Aren't all gun control laws unconstitutional?

[Porter Rockwell]

Nothing in life is free.

No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was

Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online. Yeah, it takes a little effort. The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.

You can't get the info on line.

I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.

Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?

IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage

Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread? Did you forget post # 48 that fast?

My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price. If people want rid of you, they will find a reason. So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy. How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace? SURPRISE!!! It is being done. What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff?

I'm not going to try and convince you. Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable. If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.

I know what's public record and what isn't and I know that someone finding out I have a CC permit is no big deal.

If they want to waste their time and money to find out I have a CC permit IDGAF because it is nothing that can be used against me.

Your replies are really immature. As I write this, both the left and the right are busy trying to pass Red Flag Laws across this country. If your neighbor, boss, relative, etc. know you have a firearm, all they have to do under these Red Flag Laws is call the police and say that you are acting crazy and may pose a danger.

When the general public has access to your private information and when they want to do something against you... be it get you fired from a job, run out of a neighborhood, etc. they will do it. An IRS agent may get whizzed that you hired an attorney he didn't like to represent you at an audit. Then, without even a warrant ANYONE can find out if you have a weapon.

You may not "GAF," but some people do. And if you think that just because there are a lot of attorneys out there you can get one to take your case, you have left the world of reality. Fact is, I have a medical malpractice case in front of me right now. The case is solid and any medical malpractice attorney could win it. They won't take it. I am going to have to do it - and I've never done medical malpractice. The reason: it's over a relatively small amount of money where legal jockeying is concerned. You get fired from your job over owning a firearm. If you aren't black, Jewish, Muslim, handicapped or some other protected class, where is your case? Gun owners are not a protected class of people.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

 

[pinqy]

The crimes I mentioned are directly related to and restrictions on free speech.
Laws against assault and murder are not directly related to jeeping and bearing arms and are not restrictions on it. So your analogy fails.

The point is that no rights are unlimited.
Allowing defendants in court cases to be armed during their trial is enough of a public safety concern to justify a ban on weapons in court houses.
What does shall not be infringed mean?
For the last gun I bought, I had to pay a $10 fee and wait 15 minutes for a background check. That in no way infringed on my right to own a gun. Does the minor annoyance of having to wait a few minutes outweigh making it a little more difficult for those who shouldn’t have guns to get them?

Some laws, especially those in California, Massachusetts, DC, NYC, New Jersey, are so overly restrictive that they infringe. But not all laws. None in my state.

What does shall not be infringed mean?

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

Due process takes care of your concern.

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What does shall not be infringed mean?

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

Due process takes care of your concern.

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.

If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.

 

[pinqy]

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

Due process takes care of your concern.

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.

If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.

Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Due process takes care of your concern.

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.

If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.

Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.

No I'm not misusing it.
The only way that anyone can loose their rights is by due process

 

[Porter Rockwell]

What does shall not be infringed mean?

I’m sorry, do you think a ban on armed defendants or accusers in a court house infringes the right to keep and bear arms?

Or better yet, not allowing prisoners to have weapons. Does that infringe?

F you say yes to either, i’ll know you’re an idiot.

Due process takes care of your concern.

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.

What???

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

 

[pinqy]

All gun control laws, even the ones I consider infringements, are the result of due process.

And you still didn’t answer the question. I assume you realize that would mean admitting that not all restrictions on guns are infringements, and that’s why you’re dodging.

Infringing a right means to limit or restrict the general right.

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.

If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.

Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.

No I'm not misusing it.
The only way that anyone can loose their rights is by due process

Which is how felons and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence lose their right. But a ban on weapons in a courthouse is not anyone losing their rights and does not involve due process. General restrictions for specific situations does not cause anyone to lose their rights.

Nor do general procedures such as background checks or even waiting periods (which I strongly oppose).

 

[pinqy]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

None of that means that there can be no restrictions or limitations. And there were many gun laws in the early days of this country, proving that the understanding at the time the 2nd amendment was written was not no restrictions at all.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I answered your question due process try not to create more red herring.
If you are in prison you give your rights up

Simply saying “due process” in no way answered my question. ALL gun laws are the result of due process.

If you knew what due process meant you would understand my response.

Nope. Because you are misusing it. My understanding is correct, yours is off.

No I'm not misusing it.
The only way that anyone can loose their rights is by due process

Which is how felons and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence lose their right. But a ban on weapons in a courthouse is not anyone losing their rights and does not involve due process. General restrictions for specific situations does not cause anyone to lose their rights.

Nor do general procedures such as background checks or even waiting periods (which I strongly oppose).

You need to read the Bill of Rights.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

None of that means that there can be no restrictions or limitations. And there were many gun laws in the early days of this country, proving that the understanding at the time the 2nd amendment was written was not no restrictions at all.

What does shall not be infringe mean?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

Excuse me but what is the purpose of the second Amendment?

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

None of that means that there can be no restrictions or limitations. And there were many gun laws in the early days of this country, proving that the understanding at the time the 2nd amendment was written was not no restrictions at all.

Okay, let us take what we already know about unalienable / absolute Rights and make it mean something specific.

The first case involving the Right to keep and bear Arms came from the state of Kentucky. It involved a man using a sword disguised as a cane and he was charged with carrying a concealed weapon.The Kentucky state constitution read:

, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned."

Here is how the court ruled:

"the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky. 12 Littell 90 Ky. 1822.

That case set the precedent that owning firearms is an absolute Right. Now, let us keep going:

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:

“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Again the Right to keep and bear Arms was understood to be above government control. Let's keep moving forward:

In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

Can you see those bolded portions?

Justice Joseph Story of the United States Supreme Court wrote:

“One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms.”

Justice Story was nominated by James Madison, who is not only considered the Father of the Constitution, but he is also the primary author of the Bill of Rights. That's pretty definitive. Shall we consult the author of the Declaration of Independence to give us even more insight?

"On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit
manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform
to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson
to William Johnson, 1823

Okay, let's go back to the time of the debates as Jefferson suggests. Let's ask the people who founded this Republic.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”

– Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

“For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

“[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
– Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.” -George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788

“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
– George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
-Zachariah Johnson, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 25, 1788

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms;" Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
– Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Is that sufficient enough to meet Jefferson's admonition? Let me answer your next objection since today's laws are 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES 1791

If you let that sink in, you might think about the fact that even as we debate this, the President and the United States Supreme Court are having a power struggle, each thinking they have a superior right to legislate new laws. Both are wrong. And, while there are gun control laws on the books, most ARE constitutional. The Constitution only gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to interpret the law. Once it's settled, they don't get to come back (IF we lived in a de jure Republic) and decide screw it, let's change the law... that ain't their job. It is the job of the Legislative branch of government. Consequently, we live in a legal clusterphuck with the masses thinking they can take away unalienable Rights with a majority vote. You can't.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

 

[Blues Man]

No shit , Sherlock tell that to the idiot who said it was

Dude, the argument from your side of this issue was that you couldn't access a person's records online. Yeah, it takes a little effort. The stuff about CORI records was simply a deflection.

You can't get the info on line.

I already told you that you have to make the request in person at a state office and you still won't get any info on whether or not anyone owns any guns.

Do you really think a person is going to do that every time someone applies for a job or wants to rent an apartment?

IF it happens it doesn't happen often enough to merit your outrage

Do you really think you're telling me I haven't already stated as fact in this thread? Did you forget post # 48 that fast?

My experience is that if someone can get something by digging for it, somebody out there is making it easier to get for a price. If people want rid of you, they will find a reason. So, BFD, people have to work in order to invade your privacy. How long before someone is doing this for a profit and it is commonplace? SURPRISE!!! It is being done. What makes you think that high dollar rollers don't already do this stuff?

I'm not going to try and convince you. Little infringements become larger ones as they become more and more profitable. If you choose to wallow in ignorance, you have every legal Right to do so, but it still won't make you right.

I know what's public record and what isn't and I know that someone finding out I have a CC permit is no big deal.

If they want to waste their time and money to find out I have a CC permit IDGAF because it is nothing that can be used against me.

Your replies are really immature. As I write this, both the left and the right are busy trying to pass Red Flag Laws across this country. If your neighbor, boss, relative, etc. know you have a firearm, all they have to do under these Red Flag Laws is call the police and say that you are acting crazy and may pose a danger.

When the general public has access to your private information and when they want to do something against you... be it get you fired from a job, run out of a neighborhood, etc. they will do it. An IRS agent may get whizzed that you hired an attorney he didn't like to represent you at an audit. Then, without even a warrant ANYONE can find out if you have a weapon.

You may not "GAF," but some people do. And if you think that just because there are a lot of attorneys out there you can get one to take your case, you have left the world of reality. Fact is, I have a medical malpractice case in front of me right now. The case is solid and any medical malpractice attorney could win it. They won't take it. I am going to have to do it - and I've never done medical malpractice. The reason: it's over a relatively small amount of money where legal jockeying is concerned. You get fired from your job over owning a firearm. If you aren't black, Jewish, Muslim, handicapped or some other protected class, where is your case? Gun owners are not a protected class of people.

A rad flag law has nothing to do with whether or not your CC permit is public record.

And FYI I do not support red flag laws because they circumvent due process

And FYI gun owners aren't a class of people at all.

There is no way anyone will know if I own a weapon unless there is a legal search warrant executed at my home. And since there will never be cause for a search warrant of my home I have nothing to worry about.

And an IRS agent doesn't give a shit if you hire a tax attorney to represent you in fact I bet they would expect you to do that very thing.

I'm as private a person as anyone but I'm not pathologically paranoid.

 

[Blues Man]

The intent of the 2nd was to empower the citizen populace ability to confront a rouge governance via armed militia(s)

This is so over the top broken , it's a joke beyond words

Those arguing it are no more than jingoistic tools

~S~

That intent also allows the private ownership of firearms since an unarmed populace can't confront a rouge government

The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons.

You do know that any right ALLOWS you to do something don't you?

If you have the right to keep and bear arms then by definition you are ALLOWED to keep and bear arms

 

[diver52]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

Let us say you were born in North Korea. Would you still have been born with that right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to put a limitation on the government and guarantee your Right to keep and bear Arms with the overall objective to insure the security of a free state.

The government does not "allow" me to own a firearm. I already had that Right before the government came into being. As the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

The United States Supreme Court does not deny the Right exists. They simply admit that they did not grant it AND that the Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Here is another court ruling to help you understand the relationship between the government and our unalienable Rights:

“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}

Does that answer your question sufficiently?

You did say
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
That contradicts what you said. The government doesn't have any rights within the bill of rights. The second amendment wasn't written so the government can have a right to firearms.
Here's what U.S. vs Miller decided
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
United States v. Miller

How do you figure I contradicted myself? I stand by my statement. The government does not "allow" me to do a damn thing relative to the Right to keep and bear Arms. They have no such authority.

Put another way: If you are a civilian and a Marine Corps drill instructor walked up to you and demanded 50 push ups, are you required to do it? I'm not because the USMC doesn't have any jurisdiction over me. The government did not give me the Right... the law says the Right existed before the government was created. All the government can do is guarantee it. I was born with the Right - the government can't allow me to do squat as they have no de jure jurisdiction over it. The Right is above the law.

You wrote this which is why I found confusing
"The 2nd Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, does not "allow" the private ownership of weapons."
The second amendment is all about citizen private ownership of firearms.
What might be the confusing part is the second amendment dictates to the government that citizens have the right to firearms and the government cannot take them away.