California in violation of the second amendment

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

When you can come up with the words shall not be infringed in the first amendment we can talk

 

[Dr Grump]

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.

I think you mean the police are NOT obligated to protect anyone. And?

I have sigs turned off...

I'm not scared either, and I neither have a gun, nor do I want one...shrug....

 

[Inthemiddle]

Not really.

Apparently you need to go read the constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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....

It was a joke, and everyone knew it. \

By the way, yelling fire in a crowded theater is actually fine if there is a fire. The only time it is questionable is if you do it falsely.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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

Stop editing my replies

Are you delusional? I didn't edit your comment. And seeing as you have nothing to argue but word games while ignoring common sense, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on to claim you understand anything about the law.

 

[Inthemiddle]

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.

Outlawing criminal acts? That's the very definition of circular reasoning, to say something like that. There is no difference between enacting laws against speech or enacting laws about carrying guns, so long as each case has a legitimate government interest behind it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I am not the one toying with the verbage of the second amendment you are.

If you ditract from the meaning of any word in the second amendment it would be you who is playing the word game. Sooner or ater a few twiks here a few twiks there and yes you will have the word exactly as you want them, that is if people like me allow people like you to do that. I flat out refuse.

 

[Inthemiddle]

When you can come up with the words shall not be infringed in the first amendment we can talk

Okay, you've established the complete lack of merits anything you have to say. I see you're just an extremist whacko spouting off about things that are beyond your ability (actually, willingness) to understand.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If you ditract from the meaning of any word in the second amendment it would be you who is playing the word game. Sooner or ater a few twiks here a few twiks there and yes you will have the word exactly as you want them, that is if people like me allow people like you to do that. I flat out refuse.

Good luck with that. I hope you get a hobby, something that brings some joy into your life. Then maybe you'll eventually get over this complex you seem to have of somehow being a victim of some kind of imaginary injustice that forces you to live in a society of reasonable laws enacted by democratic means.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Stop editing my replies

]

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?

Are you delusional? I didn't edit your comment. And seeing as you have nothing to argue but word games while ignoring common sense, I don't think you really have a leg to stand on to claim you understand anything about the law.

here we go more to the point stop deleting part of my post you left most of it out.

 

[Inthemiddle]

here we go more to the point stop deleting part of my post you left most of it out.

I often only quote those parts of a person's post to which I am directly referring to. Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When you can come up with the words shall not be infringed in the first amendment we can talk

Okay, you've established the complete lack of merits anything you have to say. I see you're just an extremist whacko spouting off about things that are beyond your ability (actually, willingness) to understand.

Here we go you have yet to refute my argument. Your only defense if that I am playing word games. How is it that I am playing word games? Shall not be infringed means just that. But you have said it doesn't now whos' playing wortd games?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

here we go more to the point stop deleting part of my post you left most of it out.

I often only quote those parts of a person's post to which I am directly referring to. Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

It is against the board rules to edit a post. You quote it you leave it as is. this is your final warning.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Ca threw out the US constitution long ago. They're rogue at this point.

True but only because they were allowed to do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Open Carry" is what the Constitution authorizes. "Concealed Carry" is what needs a permit (and some would argue you don't even need one for that). Gov. Moonbeam, and all who wrote this legislation, are wrong.

I don't recall a set way a person is to carry a firearm written in the Constitution concealed or otherwise, any permit is a previledge the government grants

 

[Poli_Sigh]

It's not the right to keep and bear arms that's the problem; it's whether or not any citizen has the right to bear arms when their intentions are for personal use rather than national security. This amendment just like the rest was added to protect the citizen from the government not from other citizens.

I live in California and wasn't aware anyone had the right to carry a weapon - openly or concealed - on their person without a permit. Weapons if carried in a vehicle had to be unloaded or have the safety engaged. Weapons could not be concealed in a vehicle. And if the law did provide that someone could openly carry a weapon without a permit, I bet that law didn't also give them the right to load and engage it.

But I didn't read anything in the Bill signed today limiting a citizen's right to purchase arms, just where they keep them.

 

[Dr Grump]

here we go more to the point stop deleting part of my post you left most of it out.

I often only quote those parts of a person's post to which I am directly referring to. Do you just like to hear yourself talk?

It is against the board rules to edit a post. You quote it you leave it as is. this is your final warning.

Actually, as long as is not out of context he is fine....

...nark....

 

[Inthemiddle]

Here we go you have yet to refute my argument. Your only defense if that I am playing word games. How is it that I am playing word games? Shall not be infringed means just that. But you have said it doesn't now whos' playing wortd games?

The second amendment does not create an absolute right. As the Supreme Court noted in D.C. v Heller a few years ago, when they ruled the D.C. handgun laws unconstitutional, "[L]ike 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."

The problem you are running into is that you think the words "shall not be infringed" are somehow so meaningful that any indication or understanding of the legislative intent must be ignored. But that kind of thinking is insanity. At the very least, it's gross ignorance.

The only "arguments" (and I use that word loosely) you have presented have been little more than temper tantrums that you're not getting your way, which you then try to "support" with case law that contradicts what the fundamental point you're trying to claim.

 

[J.E.D]

What's to show you? Are there any restriction in the second amendment that resrticts how a person should carry a firearm?

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

Yeah, sorry, I couldn't find that passage either. Are you sure you're reading the US Constitution?

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?

Well, it means different things to different people, but it certainly doesn't mean that open carry laws are unconstitutional.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeah, sorry, I couldn't find that passage either. Are you sure you're reading the US Constitution?

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?

Well, it means different things to different people, but it certainly doesn't mean that open carry laws are unconstitutional.

No word play allowed
What does shall not be infringed mean?