California in violation of the second amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms [C4"]shall not be infringed.[/SIZE][/COLOR]

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?

You can still have a peashooter. Show me where it says you can't....
 
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.

The second amendment does not create an absolute right.

Yes it does when it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it means exactly that.

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

Dude you're way off base here I have yet to lose my temper just ask around. I have yet to call you a stupid fucking moron asshat son of a bitch cock cucking stupid jackass. Nope I haven't called you anything because I am very clam because you have nothing. As for me getting my way? :lol: I think you're a little flustered because I want allow you to dictate the rules and calm I am the one playing word games when you are the one trying to twik a few certain words in the Second Amendment. So try something else.


Below is an example of playing with words and it's not me trying to change the meaning of any word it's you and the childish tantrum again is all your's
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.
 
Last edited:
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? :cuckoo:

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....

To delete a whole post is taking the context out. I know of one person who was banned for doing that.
 
Bans open carry.
I'm a strict Constitutionalist in no way should this ban be allowed to stand as is. The 10th aendment says..

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment; or, more precisely, the 10th Amendment doesn’t give the states the ‘right’ to violate the Federal Constitution once incorporated to the states. In this case we have a state law which potentially preempts the Second Amendment. And it’s an example of how citizens have more to fear from state governments than the Federal government with regard to civil rights violations.

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

Nonsense.

In fact, in McDonald v Chicago, Jerry Brown, then Attorney General, filed an amicus petition in support of McDonald urging incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states, as California has no such prevision in its constitution:

http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/California-NRA_v._Chicago_Cert_Amicus.pdf

I'm pretty sure the Constitution says nothing about open carry laws.

That’s yet to be determined. The Court did rule in Heller that the right to bear arms is not restricted to military (militia) service only:

These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia.

whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding.

This would be grounds to argue that since the right to bear arms is not restricted only to military service, it is Constitutional to ‘open carry,’ and such laws prohibiting open carry should be struck down.


Otherwise, the California law is not un-Constitutional until a court says it is. And many states have prohibited open carry for many years, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and South Carolina – I doubt any rightist here would consider those ‘liberal’ states.

Consequently, it’s up to a resident of the state of California to file suit in Federal court arguing that the California law preempts his Second Amendment right to bear arms.






Heller citations from above:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
 
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....

To delete a whole post is taking the context out. I know of one person who was banned for doing that.

But he didn't delete the whole post...

You were not around when that stupid rule was brought into play. I was. It's all about context. It was brought in because people were actually changing quotes from things like "I'm very concerned about Obama's healthcare" to "I'm a retard who likes Obama's healthcare" and shit like that.

That aside, anybody with half a brain could see that it wasn't the original quote, but some people are just whiners, thin-skinned and pathetic. Oh, and just so you know, it was a half dozen 'tolerant' con whackjobs who got that little rule running led by rtdgunnysgt. That's right, the group who want less govt and less laws....

And grow a thicker skin....wimp...
 
Last edited:
No word play allowed
What does shall not be infringed mean?

You can still have a peashooter. Show me where it says you can't....

Stay out west we don't play with pesshooterand this isn't a western.
OH thats right you live in New Zealand.

I live in Australia...born and raised and lived in NZ for 38 years though...;o)

And we don't have these issues in Australaisia...we use common sense...
 
You can still have a peashooter. Show me where it says you can't....

Stay out west we don't play with pesshooterand this isn't a western.
OH thats right you live in New Zealand.

I live in Australia...born and raised and lived in NZ for 38 years though...;o)

And we don't have these issues in Australaisia...we use common sense...

We have enough gun grabbers here in the states we do not want any wako guberment loving non American citizen fuck wit having a say with what goes on with Americas Constitutionaly protected rights.
 
Actually, as long as is not out of context he is fine....

...nark....

To delete a whole post is taking the context out. I know of one person who was banned for doing that.

But he didn't delete the whole post...

You were not around when that stupid rule was brought into play. I was. It's all about context. It was brought in because people were actually changing quotes from things like "I'm very concerned about Obama's healthcare" to "I'm a retard who likes Obama's healthcare" and shit like that.

That aside, anybody with half a brain could see that it wasn't the original quote, but some people are just whiners, thin-skinned and pathetic. Oh, and just so you know, it was a half dozen 'tolerate' con whackjobs who got that the law running let by rtdgunnysgt. That's right, the group who want less govt and less laws....

And grow a thicker skin....wimp...

Yes he did


My original post
According to recent Superme court rulings as recent as 1980 the only firearms protected by the second amendment are those on the gun bans of the past. Those evil assualt weapons.

1) Then according to you handguns are not covered by the second amendment. So why are you babbling?

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

1) Then according to you handguns are not covered by the second amendment. So why are you babbling?

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?

And his edited version which in his next responce he removed the whole post but a couple of lines


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.

and something missing here
Have you ever heard of a colt 1911? It's the standard sidearm isse of the military.
Something is missing here
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?

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

That's an awful lot of talking to say nothing whatsoever to support your arguments.
 
Last edited:
Stay out west we don't play with pesshooterand this isn't a western.
OH thats right you live in New Zealand.

I live in Australia...born and raised and lived in NZ for 38 years though...;o)

And we don't have these issues in Australaisia...we use common sense...

We have enough gun grabbers here in the states we do not want any wako guberment loving non American citizen fuck wit having a say with what goes on with Americas Constitutionaly protected rights.

No, YOU do not want that. You do not speak for everybody. And this is a messageboard - so tough shit....;o)
 
According to the SCOTUS. I don't agree with the incorporation theory.

This is telling given the likes of Justice Scalia disagrees with you:

I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.

Justice Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion, McDonald v. Chicago.

If one is in conflict with a hard-core rightist on this issue, then clearly he lacks any Constitutional justification for his position that incorporation doctrine is ‘wrong.’
 
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.

The real problem here is because the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit me from telling you you cannot carry a weapon on my property you somehow think that it allows the government to arbitrarily limit it just because it is inconvenient to respond to calls from idiots that are afraid and do not know that carrying a weapon is legal.

It doesn't.
 
Otherwise, the California law is not un-Constitutional until a court says it is. And many states have prohibited open carry for many years, such as Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and South Carolina – I doubt any rightist here would consider those ‘liberal’ states.

Damn, you were doing so good until you said that, then you made a complete idiot of yourself.

If Alabama passed a law tomorrow that made slavery legal would we actually have to wait until a court told us it is unconstitutional before it is?

Consequently, it’s up to a resident of the state of California to file suit in Federal court arguing that the California law preempts his Second Amendment right to bear arms. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

No it isn't, this could easily be settled on the state level without ever getting into federal court.
 
Yes it does when it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it means exactly that.

:lol::lol::lol:

No it doesn't. Trying to insist otherwise is like being a little kid who throws a tantrum when mommy doesn't buy you candy. The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about, but fancy yourself an expert. You have no evidence whatsoever that the legislative intent is what you are trying to make it to be. But the issue has been dealt with countless times in the courts, true experts in the study of law, and the courts, being the only entity under the constitution which can judge questions of federal law in any binding way, have long recognized that the constitution does not generally guarantee absolute rights.

It's becoming quite clear that you've already decided what you want the case to be and will do nothing but continue to demand it to be so regardless of the reality. But you should understand that doing so amounts to nothing more than a child who throws a tantrum when mommy doesn't buy you candy, thinking that your tantrum will make you the boss. Not only that, but it throws the constitution out the window, which prescribes that the judiciary has the power to decide these questions of law. It's been decided by the judiciary over and over and over again.

Dude you're way off base here I have yet to lose my temper just ask around. I have yet to call you a stupid fucking moron asshat son of a bitch cock cucking stupid jackass.

:lol::lol::lol:

Nope, not losing your temper or throwing ad hominems at all. Clearly you have nothing intellectual to offer.
 
Bans open carry.
I'm a strict Constitutionalist in no way should this ban be allowed to stand as is. The 10th aendment says

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the states have given the feds the authority to keep in check any violation of the second amendment and the second Amendment says

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 part of keep and bear arms do these pricks not understand?


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- California became the fifth state to prohibit openly carrying handguns in public after Gov. Jerry Brown announced Monday that he had signed the ban into law amid heavy opposition from gun enthusiasts.

AB144 by state Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, makes it a misdemeanor to carry an exposed and unloaded gun in public or in vehicles, with violators facing up to a year in prison or a potential fine of $1,000 when the law takes effect on Jan 1.
New law bans open carry of handguns in Calif. - Forbes.com


The issue is: criminals are not fearful of those who's states have strict gun laws that prevent people from obtaining or carrying firearms, but rather not knowing if they are entering a home that possesses one. Do residence of California really believe this will prevent criminals from obtaining a concealed handgun? I mean, what criminal ever goes through the process of obtaining one "legally"? This law will primarily hurt those that are responsible citizens with a desire to carry a firearm.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RgNLQTMbbs]Horror Movie Blonde- With Guns! - YouTube[/ame]

With respect to California, will we now find more people looking to carry tazors or some "other" form of weapon for protection?
 
Last edited:
Stay out west we don't play with pesshooterand this isn't a western.
OH thats right you live in New Zealand.

I live in Australia...born and raised and lived in NZ for 38 years though...;o)

And we don't have these issues in Australaisia...we use common sense...

We have enough gun grabbers here in the states we do not want any wako guberment loving non American citizen fuck wit having a say with what goes on with Americas Constitutionaly protected rights.

Get back in your bunker bigrednec and stay alert, The Government could be 'round at any time to take away all of your rights.
 
Yes it does when it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed it means exactly that.

:lol::lol::lol:

No it doesn't. Trying to insist otherwise is like being a little kid who throws a tantrum when mommy doesn't buy you candy. The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about, but fancy yourself an expert. You have no evidence whatsoever that the legislative intent is what you are trying to make it to be. But the issue has been dealt with countless times in the courts, true experts in the study of law, and the courts, being the only entity under the constitution which can judge questions of federal law in any binding way, have long recognized that the constitution does not generally guarantee absolute rights.

It's becoming quite clear that you've already decided what you want the case to be and will do nothing but continue to demand it to be so regardless of the reality. But you should understand that doing so amounts to nothing more than a child who throws a tantrum when mommy doesn't buy you candy, thinking that your tantrum will make you the boss. Not only that, but it throws the constitution out the window, which prescribes that the judiciary has the power to decide these questions of law. It's been decided by the judiciary over and over and over again.

Dude you're way off base here I have yet to lose my temper just ask around. I have yet to call you a stupid fucking moron asshat son of a bitch cock cucking stupid jackass.

:lol::lol::lol:

Nope, not losing your temper or throwing ad hominems at all. Clearly you have nothing intellectual to offer.

Nope, not losing your temper or throwing ad hominems at all. Clearly you have nothing intellectual to offer

You haven't offered one legitimate legal defense to refute what I have said. You have ignored the supreme court rulings I posted and you try to insist that I am being childish. Children ignore things that scare them and things they do not understand, children act the way you do.


No it doesn't. Trying to insist otherwise is like being a little kid who throws a tantrum when mommy doesn't buy you candy.

Why do you continue to play word games? To say a word means something else than what it says is toying with the word.

The problem is that you don't know what you are talking about, but fancy yourself an expert.

You have yet to disprove that as fact. I have been trained in Constitutonal law I was a police officer years ago. So yes compared to you I am an expert. At least I understand the meaning of
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


You have no evidence whatsoever that the legislative intent is what you are trying to make it to be. But the issue has been dealt with countless times in the courts, true experts in the study of law, and the courts, being the only entity under the constitution which can judge questions of federal law in any binding way, have long recognized that the constitution does not generally guarantee absolute rights.

You've ignored the court rulings I posted so how would you know anything about the issue? Your intent is quit clear and shows true, when you ignore a court ruling and claim the court have proven you right.

It's becoming quite clear that you've already decided what you want the case to be and will do nothing but continue to demand it to be so regardless of the reality. But you should understand that doing so amounts to nothing more than a child who throws a tantrum when mommy doesn't buy you candy, thinking that your tantrum will make you the boss. Not only that, but it throws the constitution out the window, which prescribes that the judiciary has the power to decide these questions of law. It's been decided by the judiciary over and over and over again.

Alinsky rules for radicals are dead on me rule 5 is what you have been trying to use this whole thread. It does't work. Who's throwing the Constitution out the window? Neither of us are, but what you are doing is trying to allow the wind blow a couple of words away from that open window.

It's been decided by the judiciary over and over and over again

Yes it has in U.S.vs Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939). and Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95
(1980).

And most court rulings have use these two as to why they ruled the way they ruled

U.S. VS, Oakes; U.S. v. Swinton; U.S. v. Johnson. to name a few but there is more. It's my opinion that McDonald v. Chicago and Heller vs. DC left the door open to more restriction like this, not less. They left the words open to people like you who like to play with words and the meaning of those words.
 
I live in Australia...born and raised and lived in NZ for 38 years though...;o)

And we don't have these issues in Australaisia...we use common sense...

We have enough gun grabbers here in the states we do not want any wako guberment loving non American citizen fuck wit having a say with what goes on with Americas Constitutionaly protected rights.

Get back in your bunker bigrednec and stay alert, The Government could be 'round at any time to take away all of your rights.

:clap2: nothing to offer? Does this mean I win?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top