VIP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +188

    the constitution addresses/is the organic 'public' law of those who wish to live under the guidance of the corporation government.

    Unlimited is not a properly framed test. The test is that gubmint has absolutely NO LEGITIMATE authority to regulate in any domain where the people reserved the rights to themselves.

    fundamental contract law.
     

Share This Page