California in violation of the second amendment

[bigrebnc1775]

And what rights does God limit or not limit? Are you privy to what he decides?

I have the riht to be free from an opressive government they can't take that away.
God gives rights the government doesn't give them.

When did she/he give these rights? How do you know these rights are given? What other rights are given?

When I took my first breath and fired my first gun

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

WHAT DOES SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED MEAN?

Probably something similar to "Shall not be denied" which is what the first amendment says about free speech. If you really want to play this semantics game, you'd have to insist that absolutely nothing could stop anyone from carrying any weapon anywhere, ever. I.E. a person could strap on a dozen hand grenades and walk into the White House with an AK-47 and nobody could stop him. Obviously that's a no go. So it's pointless to play this word game here, because it will devolve into extremism.

Not to mention, the 14th amendment only requires "due process of the law" to restrict a person's constitutional freedoms. This means the State of California is free to restrict 2nd amendment rights within the scope of their actions serving a legitimate government interest.

No such wording as shall not be denied
shall not be infriinged is the word

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hence you have the right to keep and bear arms any way a person see's fit to.

Aparantly not, and rightly so....

I bet you think the 2nd only applies to the National Guard.

 

[WatertheTree]

Shame on all you carebears! You piss on the grave of every man that ever picked up a weapon to defend your freedoms. Clearly none of you deserve any of the freedoms the constitution and bill of rights provide for you. So welcoming you are to the socialist state, even as it crumbles before your eyes!

Shame! The next time you see a wounded vet I want you to shake his hand, look him in the eye and tell him he did it for nothing! Cause thats what he was joined up and fought for was your freedoms!

Cowardly pigs! Servants of the nanny state you are. Dependent for protection from cradle to grave! Disgust me.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If you are going to opine on the Constitution you should have the honesty to admit that constitutional law has little or nothing to do with the Constitution. The 2nd clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. It does not say squat about imposing regulations on that right, in fact, it specifically forbids it. The court, representing the interests of the government, has steadily ignored the plain language of the Constitution in order to take away your rights.

The constitution empowers the judiciary to interpret the law.

Your interpretation of what the CA law seems to do is as well founded as your defense of the jurisprudence used to restrict our rights.

I'm glad you acknowledge the wisdom of my arguments.

Can you explain to me how an unloaded weapon can possibly be more dangerous than a loaded one? In the entire history of the universe no one has ever been shot by an unloaded weapon.

I guess it depends on to whom the danger is being assessed. I was speaking in terms of the danger to the carrier. An unloaded gun is not going to protect you. In fact, it could elevate the danger to you by soliciting a higher level of violence toward you that you might have been able to resist with a loaded gun, but cannot with an unloaded gun. You're right, nobody has ever been shot by an unloaded gun. Which is exactly the danger. You can't defend yourself against the level of violence against you you might invoke

Only a complete idiot would even try to argue against open carry with a specious claim saying that unloaded weapons are more dangerous than loaded one.

The only thing that I was saying is that if you're going to carry a gun, you're better off to carry a loaded gun.

As for getting a CCW, they are shall issue in CA, which leaves it entirely up to the discretion of the local sheriff. Unless you make large donations to his reelection it is all but impossible to actually get a CCW in most counties.

Yes, I realize that. So carry a loaded gun.

 

[Dr Grump]

I have the riht to be free from an opressive government they can't take that away.
God gives rights the government doesn't give them.

When did she/he give these rights? How do you know these rights are given? What other rights are given?

When I took my first breath and fired my first gun

IOW, you have no idea..

Thought so....

Just a nice convenient excuse for you to have your peashooter strapped to your side as you run around scared of your own shadow...

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

All rights are limited rights.

Just like you can't yell 'fire' in a movie theater, you don't have an unlimited right to bear arms. Yo only have 'some' right to bear arms. A reasonable right to bear arms...nothing more.

So, you get to openly carry a toothpick.

I can yell fire in a theater. You should go see Rocky Horror sometime before you start talking about what can, and cannot, happen in a theater.

Go and do it then. In a crowded theatre...dare you, too.

There is nothing about fire in Rocky Horror - toast and rice maybe, but not fire...

I have.

 

[Dr Grump]

Hence you have the right to keep and bear arms any way a person see's fit to.

Aparantly not, and rightly so....

I bet you think the 2nd only applies to the National Guard.

No, I think it is for those who want/need firearms.
This 'cartoon' says a lot about your mindset...

 

[Inthemiddle]

None of those have anything to do with free speech, but thanks for playing.

That's exactly my point. While the constitution declares that free speech "shall not be denied" this does not mean that all speech is itself protected. Slander and libel are not protected. Yelling bible verses at passing cars is not protected. Since we acknowledge that this language in the constitution does not prohibit the government from enacting certain narrowly tailored laws about speech, we must also concede that similar language does not prohibit the government from enacting certain narrow laws about carrying a gun.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If you are going to opine on the Constitution you should have the honesty to admit that constitutional law has little or nothing to do with the Constitution. The 2nd clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. It does not say squat about imposing regulations on that right, in fact, it specifically forbids it. The court, representing the interests of the government, has steadily ignored the plain language of the Constitution in order to take away your rights.

The constitution empowers the judiciary to interpret the law.



I'm glad you acknowledge the wisdom of my arguments.



I guess it depends on to whom the danger is being assessed. I was speaking in terms of the danger to the carrier. An unloaded gun is not going to protect you. In fact, it could elevate the danger to you by soliciting a higher level of violence toward you that you might have been able to resist with a loaded gun, but cannot with an unloaded gun. You're right, nobody has ever been shot by an unloaded gun. Which is exactly the danger. You can't defend yourself against the level of violence against you you might invoke



The only thing that I was saying is that if you're going to carry a gun, you're better off to carry a loaded gun.

As for getting a CCW, they are shall issue in CA, which leaves it entirely up to the discretion of the local sheriff. Unless you make large donations to his reelection it is all but impossible to actually get a CCW in most counties.

Yes, I realize that. So carry a loaded gun.

The constitution empowers the judiciary to interpret the law.

The Constitution restricts the federal government it's doesn't give them anything as a matter of fact WE THE PEOPLE restrict the government

 

[Dr Grump]

I can yell fire in a theater. You should go see Rocky Horror sometime before you start talking about what can, and cannot, happen in a theater.

Go and do it then. In a crowded theatre...dare you, too.

There is nothing about fire in Rocky Horror - toast and rice maybe, but not fire...

I have.

Circumstances? Context is everything....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When did she/he give these rights? How do you know these rights are given? What other rights are given?

When I took my first breath and fired my first gun

IOW, you have no idea..

Thought so....

Just a nice convenient excuse for you to have your peashooter strapped to your side as you run around scared of your own shadow...

So if I carry my gun that means I'm scared? No that type of shameful wording doesn't work on me read my signature
We also live in a country where the superme court has ruled the police are obligated to protect anyone.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Have you ever heard of a colt 1911? It's the standard sidearm isse of the military.

No they are not.

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Now why are you still babbling?

That's an awful lot of talking to say nothing whatsoever to support your arguments.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

None of those have anything to do with free speech, but thanks for playing.

That's exactly my point. While the constitution declares that free speech "shall not be denied" this does not mean that all speech is itself protected. Slander and libel are not protected. Yelling bible verses at passing cars is not protected. Since we acknowledge that this language in the constitution does not prohibit the government from enacting certain narrowly tailored laws about speech, we must also concede that similar language does not prohibit the government from enacting certain narrow laws about carrying a gun.

When the words shall not be infringed are written in the first amendment we can talk about it not until then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The constitution empowers the judiciary to interpret the law.

Not really.

I'm glad you acknowledge the wisdom of my arguments.

I see you have a sense of humor.

I guess it depends on to whom the danger is being assessed. I was speaking in terms of the danger to the carrier. An unloaded gun is not going to protect you. In fact, it could elevate the danger to you by soliciting a higher level of violence toward you that you might have been able to resist with a loaded gun, but cannot with an unloaded gun. You're right, nobody has ever been shot by an unloaded gun. Which is exactly the danger. You can't defend yourself against the level of violence against you you might invoke

You can carry the ammo at the same time you carry the unloaded weapon. Not a perfect solution, but far better than not carrying it at all.

The only thing that I was saying is that if you're going to carry a gun, you're better off to carry a loaded gun.

If the only way you can carry a gun is unloaded you are still better off with it unloaded than you are without it.

Yes, I realize that. So carry a loaded gun.

That is illegal in CA.

 

[Inthemiddle]

No such wording as shall not be denied
shall not be infriinged is the word

Good job, you caught it. But you're still doing the same thing, which is nothing more than playing word games. You're so obsessed with the gift wrapping you've lost all sight of what's inside the box.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Have you ever heard of a colt 1911? It's the standard sidearm isse of the military.

2) The fact still remains that assault weapon restrictions are constitutional. So why are you babbling

No they are not.

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Now why are you still babbling?

That's an awful lot of talking to say nothing whatsoever to support your arguments.

ignorance of the law get's you know where. It just makes you look stupid.

Stop editing my replies

 

[Inthemiddle]

The Constitution restricts the federal government it's doesn't give them anything as a matter of fact WE THE PEOPLE restrict the government

I think you need to read the constitution. It clearly vests several powers with various branches of government.

 

[Inthemiddle]

When the words shall not be infringed are written in the first amendment we can talk about it not until then.

Actually, you're wrong. The specific wording says "Congress shall make no law respecting..." Stop playing word games and you might eventually start to understand the constitution before you die.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None of those have anything to do with free speech, but thanks for playing.

That's exactly my point. While the constitution declares that free speech "shall not be denied" this does not mean that all speech is itself protected. Slander and libel are not protected. Yelling bible verses at passing cars is not protected. Since we acknowledge that this language in the constitution does not prohibit the government from enacting certain narrowly tailored laws about speech, we must also concede that similar language does not prohibit the government from enacting certain narrow laws about carrying a gun.

There is a difference between abridging free speech and outlawing criminal acts, which is why your second example is legal and the first is not.