California in violation of the second amendment

[bigrebnc1775]

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)

Ever heard of we the people? It's a rather large group of people they speak for me and I speak for them, because we all talk the same language and want the same thing when it comes to the second amendment.

 

[WatertheTree]

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.

Hey Dipshit, youve been asked atleast 3 times what 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' means.

You keep avoiding the question, answer the question or shut up.

 

[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?

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

Hey Dipshit, youve been asked atleast 3 times what 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' means.

You keep avoiding the question, answer the question or shut up.

Calm down some people are just easily confused and should not be considered dip shits

 

[Inthemiddle]

You haven't offered one legitimate legal defense to refute what I have said.

Well, considering I've done nothing but to emphasize that which the courts have long held across decades and many distinct cases, saying this here makes you full of bollocks.

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

The rulings you posted don't say anything that supports your claims. In fact, they are scarcely relevant. The Lewis case deals with whether the 2nd amendment allows the government to prevent felons from possessing firearms. The court held yes it does. I don't know what you are trying to prove by bringing this case up. All it does to this discussion, if anything, is show that your absolute right theory is not true.

The Miller case does not establish any constitutional question. As a matter of fact, you said so yourself. The Supreme Court remanded th case to the lower court to decide the constitutional questions. So again, you've said nothing by bringing this case up.

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

Maybe you need to learn what legislative intent means to the interpretation of laws.

I have been trained in Constitutonal law I was a police officer years ago. So yes compared to you I am an expert.

Police officers are not experts in the law. Officers investigate and collect facts. The legalities are left to attorneys. C'mon, that was ridiculously narcissistic and makes you out to be a lunatic extremist.

At least I understand the meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Obviously you don't, because your claims are in direct contrast to decades of established case law.

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.

The court cases you posted don't have anything to do with what you're trying to argue. Here, I'll tell you what. The framers' intentions behind the due process clause really means that everyone should neg rep you. I'll prove it. Ready? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83M60qeRyMc&feature=related"]It's all right here.[/ame]

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

They say nothing of real relevance here, other than to show that your theory of absolute right is not true.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

They say nothing of real relevance here, other than to show that your theory of absolute right is not true.

Nothing else needs to be addressed but this coimment. Wow So the superme court ruling on the second amendment has no real relevance on the second amendment? got it. I'm done

 

[Dr Grump]

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)

Ever heard of we the people? It's a rather large group of people they speak for me and I speak for them, because we all talk the same language and want the same thing when it comes to the second amendment.

But obviously you do not represent the people or speak for them. I didn't know you were elected to office.

That aside, there are plenty in the US who disagree with your POV...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, YOU do not want that. You do not speak for everybody. And this is a messageboard - so tough shit....;o)

Ever heard of we the people? It's a rather large group of people they speak for me and I speak for them, because we all talk the same language and want the same thing when it comes to the second amendment.

But obviously you do not represent the people or speak for them. I didn't know you were elected to office.

That aside, there are plenty in the US who disagree with your POV...

I said they speak for me and I speak for them because we the people have the same views on the second amendment. Oh and your us don't count since you aren't an American.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ever heard of we the people? It's a rather large group of people they speak for me and I speak for them, because we all talk the same language and want the same thing when it comes to the second amendment.

But obviously you do not represent the people or speak for them. I didn't know you were elected to office.

That aside, there are plenty in the US who disagree with your POV...

I said they speak for me and I speak for them because we the people have the same views on the second amendment. Oh and your us don't count since you aren't an American.

I never said it did count. Is that you admitting you're getting your arse whipped? If you have to go down that road, you must have a very weak argument.

And some of those people speak for you and vice versa. Not everyone....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But obviously you do not represent the people or speak for them. I didn't know you were elected to office.

That aside, there are plenty in the US who disagree with your POV...

I said they speak for me and I speak for them because we the people have the same views on the second amendment. Oh and your us don't count since you aren't an American.

I never said it did count. Is that you admitting you're getting your arse whipped? If you have to go down that road, you must have a very weak argument.

And some of those people speak for you and vice versa. Not everyone....

Does this mean you're in denial? To make a false claim would be dening the truth. but you foreigners will never understand that.

 

[Dr Grump]

I said they speak for me and I speak for them because we the people have the same views on the second amendment. Oh and your us don't count since you aren't an American.

I never said it did count. Is that you admitting you're getting your arse whipped? If you have to go down that road, you must have a very weak argument.

And some of those people speak for you and vice versa. Not everyone....

Does this mean you're in denial? To make a false claim would be dening the truth. but you foreigners will never understand that.

Us foreigners understand America a lot better than you think we do. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

What am I in denial about?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I never said it did count. Is that you admitting you're getting your arse whipped? If you have to go down that road, you must have a very weak argument.

And some of those people speak for you and vice versa. Not everyone....

Does this mean you're in denial? To make a false claim would be dening the truth. but you foreigners will never understand that.

Us foreigners understand America a lot better than you think we do. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

What am I in denial about?

Yes you are in denial if you think you know anything about Americans

 

[9thIDdoc]

Aside from anything else, Ca. is in direct violation of the 2nd with their ban on the ownership of a great many arms. "...to keep and bear arms."

 

[Inthemiddle]

Aside from anything else, Ca. is in direct violation of the 2nd with their ban on the ownership of a great many arms. "...to keep and bear arms."

Like which arms?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Aside from anything else, Ca. is in direct violation of the 2nd with their ban on the ownership of a great many arms. "...to keep and bear arms."

Like which arms?

If you missed it I will not point it out for you.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Aside from anything else, Ca. is in direct violation of the 2nd with their ban on the ownership of a great many arms. "...to keep and bear arms."

Like which arms?

Too many for me to keep up with. Generally those weapons Ca. has chosen to define as
"assault weapons". They even outlawed the required Olympic competition pistol.

 

[Dragon]

Just one thing to say here, a quote from D.C. v. Heller, which clarified the Second Amendment as an individual right:

Like 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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It is therefore not obvious that California is violating the 2A. The principle of reasonable restrictions on firearms has been upheld by the Court. Whether these specific restrictions would pass muster I am not qualified to say, but the mere fact that restrictions are imposed does not automatically mean that they would not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Just one thing to say here, a quote from D.C. v. Heller, which clarified the Second Amendment as an individual right:

Like 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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It is therefore not obvious that California is violating the 2A. The principle of reasonable restrictions on firearms has been upheld by the Court. Whether these specific restrictions would pass muster I am not qualified to say, but the mere fact that restrictions are imposed does not automatically mean that they would not.

Heller was so cloudy it left the door open for these kinds of restriction.

 

[Dragon]

Heller was so cloudy it left the door open for these kinds of restriction.

Heller was, in my opinion, revision of the Second Amendment to separate the two parts of its language and make a different individual right out of the operative portion than was originally intended. However, the Court is authorized to decide the meaning of the law, not me, so Scalia's opinion counts and mine doesn't.

Just the same, I'll go ahead and express it.

The Second Amendment gives the people an individual right to keep and bear arms for a stated purpose, and that purpose is military: to serve in a well-regulated militia. It does not grant a collective right; there's no doubt that the right is individual; but it does not grant the right to keep and bear arms for any other purpose than serving in the militia -- not for self-defense, not for hunting, not for target-shooting or collecting or any of the other purposes people use firearms for.

This has a number of implications. One of them is on the restrictions on type of weapon that are consistent with the 2A, and this is where the Court's version (a right to keep and bear arms for various non-military purposes, with the original military purpose forgotten) most diverges from the original. If the arms that the people have a right to keep and bear are for the purpose of serving in a well-regulated militia for the defense of a free state, then they must be military weapons. And modern military arms are precisely those that the Court decision implies may be banned, as they are "dangerous and unusual weapons." Interpreted in accord with its stated purpose, the 2A protects a right to keep fully-automatic assault rifles, grenades, machine guns, body armor, flame-throwers, and other weapons useful in military combat, but not handguns for home defense or hunting rifles or target rifles or shotguns or anything of a non-military sort. Yet the Heller decision would exactly reverse this.

Another implication is on the types of restrictions on bearing arms that a government may impose. No restrictions on bearing arms that would prevent their being used for military training or for mustering into the militia on short notice can be allowed; thus, a person must be allowed to keep military arms and ammunition in his home, so that he may assemble with the rest of the militia fully armed and ready for combat. However, almost any other restriction would be permitted. The state or city might not allow a person to carry weapons out of the home except when serving in the militia. It might require that the weapons be unloaded except when serving. It might require trigger locks rendering the weapon useless, provided those locks are removable in a reasonable amount of time consistent with service in the militia.

Because of the Heller decision, we now have a completely different Second Amendment than the one originally incorporated into the Bill of Rights, one in which the first words might as well not exist.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If you missed it I will not point it out for you.

I am not interested in hearing your uneducated rambles anymore. When I ask a person a question I am asking that person, not you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Too many for me to keep up with. Generally those weapons Ca. has chosen to define as "assault weapons". They even outlawed the required Olympic competition pistol.

That's an insufficient answer. If you're going to claim that CA has unconstitutionally banned certain weapons, at least give a few examples.