Open carry firearms.. Our 2nd amendment right!!

[Steerpike]

The Constitution does prevent State governments from restricting as they will. Under the Incorporation Doctrine, the 14th Amendment prevents exactly that. Speaking in general terms. As to whether the 2nd Amendment will be incorporated at some point - we'll see.

The XIV prevents no such thing, as that is not the point and purpose of the amendment to begin with, in my opinion.

Court decisions based on the perverted use of the XIV Amendment is not the same thing as the amendment itself preventing the respective states from placing restrictions on the II Amendment. The XIV Amendment does not prevent the state of Georgia from placing restrictions on the II Amendment.[/QUOTE]

Whether you feel that way or not, the practical reality is that under current law the 14th Amendment does precisely that. And that isn't likely to change any time soon. In fact, there's a decent chance the 2nd amendment will finally be incorporated in 2010.

Incorporation makes sense today. As for the intent of it, I believe the guy who wrote it (or who was the main author of the 14th) expressly said it should incorporate the Bill of Rights.

 

[Steerpike]

In follow up to my last comment, here is an excerpt from Congressional testimony by the author of the 14th Amendment, explaining the intent behind it:

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows: [Here Mr. Bingham recited verbatim the first eight articles.]

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make."

 

[immto]

I am actually surprised that no one mentioned the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

If you actually read the amendment it does not give us the right to bear arms.

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 it does do is assume that we already have that right. And it forbids the Government from infringing upon it.

Everyone is always so quick to jump on whether or not the amendment gives us the right and ignores the fact that used, "shall not be infriged"

 

[JD_2B]

Even the most hardcore gun rights advocate sees and understands the need for backround checks.

The problem is balancing public safety with personal privacy.

Again, Safety is not the real issue here. I would be more than okay with released felons, even rapists, child molestors and murderers having guns hanging off their belt. Everyone needs a gun, and it doesn't matter what kind of crime they had to pay a debt to society for committing. Once that debt has been paid, the criminal record should drop off after 10 years of good behavior, for a felony, and 5 years of good behavior for a misdemeanor.

Background checks do NOTHING but cause a person to have to continue paying penance for something they should not be sentenced to life for doing. It is CRUEL AND UNUSUAL to force ANYONE to not have a gun based on some crime they committed in the past. Ridiculous, and totally stupid, too, because if they NEED a gun, and they need one badly enough, they will risk going back to jail to save their own lives.

Criminals are the ONLY people in society unwilling to risk their safety for a lack of freedom.. And in fact, they grab the bull by the horns and take their own safety into their own hands, and often times LOSE their freedom in doing so. YET- Background checks will only end up in these very people getting slapped with a felony...

See how the snowball grows and grows?

 

[The Rabbi]

Denying people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity the ability to carry a gun openly is "cruel and unusual punishment"?? WTF? Did you actually mean to write that?

 

[JD_2B]

Denying people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity the ability to carry a gun openly is "cruel and unusual punishment"?? WTF? Did you actually mean to write that?

Did you know that one in five death row inmates are innocent, statistically?

Meaning that the probability is that one in five people sitting in our jails are also innocent.

Did you know that the US accounts for only 5% of the world's population, but is responsible for 25% of the world's prisoners??

YES I meant to write it. You do the crime, you do the time. I have no problem with a criminal background for a set period of time. After a certain number of years proving one's worth to society, that history should be completely destroyed, in the form of public record. The only people who should have those old and outdated records should only be those directly involved, with no supboena power available to get the records admissable in a court of law.

INNOCENCE is a big thing. One can both lose and regain it. At some point, people have to learn to not only forgive, but also to forget. NOBODY should be sentenced to answer for the duration of their life for a crime they have been released (and deemed "safe enough" to be a good citizen once again) from incarceration for committing. EVER.

 

[indianaboy]

In follow up to my last comment, here is an excerpt from Congressional testimony by the author of the 14th Amendment, explaining the intent behind it:

"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, fourteenth amendment of the Constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Those eight amendments are as follows: [Here Mr. Bingham recited verbatim the first eight articles.]

These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment. The words of that amendment, "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," are an express prohibition upon every State of the Union, which may be enforced under existing laws of Congress, and such other laws for their better enforcement as Congress may make."

The Supreme Court has never used the Privileges and Immunities clause to incorporate the Bill of Rights. They've relied on the Due Process clause.

 

[JD_2B]

Besides, our laws make absofuckinglutely no sense at all..

Graffiti, you know- writing your cheating girlfriend's name and number on a bathroom stall- a felony charge..

Having a prescription drug (your buddy let you have one of his viagras, or a prescription sleeping pill, for example- Seen it a bazillion times, at least) a felony

A person who JUST turned 20 can't screw his girlfriend who is turning 18 next week.. until next week, in some states. That is a fucking felony.

A KID who is 15 years old, has an early birthday party, and gets a pellet or BB gun, goes out and shoots it at a tree.. Some neighbor calls the cops and poof theres another fuckin felony, because the kid is NOT technically 16 yet.


YET

Prostitutes are only charged with misdemeanors

Punching someone, kicking their ass- misdemeanor

DUI- Fucking misdemeanor

So how fucking retarded is it that our system does NOT work, and needs some massive adjusting?? I say wholeheartedly that this shit is ASININE and I refuse to believe that it WORKS, somehow.

 

[The Rabbi]

Denying people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity the ability to carry a gun openly is "cruel and unusual punishment"?? WTF? Did you actually mean to write that?

Did you know that one in five death row inmates are innocent, statistically?

Meaning that the probability is that one in five people sitting in our jails are also innocent.

Did you know that the US accounts for only 5% of the world's population, but is responsible for 25% of the world's prisoners??

YES I meant to write it. You do the crime, you do the time. I have no problem with a criminal background for a set period of time. After a certain number of years proving one's worth to society, that history should be completely destroyed, in the form of public record. The only people who should have those old and outdated records should only be those directly involved, with no supboena power available to get the records admissable in a court of law.

INNOCENCE is a big thing. One can both lose and regain it. At some point, people have to learn to not only forgive, but also to forget. NOBODY should be sentenced to answer for the duration of their life for a crime they have been released (and deemed "safe enough" to be a good citizen once again) from incarceration for committing. EVER.

This is what restoration of rights and executive pardons are for.
I doubt 20% of the people on death row are innocent. In any case it means that 80% are guilty as hell. And extrapolating those numbers to felony convictions is iffy at best.
In any case, bad cases make bad laws. And allowing people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity to possess guns is bad law.
And as I said, jail is only one part of punishment. There are plenty of things that continue beyond jail. Loss of rights is one of them. I don't have a problem with it.

 

[JD_2B]

In any case, bad cases make bad laws. And allowing people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity to possess guns is bad law.

Why?

Who should someone who was in possession of a viagra that some friend of his let him have, also have to lose his 2nd amendment rights, especially if he has served his time, and 10 years have passed, with no other trouble with the law?

Why is this person a danger to society? Explain.

 

[The Rabbi]

In any case, bad cases make bad laws. And allowing people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity to possess guns is bad law.

Why?

Who should someone who was in possession of a viagra that some friend of his let him have, also have to lose his 2nd amendment rights, especially if he has served his time, and 10 years have passed, with no other trouble with the law?

Why is this person a danger to society? Explain.

Why should someone in possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell be allowed to go about armed? Why should someone who has been convicted of his 5th assault and battery be allowed to carry a gun legally?

 

[immto]

In any case, bad cases make bad laws. And allowing people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity to possess guns is bad law.

Why?

Who should someone who was in possession of a viagra that some friend of his let him have, also have to lose his 2nd amendment rights, especially if he has served his time, and 10 years have passed, with no other trouble with the law?

Why is this person a danger to society? Explain.

Why should someone in possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell be allowed to go about armed? Why should someone who has been convicted of his 5th assault and battery be allowed to carry a gun legally?

Why do you lump every person with a drug charge in the same category as a Crack Dealer? Is that not just a little absurd. I don't think anyone is saying violent criminals should have guns but not every person who commits a crime is a violent criminal, heck not every person who commits a crime is a CRIMINAL.

 

[JD_2B]

In any case, bad cases make bad laws. And allowing people with a demonstrated history of criminal activity to possess guns is bad law.

Why?

Who should someone who was in possession of a viagra that some friend of his let him have, also have to lose his 2nd amendment rights, especially if he has served his time, and 10 years have passed, with no other trouble with the law?

Why is this person a danger to society? Explain.

Why should someone in possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell be allowed to go about armed?

Because he paid his debt to society, and having a drug addiction should not and does not carry a life sentence. Therefore, the record should not be a life long haunting of that addiction either.

Why should someone who has been convicted of his 5th assault and battery be allowed to carry a gun legally?

If the person is no longer in prison for it, then why fucking NOT? A person is DONE being guilty when their sentence is over.

I asked YOU. WHY NOT.

 

[JD_2B]

Why?

Who should someone who was in possession of a viagra that some friend of his let him have, also have to lose his 2nd amendment rights, especially if he has served his time, and 10 years have passed, with no other trouble with the law?

Why is this person a danger to society? Explain.

Why should someone in possession of crack cocaine with intent to sell be allowed to go about armed? Why should someone who has been convicted of his 5th assault and battery be allowed to carry a gun legally?

Why do you lump every person with a drug charge in the same category as a Crack Dealer? Is that not just a little absurd. I don't think anyone is saying violent criminals should have guns but not every person who commits a crime is a violent criminal, heck not every person who commits a crime is a CRIMINAL.

True true..

Someone who puts a license plate from their oldsmobile and puts it on their unregistered chevy, is considered a felon in my state.

It is freaking insanity.

 

[johnrocks]

I hate the whole idea of permits, it is ceding our rights to government that "permits" us to do things for a fee, it's like "protection money" to the mafia, here in Louisiana, I gotta pay $50 for a "permit" and allow these "gun right advocates" to look into my background, pledge to always cede my weapon to a law enforcement officer, let all know I have a concealed weapon and undergo 8 hours of gun safety classes(additional fee) as well as a mental background check besides the criminal/credit and whatever else background check is deemed appropriate and yet people defend and praise this system, I guess it beats laws banning conceal and carry however I think it violates my 2nd A rights just like the other gun control laws do.

 

[immto]

I hate the whole idea of permits, it is ceding our rights to government that "permits" us to do things for a fee, it's like "protection money" to the mafia, here in Louisiana, I gotta pay $50 for a "permit" and allow these "gun right advocates" to look into my background, pledge to always cede my weapon to a law enforcement officer, let all know I have a concealed weapon and undergo 8 hours of gun safety classes(additional fee) as well as a mental background check besides the criminal/credit and whatever else background check is deemed appropriate and yet people defend and praise this system, I guess it beats laws banning conceal and carry however I think it violates my 2nd A rights just like the other gun control laws do.

Just think how the people who live DC, CHicago or New York feel? How about in Wisconsin were open carry is technically legal but anyone who tries it is arrested for disorderly conduct. We need some serious reform back to the roots of our nation if we're ever to reclaim true freedom. Another user has a really good point up at post # 37. You should read that post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ms-our-2nd-amendment-right-3.html#post1700107

Why is we never hear anyone argue the idea that the 2nd amendment does not give us the right to beat arms, it says that right shall not be infringed, meaning it was a right we allready had and should not Loose.

 

[johnrocks]

I hate the whole idea of permits, it is ceding our rights to government that "permits" us to do things for a fee, it's like "protection money" to the mafia, here in Louisiana, I gotta pay $50 for a "permit" and allow these "gun right advocates" to look into my background, pledge to always cede my weapon to a law enforcement officer, let all know I have a concealed weapon and undergo 8 hours of gun safety classes(additional fee) as well as a mental background check besides the criminal/credit and whatever else background check is deemed appropriate and yet people defend and praise this system, I guess it beats laws banning conceal and carry however I think it violates my 2nd A rights just like the other gun control laws do.

Just think how the people who live DC, CHicago or New York feel? How about in Wisconsin were open carry is technically legal but anyone who tries it is arrested for disorderly conduct. We need some serious reform back to the roots of our nation if we're ever to reclaim true freedom. Another user has a really good point up at post # 37. You should read that post.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ms-our-2nd-amendment-right-3.html#post1700107

Why is we never hear anyone argue the idea that the 2nd amendment does not give us the right to beat arms, it says that right shall not be infringed, meaning it was a right we allready had and should not Loose.

BasicGreatGuy's post? Yeah, he and I think alike on most issues.

 

[lawbuff]

Why is we never hear anyone argue the idea that the 2nd amendment does not give us the right to beat arms, it says that right shall not be infringed, meaning it was a right we allready had and should not Loose.

The confusion amongst the courts over the years concerned the two phrases in the 2nd, as the SC explained in Heller:

a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

(1)“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, (2)the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,.. shall not be infringed.”

Three federal appeals circuits already ruled the 2nd applied to the states before Heller, the one out of the 5th, Emerson, are the clauses dependent OR independent on another.


The last being of course the DC Circuit court of appeals, where certiorari was granted from and affirmed.


IF the 2 clauses are conjunctive, then it was ONLY a Militia's right to bear arms. IF they are disjunctive, then it is also an individual right.

 

[Missourian]

No, I am totally good with felons losing their 2nd amendment rights for life.

Non-violent offenders are permitted to petition the ATF for reinstatement after a prescribed period.

 

[lawbuff]

The Constitution does not grant rights. You, I, and others understand that simple fact. It prevents the federal government from infringing the right of the people to bear arms. It does not prevent the state government from restricting as they will.

I have come across the premise before that the Constitution does not grant rights, I disagree with that. Simply because the word GRANT or a synonym is not used, some say it is not a grant to the people.

WHY was it called the Bill of RIGHTS? If it did not grant rights to not be abridged, then it should have been called the Bill of Prohibitions, as Hamilton suggested.