Pass a test to use a protected right?

[NYcarbineer]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

Here's a stat that may surprise you. 87,000 dead since Sandy Hook, 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook(Dec 2012), the government has all the power and if you think 300 million weapons is going to make a dent in their superior firepower you never served in the military.

If you think the military will stand with the government you never served in the military.

When was the last military coup in this country?

 

[Two Thumbs]

You want to violate the law because of a minor problem? What next? Sorry but the Government won't be free to do anything they want because there are 300 million firearms in private hands. if only 3 percent resist that is a huge number of people armed and ready to fight to resist tyranny.

Here's a stat that may surprise you. 87,000 dead since Sandy Hook, 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook(Dec 2012), the government has all the power and if you think 300 million weapons is going to make a dent in their superior firepower you never served in the military.

If you think the military will stand with the government you never served in the military.

When was the last military coup in this country?

Do you have a less pointless question?

or would the effort be so hard that you feel you should get paid?

 

[Mad Scientist]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

The Government takes our Rights and Sells them back to us as Privilages and Licenses. The solution is to no longer accept the Government issued "privileges". Are you willing to do that or just rant on an open forum like most Americans.

Frankly and with all sincerity, I don't care.

Too many people like this guy.

 

[Fishlore]

I'm sorry fridgidwierdo chose to call my post "complete rubbish" based on the somewhat sophomoric notion that "States simply don't have rights. They have powers." Perhaps my colleague has never heard of "states' rights." The more accurate view is that the superior entity has powers, the inferior entity has rights. Government has powers, citizens have rights but in Constitutional law, the federal government has powers and the states have rights.

The question of which parts of the Bill of Rights refer to the rights of states under the Constitution and which parts refer to the rights of citizens has created a long and thorny history of Supreme Court decisions made more complicated by the 14th Amendment, which has gradually walked interpretation away from states' rights and toward citizens' rights.

The tangled confusion comes from the way in which the first ten Amendments were created and ratified. Fortunately, there was considerable debate about them at the time, debate reported and analyzed in the newspapers etc.

The Second Amendment as it stands is a cut-and-paste compromise between two different proposed amendments to cover the right of the states to maintain their own armed forces ("militia"). This was a hot topic at the time and rightly so. Nobody thought that the amendment concerned the rights of individual citizens because at that time there were no restrictions on individual arms ownership and no proposals about it under consideration. The first restrictions on arms possession came about after the Civil War as part of the Jim Crow codes to suppress freedmen (former slaves).

In the long history of SCOTUS rulings, no opinion that the Second Amendment prohibited state or federal of individual rights was ever issued. The individual rights interpretation is very recent and goes against all precedent and previous rulings. The federal government continues to infringe on your right to own a fully automatic machine gun and states prohibit ownership of other arms such as grenades, artillery etc. No one thinks about changing any of this. The recent SCOTUS interpretation is a bit of judicial activism performed at the command of the NRA and the gun lobby. It will be gone as soon as the current conservative fever breaks.

 

[Clementine]

The Supreme Court has already ruled that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and illegal. So anyone suggesting we require some sort of test before buying a firearm, you are not making either a reasonable or legal suggestion.

If they force people to jump through hoops to exercise a right to own firearms, then we need a 3 day waiting period to register to vote while the FBI checks your citizenship status. After all, U.S. rights are for U.S. citizens, not illegal aliens.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm sorry fridgidwierdo chose to call my post "complete rubbish" based on the somewhat sophomoric notion that "States simply don't have rights. They have powers." Perhaps my colleague has never heard of "states' rights." The more accurate view is that the superior entity has powers, the inferior entity has rights. Government has powers, citizens have rights but in Constitutional law, the federal government has powers and the states have rights.

The question of which parts of the Bill of Rights refer to the rights of states under the Constitution and which parts refer to the rights of citizens has created a long and thorny history of Supreme Court decisions made more complicated by the 14th Amendment, which has gradually walked interpretation away from states' rights and toward citizens' rights.

The tangled confusion comes from the way in which the first ten Amendments were created and ratified. Fortunately, there was considerable debate about them at the time, debate reported and analyzed in the newspapers etc.

The Second Amendment as it stands is a cut-and-paste compromise between two different proposed amendments to cover the right of the states to maintain their own armed forces ("militia"). This was a hot topic at the time and rightly so. Nobody thought that the amendment concerned the rights of individual citizens because at that time there were no restrictions on individual arms ownership and no proposals about it under consideration. The first restrictions on arms possession came about after the Civil War as part of the Jim Crow codes to suppress freedmen (former slaves).

In the long history of SCOTUS rulings, no opinion that the Second Amendment prohibited state or federal of individual rights was ever issued. The individual rights interpretation is very recent and goes against all precedent and previous rulings. The federal government continues to infringe on your right to own a fully automatic machine gun and states prohibit ownership of other arms such as grenades, artillery etc. No one thinks about changing any of this. The recent SCOTUS interpretation is a bit of judicial activism performed at the command of the NRA and the gun lobby. It will be gone as soon as the current conservative fever breaks.

Bullshit.

Just because there are restrictions against the second where the government can prevent you from owning something like a crew serve weapon it does not mean the second is not a personal right. You go back before the 14th amendment to build your vision of a second that is not personal but to the states - something that is both against the very heart and purpose of the amendment as well as against the plain English that it is written in.

The second has been incorporated and that is not going to change - get used to it.

 

[SwimExpert]

What do you think should be a right?

I think education, food and the ability to maintain this country is more important then a gun.

With a gun you can get food. With a gun, you can maintain this country (i.e. defend it from invasion). So it turns out your hierarchy is a little flawed.

 

[Fishlore]

I'm sorry fridgidwierdo chose to call my post "complete rubbish" based on the somewhat sophomoric notion that "States simply don't have rights. They have powers." Perhaps my colleague has never heard of "states' rights." The more accurate view is that the superior entity has powers, the inferior entity has rights. Government has powers, citizens have rights but in Constitutional law, the federal government has powers and the states have rights.

The question of which parts of the Bill of Rights refer to the rights of states under the Constitution and which parts refer to the rights of citizens has created a long and thorny history of Supreme Court decisions made more complicated by the 14th Amendment, which has gradually walked interpretation away from states' rights and toward citizens' rights.

The tangled confusion comes from the way in which the first ten Amendments were created and ratified. Fortunately, there was considerable debate about them at the time, debate reported and analyzed in the newspapers etc.

The Second Amendment as it stands is a cut-and-paste compromise between two different proposed amendments to cover the right of the states to maintain their own armed forces ("militia"). This was a hot topic at the time and rightly so. Nobody thought that the amendment concerned the rights of individual citizens because at that time there were no restrictions on individual arms ownership and no proposals about it under consideration. The first restrictions on arms possession came about after the Civil War as part of the Jim Crow codes to suppress freedmen (former slaves).

In the long history of SCOTUS rulings, no opinion that the Second Amendment prohibited state or federal of individual rights was ever issued. The individual rights interpretation is very recent and goes against all precedent and previous rulings. The federal government continues to infringe on your right to own a fully automatic machine gun and states prohibit ownership of other arms such as grenades, artillery etc. No one thinks about changing any of this. The recent SCOTUS interpretation is a bit of judicial activism performed at the command of the NRA and the gun lobby. It will be gone as soon as the current conservative fever breaks.

Bullshit.

Just because there are restrictions against the second where the government can prevent you from owning something like a crew serve weapon it does not mean the second is not a personal right. You go back before the 14th amendment to build your vision of a second that is not personal but to the states - something that is both against the very heart and purpose of the amendment as well as against the plain English that it is written in.

The second has been incorporated and that is not going to change - get used to it.

I have to tell you that calling my post "bullshit" doesn't impress me favorably. I understand that there are posters for whom shouting things like "bullshit" is a substitute for evidence and analysis. It that's you style, you should know that to informed adults, it makes you look foolish.

As far as you unsupported pontification about the extension of the 14 Amendment, In the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated. However, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed this issue, ruling that Second Amendment rights are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.] Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . 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.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional. Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm sorry fridgidwierdo chose to call my post "complete rubbish" based on the somewhat sophomoric notion that "States simply don't have rights. They have powers." Perhaps my colleague has never heard of "states' rights." The more accurate view is that the superior entity has powers, the inferior entity has rights. Government has powers, citizens have rights but in Constitutional law, the federal government has powers and the states have rights.

The question of which parts of the Bill of Rights refer to the rights of states under the Constitution and which parts refer to the rights of citizens has created a long and thorny history of Supreme Court decisions made more complicated by the 14th Amendment, which has gradually walked interpretation away from states' rights and toward citizens' rights.

The tangled confusion comes from the way in which the first ten Amendments were created and ratified. Fortunately, there was considerable debate about them at the time, debate reported and analyzed in the newspapers etc.

The Second Amendment as it stands is a cut-and-paste compromise between two different proposed amendments to cover the right of the states to maintain their own armed forces ("militia"). This was a hot topic at the time and rightly so. Nobody thought that the amendment concerned the rights of individual citizens because at that time there were no restrictions on individual arms ownership and no proposals about it under consideration. The first restrictions on arms possession came about after the Civil War as part of the Jim Crow codes to suppress freedmen (former slaves).

In the long history of SCOTUS rulings, no opinion that the Second Amendment prohibited state or federal of individual rights was ever issued. The individual rights interpretation is very recent and goes against all precedent and previous rulings. The federal government continues to infringe on your right to own a fully automatic machine gun and states prohibit ownership of other arms such as grenades, artillery etc. No one thinks about changing any of this. The recent SCOTUS interpretation is a bit of judicial activism performed at the command of the NRA and the gun lobby. It will be gone as soon as the current conservative fever breaks.

Bullshit.

Just because there are restrictions against the second where the government can prevent you from owning something like a crew serve weapon it does not mean the second is not a personal right. You go back before the 14th amendment to build your vision of a second that is not personal but to the states - something that is both against the very heart and purpose of the amendment as well as against the plain English that it is written in.

The second has been incorporated and that is not going to change - get used to it.

I have to tell you that calling my post "bullshit" doesn't impress me favorably. I understand that there are posters for whom shouting things like "bullshit" is a substitute for evidence and analysis. It that's you style, you should know that to informed adults, it makes you look foolish.

As far as you unsupported pontification about the extension of the 14 Amendment, In the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated. However, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court addressed this issue, ruling that Second Amendment rights are applicable to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.] Prior to District of Columbia v. Heller, the last time the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment was in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). In that case, Jack Miller and one other person were indicted for transporting an unregistered sawed-off shotgun across state lines in violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. Miller argued, among other things, that the section of the National Firearms Act regulating the interstate transport of certain firearms violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas agreed with Miller. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court, which reversed the district court. The Supreme Court read the Second Amendment in conjunction with the Militia Clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and concluded that “n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [sawed-off] shotgun . . . 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.” 307 U.S. at 178. The Court concluded that the district court erred in holding the National Firearms Act provisions unconstitutional. Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.

Nor is the state currently bared from regulating firearms. They have been and will be allowed to do such. The fact that the second is a personal right does not mean that states are not empowered to regulate that right in a reasonable manner. ALL rights are subject to this reality.

Essentially, your entire post does not address anything in contention at all. You do make a valuable statement but then walk away from it as though it is unimportant: the second has been incorporated in recent times. You made the contention that this was a temporary and judicial activist move that will fall when the court changes. That is what I have called bullshit.

It is not activist in any form for the court to recognize the 14th as applying to a basic right that has been established in the BoR. It took the court a long time to come not only to the reasonable conclusion that it should be but the only logical conclusion you can come to. Calling that judicial activism is wrongheaded. Miller does not disagree with current rulings either - they did not reverse the general trend though it was an incorrect decision by their own arguments (a sawed off shotgun actually IS very applicable to a well regulated militia) but that is rather immaterial to the decision itself.

The fact that the right has been incorporated, the courts have clearly stated it is an individual right and the states cannot unreasonably restrict that right is now precedent and the courts are not going to go against that no matter how much you or others wanting to infringe on that basic right want it to. There is but one way to remove second amendment rights open to those that want it removed: an amendment.