Banning AR-15's Doesn't Make Sense To Me

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by KevinWestern, Apr 2, 2013.

  1. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356
    I think that he does have a point in that there is no case of a first amendment right being removed through judicial process whereas there is clear and common infringement on second amendment rights through the judicial process.

    In that, there is no compelling state interest in applying prior restraint to the first amendment – your rights are always present. There is more of a compelling state interest in regard to the second amendment in that there ARE cases where you no longer have your second amendment rights.

    I think that another tact can be taken here as well with the idea that illegally obtaining a weapon does violate others rights (namely endangering others health and life). In your case against the right to vote, you apply prior restraint because illegally exercising that right infringes on others voting rights by diminishing them. It is true that legally purchasing and possessing a weapon is not a danger to others and is a right. However, we are not talking about the legal purchase here but the illegal purchase of a weapon. In that respect, is not the illegal purchase and possession of a weapon a danger to others health? If the answer is no, then why are we limiting those individuals right to a firearm in the first place? If that answer truly is no then the courts should not (and really do not have the right) to remove a person’s second amendment rights. If that answer is a yes, then you have a good case for the application of prior restraint being a compelling state interest in the purchase and possession of firearms.
     
  2. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    15,807
    Thanks Received:
    2,319
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +5,356
    Focusing on the sale I think is a misnomer. The sale itself is not the issue. The problem lies in the fact that the state is restraining your right to bear arms in order to check that they (the state) have not legally denied you that right.

    That is prior restraint no matter what angle you look at it. Your right is being restrained until the state deems that you can exercise it.
     
  3. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    In fact, this is exactly the opposite.

    Everyone is prohibited from libel/slander, and yet, it violates the constitution to restrain the exercise of everyone's right to free speech until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is legal.

    Not everyone is prohibited from buying/owning a gun, yet, without sond explanation as to why, we are expected to accept that it does NOT violate the constitution to restrain the exercise of your right to arms until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is legal.

    Simple possession/ownership of any gun by any person harms no one and places no on in clear, present and immediate danger of harm - and so, simple possession/ownership by anyone violates the rights of no one.

    This is another discussion - the legitimacy of the removal of the right to arms from felons, etc, and the question of restoration after incarceration. Said removal is a Due Process/5th amendment issue, not a 2nd amendment issue.

    It all boils down to the idea that, absent a compelling interest to do so (see: voting rights). the state cannot constitutionally restrain you from exercising -any- of your rights to determine if you are about to break the law.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
  4. PaulS1950
    Offline

    PaulS1950 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2012
    Messages:
    1,353
    Thanks Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Littletown, USA
    Ratings:
    +238
    Can restrictions on our rights actually prevent the abuse of those rights?
    Speed limits don't stop speeding....
    Laws against crime haven't stopped crime....
    How can we restrict criminals from getting guns without restricting the law abiding citizen at the same time.

    According to The CDC report that was ordered by Obama there are 1.5 to 3 million times a year that legal gun owners use their guns to prevent or stop crime. Overwhelmingly with out firing a shot the keep from being victims of crime.

    By restricting the second amendment you will turn these crime stoppers into victims and raise the violent crime rate in the US by 1.5 to 3 million per year.
     
  5. Spoonman
    Offline

    Spoonman Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    18,142
    Thanks Received:
    5,548
    Trophy Points:
    330
    Ratings:
    +5,754
    I have an idea, let's focus on the least of the problems

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Jimmy_Jam
    Offline

    Jimmy_Jam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Thanks Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +136
    This is true. The effectiveness of background checks, if it is a restriction of 2nd Amendment rights, is debatable. I was just interested in examining the constitutionality of them. It has been an interesting discussion.
     
  7. Jimmy_Jam
    Offline

    Jimmy_Jam Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2012
    Messages:
    1,071
    Thanks Received:
    136
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +136
    Compelling interest is very key, I agree. I am more inclined to accept that there is a compelling interest than you are, but that is part of the gray area that has challenged our Constitution as a living document for over 200 years.

    It has been a stimulating discussion, sir, and I appreciate you. I can clearly see that we both hold our 2nd Amendment rights dear, if we are not completely on the same page regarding this little niche. I think the niche is pretty well exhausted at this point.
     
  8. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    20,218
    Thanks Received:
    1,766
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Ratings:
    +4,572
    Roger that. Good hunting.
     
  9. PhillyGuard
    Offline

    PhillyGuard Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2013
    Messages:
    15
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +3
    Since we're on a trajectory toward having every other Constitutional protection eroded, it only becomes more important to protect the right of the people to bear arms.
     

Share This Page