The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[Little-Acorn]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

 

[MaryL]

I just came off of an intense jury trial. I am so fed up with the triple hair splitting. I get a migraine . Enough, brevity is the soul of wit, what is your FLIPPIN point? No background checks because it denies creepos with revenge fantasies a firearm? Because, I hope not, better we just get rid of the damn things and be done with this issue.

 

[Contumacious]

I just came off of an intense jury trial. I am so fed up with the triple hair splitting. I get a migraine . Enough, brevity is the soul of wit, what is your FLIPPIN point? No background checks because it denies creepos with revenge fantasies a firearm? Because, I hope not, better we just get rid of the damn things and be done with this issue.

By " better we just get rid of the damn things" you mean deport the stupid fascist fucks who want to disarm us?


.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.

In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional

Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Article II & III have no authority over firearms...Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction over arms???? Seems to me you're under educated to a great degree.

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's...provide a reference, a link!

Where is your basis in law proving their is no authority to control/regulate ARMS in these here United States? Even a WELL REGULATED MILITIA has that authority, dipstick!

The A-Bomb, the UN, Japan? Now you're sounding like BOSS or RAMBOETTE runnin' out to the ozone layer and beyond. Are you wearing a pair of Political Chica's Space Panties thinking your ass is out of this world, too!

BTW, I'm not intimidated by your childish bombast or the large font you use or your advocacy toward guns to compensate for your diminished, err, ahh, manhood! You're a known quantity!

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

 

[MaryL]

I just came off of an intense jury trial. I am so fed up with the triple hair splitting. I get a migraine . Enough, brevity is the soul of wit, what is your FLIPPIN point? No background checks because it denies creepos with revenge fantasies a firearm? Because, I hope not, better we just get rid of the damn things and be done with this issue.

By " better we just get rid of the damn things" you mean deport the stupid fascist fucks who want to disarm us?


.

People aren't things, You are intelligent, you fill in the blank here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is when you start talking about "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
Do you have a response?

Who struck you? Again another false analogy. You need to stick with the issue.

Did you read the post I responded to?

Yes, Londoner correctly pointed out that all rights have limits.

Yes... limits like "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
That's why I asked what I did.
Do you have a response?

Why must you be so argumentative?

So, no, you do not have a response.
The point you refuse to understand is that the we limit the exercise of a right when it harms others or places them in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger.
Simple ownership / possession of a firearm does none of those things, and so there is no basis for artificial limits upon it.

If you actually have ANY interest in discussing the ISSUE, the question is whether the infringement upon our right to own firearms for legitimate reasons is outweighed, or not outweighed, by the govt's interest AND POWER, to prevent crazy people from buying guns.

If that's the standard you want to use...
The state may not presume all who seek to exercise their right to arms are 'guilty' of doing so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

 

[MaryL]

Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes.

It's not going to happen.

The only way to rescind the Second Amendment would be to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution. By wise design. changing the Constitution is a major undertaking, that doesn't happen unless there is overwhelming support for it.

I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.

I call solid digestive waste from a male bovine.

How often do you hear automatic weapons being fired? Have you ever heard it? I doubt it. Do you even know what it is? I doubt it.

I also doubt that you are routinely finding bullets on your property.

 

[MaryL]

I am realistic, we will never repeal the second amendment. Relax. But for all the criminal miscreants that end up shooting preschools or workplaces or random strangers, I don't think our founding fathers would like to see criminals or the insane with the same access to firearms as our sane militia men, either. There has got to be a middle ground, tighter access to guns with verification, period. Verification, that is the key.

 

[Contumacious]

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.
Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Article II & III have no authority over firearms...Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction over arms???? Seems to me you're under educated to a great degree.

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's...provide a reference, a link!

Where is your basis in law proving their is no authority to control/regulate ARMS in these here United States? Even a WELL REGULATED MILITIA has that authority, dipstick!

The A-Bomb, the UN, Japan? Now you're sounding like BOSS or RAMBOETTE runnin' out to the ozone layer and beyond. Are you wearing a pair of Political Chica's Space Panties thinking your ass is out of this world, too!

BTW, I'm not intimidated by your childish bombast or the large font you use or your advocacy toward guns to compensate for your diminished, err, ahh, manhood! You're a known quantity!

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

 

[Contumacious]

I just came off of an intense jury trial. I am so fed up with the triple hair splitting. I get a migraine . Enough, brevity is the soul of wit, what is your FLIPPIN point? No background checks because it denies creepos with revenge fantasies a firearm? Because, I hope not, better we just get rid of the damn things and be done with this issue.

By " better we just get rid of the damn things" you mean deport the stupid fascist fucks who want to disarm us?


.

People aren't things, You are intelligent, you fill in the blank here.

BUT PEOPLE MUST THINGS SINCE YOU FEEL THAT YOU CAN DICTATE TO THEM

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Article II & III have no authority over firearms...Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction over arms???? Seems to me you're under educated to a great degree.

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's...provide a reference, a link!

Where is your basis in law proving their is no authority to control/regulate ARMS in these here United States? Even a WELL REGULATED MILITIA has that authority, dipstick!

The A-Bomb, the UN, Japan? Now you're sounding like BOSS or RAMBOETTE runnin' out to the ozone layer and beyond. Are you wearing a pair of Political Chica's Space Panties thinking your ass is out of this world, too!

BTW, I'm not intimidated by your childish bombast or the large font you use or your advocacy toward guns to compensate for your diminished, err, ahh, manhood! You're a known quantity!

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

 

[Ernie S.]

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

If it were any other right, liberals would scream bloody murder.

How about a background check, mandatory training, finger prints and a competency test at the polls each time you vote?

You good with that, my Liberal friends?

I admit voting for shrub was a killer, but your analogy is factually .... absurd.

Why? Because you disagree? The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed PERIOD.

 

[Ernie S.]

Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.

I suggest you leave Chicago....
When I put my pants on this morning I clipped my holster and my semiautomatic pistol inside my waist band. It was there all day. I went to the bank. I did not rob it. I went to a burger joint, I didn't start shooting innocent people. I played poker for 5 hours and didn't shoot any of my opponents. I placed the pistol and holster on my night stand when I took my pants off. I'm sitting up in bed and I can reach out and touch it if I so choose.
How the FUCK did I violate anybody's rights today? No one is dead or wounded, hell the damned thing didn't even "accidentally discharge" all day. Why the HELL are you afraid of me?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.

Don't like the 2nd Amendment? Get off your ass and repeal it. Really. | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Contumacious]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Article II & III have no authority over firearms...Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction over arms???? Seems to me you're under educated to a great degree.

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's...provide a reference, a link!

Where is your basis in law proving their is no authority to control/regulate ARMS in these here United States? Even a WELL REGULATED MILITIA has that authority, dipstick!

The A-Bomb, the UN, Japan? Now you're sounding like BOSS or RAMBOETTE runnin' out to the ozone layer and beyond. Are you wearing a pair of Political Chica's Space Panties thinking your ass is out of this world, too!

BTW, I'm not intimidated by your childish bombast or the large font you use or your advocacy toward guns to compensate for your diminished, err, ahh, manhood! You're a known quantity!

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

 

[bendog]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated.

Correct.

The people who wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment said that.

Not all of them were Framers.

 

[Contumacious]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.


.

 

[bendog]

When people ratified the BoR they KNEW firearms were regulated by States and municipalities. I'm sorry if those facts are inconvenient. However, there's no doubt that the second amendment provides for some, not unlimited, right to own firearms individually.