California Noticed That The Second Amendment Provides No Right To Ammunition

[paulitician]

Gun registration is totally constitutional . In the flip side , you couldn't ban ammunition . That would violate the 2nd .

Looks like the left is learning from the right and their bogus laws designed to eliminate abortion in Texas .

They're not proposing banning ammunition. They're proposing requiring background checks to purchase it. And i think that is where we're headed.

If you pass a background check for a firearm it stands to reason you would pass a background check for the ammo. DUH!

And if you get your gun illegally, you will get your ammo illegally too….DUH!

There is no need for an ammo background check. If you use ammo to break the law you can and will be arrested. There you do….all done.

Not necessarily. Yes, they may get their firearm illegally, but they'll no longer be able to purchase their ammunition without an 'Ammo License' of some sort. Right now, they can walk in anywhere and purchase all the ammunition they want. It could make things harder for em.

 

[M14 Shooter]

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away

The 2nd has been incorporated against actions by the states through the 14th amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How does registering bullets affect your right to bear arms ? U still get your gun and bullets . The state has an interest in fighting gun crime .

There is no sound argument for the necessity of registration of firearms or ammunition, nor the licensure of gun owners.
None.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[M14 Shooter]

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.
Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns
Even nutso Scalia knows the Second Amendment has limits.

Yawn.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Question: What qualifies as an "infringement" of the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
What restrictions are inherent to the right to arms? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Do try to keep up.

 

[Dan Daly]

Anti-Gun advocates will likely go this route. You'll probably have to prove you're legally able to own a firearm before purchasing Ammo. Looks like that's in our future.

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

You may need a license to reload at some point as well.

Good luck with that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think guns should be treated like cars.

Me too.
You don't need a license to buy, own, possess, transport or store a car, or drive it on private property.
You don't need to register a car to buy, own, possess, transport or store a car, or drive it on private property.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think the above is a resonable compromise .

You do?
What do you plan to offer gun owners in return for allowing these restriction on their rights?

 

[paulitician]

Anti-Gun advocates will likely go this route. You'll probably have to prove you're legally able to own a firearm before purchasing Ammo. Looks like that's in our future.

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

You may need a license to reload at some point as well.

Good luck with that.

Might happen. Don't be surprised.

 

[Dan Daly]

Anti-Gun advocates will likely go this route. You'll probably have to prove you're legally able to own a firearm before purchasing Ammo. Looks like that's in our future.

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

You may need a license to reload at some point as well.

Good luck with that.

Might happen. Don't be surprised.

Won't happen as long as I am alive to at least attempt to stop it. That is a promise.

 

[Dan Daly]

The point is that serach n seizure has limits . U make it seem like the 2nd has no limitations . Like guns can be sold out of vending machines and no law could say different .

What gun law would you like to see?

I think guns should be treated like cars.

Me too.
You don't need a license to buy, own, possess or store a car, or drive it on your property.
You don't need to register a car to buy, own, possess or store a car, or drive it on your property.

Darned sure don't need a background check to buy or drive a car, we don't limit the speed or fuel tank capacity most cars are capable of as a matter of public policy and we sure as heck don't ban "sports cars".

 

[M14 Shooter]

The point is that serach n seizure has limits . U make it seem like the 2nd has no limitations . Like guns can be sold out of vending machines and no law could say different .

What gun law would you like to see?

I think guns should be treated like cars.

Me too.
You don't need a license to buy, own, possess or store a car, or drive it on your property.
You don't need to register a car to buy, own, possess or store a car, or drive it on your property.

Darned sure don't need a background check to buy or drive a car, we don't limit the speed or fuel tank capacity most cars are capable of as a matter of public policy and we sure as heck don't ban "sports cars".

Or 'assault trucks'.

 

[paulitician]

Anti-Gun advocates will likely go this route. You'll probably have to prove you're legally able to own a firearm before purchasing Ammo. Looks like that's in our future.

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

You may need a license to reload at some point as well.

Good luck with that.

Might happen. Don't be surprised.

Won't happen as long as I am alive to at least attempt to stop it. That is a promise.

Like i said, don't be surprised. One Executive Order, and Government can make things very difficult for you. Why do you need to make your own bullets? You a Terrorist? Remember, the Patriot Act and NDAA were created to be used against American Citizens.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

You may need a license to reload at some point as well.

Good luck with that.

Might happen. Don't be surprised.

Won't happen as long as I am alive to at least attempt to stop it. That is a promise.

Like i said, don't be surprised. One Executive Order, and Government can make things very difficult for you. Why do you need to make your own bullets? You a Terrorist? Remember, the Patriot Act and NDAA were created to be used against American Citizens.

Why the fuck don't you stop your incessant whining and move to another country? You hate this one so much why the are you still here?

 

[2aguy]

Gun registration is totally constitutional . In the flip side , you couldn't ban ammunition . That would violate the 2nd .

Looks like the left is learning from the right and their bogus laws designed to eliminate abortion in Texas .

They're not proposing banning ammunition. They're proposing requiring background checks to purchase it. And i think that is where we're headed.

If you pass a background check for a firearm it stands to reason you would pass a background check for the ammo. DUH!

And if you get your gun illegally, you will get your ammo illegally too….DUH!

There is no need for an ammo background check. If you use ammo to break the law you can and will be arrested. There you do….all done.

Not necessarily. Yes, they may get their firearm illegally, but they'll no longer be able to purchase their ammunition without an 'Ammo License' of some sort. Right now, they can walk in anywhere and purchase all the ammunition they want. It could make things harder for em.

The guys providing their guns will now provide ammo………...

 

[paulitician]

Gun registration is totally constitutional . In the flip side , you couldn't ban ammunition . That would violate the 2nd .

Looks like the left is learning from the right and their bogus laws designed to eliminate abortion in Texas .

They're not proposing banning ammunition. They're proposing requiring background checks to purchase it. And i think that is where we're headed.

If you pass a background check for a firearm it stands to reason you would pass a background check for the ammo. DUH!

And if you get your gun illegally, you will get your ammo illegally too….DUH!

There is no need for an ammo background check. If you use ammo to break the law you can and will be arrested. There you do….all done.

Not necessarily. Yes, they may get their firearm illegally, but they'll no longer be able to purchase their ammunition without an 'Ammo License' of some sort. Right now, they can walk in anywhere and purchase all the ammunition they want. It could make things harder for em.

The guys providing their guns will now provide ammo………...

True, but they won't be able to just walk in anywhere and purchase it. It'll be a little harder for em.

 

[mudwhistle]

California is sort of slow....



Liberals have been trying to jack up the price of ammo for decades.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

No you don't.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

With each post, I see I understand it much better than you....

Please tell me that you think this applies to all laws and I'll understand that you really have no clue about federalism or the context in which it was written.

And I'll look forward to you explaining why states wrote the same language into their respective state constitutions.

Or how state sponsored religions existed.

State sponsored religion was disestablished in almost every case before the Constitution was even ratified.

You believe that states do not have to abide by the Constitution and you are completely wrong.

Another uneducated answer:

As already pointed out...they existed into the 1820's in some states and they only went away when states chose to write them out.

They were never challenged.

Do you really think the Constitution forbid states from having state sponsored religions ?

Your second statement is a fabrication.

I believe no such thing. I said that the constitution does not give the federal government full reign over states.

If you don't understand that, you don't understand the context in which it is formed......

Let me help you....

This is from Federalist 45:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

And spare me the...."that isn't the constitution" argument....I know that.

But to ignore what Madison says about the document he fathered is simply ignorant.

 

[Rotagilla]

Absolutely.

First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).

Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

No you don't.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

With each post, I see I understand it much better than you....

Please tell me that you think this applies to all laws and I'll understand that you really have no clue about federalism or the context in which it was written.

And I'll look forward to you explaining why states wrote the same language into their respective state constitutions.

Or how state sponsored religions existed.

I'd be interested to hear your understanding of the 14th amendment and some of its interpretations in relation to the Federalist thinking that existed prior.

the 14th wasn't ratified legally because of the provisional military "governments" installed by the north after the war of northern aggression.
The people were deprived of their right of legal, ELECTED representatives and the rubber stamp federalist "representatives" "passed" whatever regulation/law was placed in front of them by the u.s. government...
So much for the constitutional republic. It died back then.

 

[Dan Daly]

You don't understand the Constitution do you?

The provision of the Constitution that ensures this is called the Supremacy Clause. Look that up. The states cannot act contrary to the Constitution. They can make laws about topics on which the document is silent, but if a state law and federal law are in conflict, the federal law wins. Also, the 14th Amendment incorporates the protections of the Bill of Rights to the states. States must adhere to the requirements of the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Before we get into it, let me say that I am not a gun control advocate.

Having said that.....

I think it is you that misunderstands the Constitution.

The constitution was written for the federal government and is a limit on their powers.

The supremacy clause only gives them supremacy over those things within their scope to administer. It has nothing to do with things they are forbidden to touch.

If that were not the case, then why did states write the right to bear arms into their individual constitutions ? The answer is that because they understood that.

It is analogous to the freedom of religion. The federal government is forbid to pass laws respecting religion. States were not constrained and several had state sponsored religions well into the 1820's...and they only went away because states wrote them out. They were never challenged in court. One member of the SCOTUS recently stated that such would still be the case today (of course, he'd be in the minority).

The 14th amendment and the doctrine of selective incorporation is clearly the thing used today by the NRA. It is also what allows the far left and far right to push their agenda from the federal level. I always laugh at my NRA friends who hide behind this argument.

Selective incorporation is an invention of the FDR court.

It applies...but as I said...."in theory".

So, I think I understand better than you.

No you don't.

The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either a state constitution or state law of any state.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

With each post, I see I understand it much better than you....

Please tell me that you think this applies to all laws and I'll understand that you really have no clue about federalism or the context in which it was written.

And I'll look forward to you explaining why states wrote the same language into their respective state constitutions.

Or how state sponsored religions existed.

I'd be interested to hear your understanding of the 14th amendment and some of its interpretations in relation to the Federalist thinking that existed prior.

the 14th wasn't ratified legally because of the provisional military "governments" installed by the north after the war of northern aggression.
The people were deprived of their right of legal, ELECTED representatives and the rubber stamp federalist "representatives" "passed" whatever regulation/law was placed in front of them by the u.s. government...
So much for the constitutional republic. It died back then.

I don't disagree...but we gotta deal with the realities of today...not with shoulda, woulda, couldas. When this rotten monstrosity collapses, which it will, we can hopefully rebuild it according to the principles in which we were founded...and avoid repeating the same mistakes. Till then, all we can do is prepare and help others to prepare...as well as to help them discover or rediscover the principles of freedom and self-governance that our founders tried to create.

The best way to prevent, stop or rebuild from tyranny is to ensure an educated, self-reliant, independent population.

 

[Dan Daly]

hundreds of thousands of people reload/make their own ammo....all word games and semantic distortions by the left looking to create loopholes to circumvent the constitution.

You may need a license to reload at some point as well.

Good luck with that.

Might happen. Don't be surprised.

Won't happen as long as I am alive to at least attempt to stop it. That is a promise.

Like i said, don't be surprised. One Executive Order, and Government can make things very difficult for you. Why do you need to make your own bullets? You a Terrorist? Remember, the Patriot Act and NDAA were created to be used against American Citizens.

Unlike you, I don't roll over and say "thank you Uncle Sugar, may I have another?" Nothing worth having or doing comes easy, boy.