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

[ChrisL]

Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?

NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?

Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?

I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.

Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

That's okay. I'm sure that you don't agree with ALL SCOTUS decisions.

Let's face the facts, gun free zones do nothing to protect anyone.

The most common place for a criminal to buy a gun is with a "fake" buyer who can pass the muster, or off the streets in an illegal sale.

 

[ChrisL]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

 

[ChrisL]

Right. We already have laws regarding weapons. I'm not confused. The point is, the founders wanted all citizens to have 2nd amendment rights. Now, do you think it is appropriate for the government to take away an individual citizen's 2nd amendment right because of something like a bounced check?

NO, NO, NO not so very fast. To respond to your possible trap question properly, first respond to mine which goes to the REAL question which is intrinsically and overridingly linked to yours, well the other way around, actually. I don't respond to hypotheticals without all boundaries being defined. Do you agree that what Scalia wrote in Heller is established law? "Something like a bounced check" can be redefined so easily to twist meanings. So where are you with the bounds Scalia set for Amendment II and those proscriptions and inclusions?

Well, that depends on which part you are referring to. Such as in the "dangerous and unusual" weapons??? Aren't ALL weapons dangerous? Lol. Unusual? What constitutes an "unusual" weapon? One that you find extra scary looking?

I don't agree with GFZ. Those areas are TARGETS for madmen. They know there is going to be no armed person there to stop them. THAT is why they target GFZ.

Do I believe there should be SOME limitations on ownership? Yes, if a person has a background of violent crime, armed robbery, murder, kidnapping, and other serious crimes. I do NOT believe a person should lose any of his or her rights over a bad check. You?

I was referring to the totality of Justice Scalia's quote from DC v. Heller. You touched on only three with open ended caveats. Either you believe that the decision is now the Law of the Land as set out Constitutionally through Judicial Review, or you're in conflict with the Constitution itself. One cannot have it both ways.

Well, what I was trying to say is that I do not agree with ALL of it, no. What would constitute an "unusual" weapon anyway? Expound upon that for a minute.

While I agree that, yes, there are some regulations that should be in place, I don't see that there is any logic in the thought process that restrictions and laws will effect the criminal element in our society. The people who do not commit crimes with their weapons are usually already following those laws. Criminals ignore laws, such as "gun free zones." That is pretty much like an invitation to a crazed shooter. We are UNARMED. Come and get us.

Your disagreement has been obvious and duly noted. That is what puts you at odds with Constitutional law at this juncture, and I wouldn't want to be there on the outside myself!

Have you ever encountered machine gun fire or a round from an RPG. Those are two types I would say are "unusual". I could point to other examples like drone mounted weapons, or "smart rounds" or mortars or hand grenades or a host of other military weapons. Are you seeing them as unusual or dangerous weapons or common examples of weaponry you encounter at the range?

If you see no logical process through those restrictions, it may be that you have not considered certain things that have gone before. For instance a straw buyer in Louisiana has connections in Illinois wanting handguns. He gets his shopping list together, goes to the local gun shows which are replete in the South and buys the 12 weapons on his shopping list. He then loads up and travels the I55 corridor to the Chicago area completes his sales with his contacts and drives back South with a fist full of cash and leaves a dozen more untraceable guns behind to be sold to CRIMINALS! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

Yeah, criminals ignore the law, but they are enabled through loop-holes kept in the law by the NRA, the shill outfit propped up by the gun manufacturers. They make the gun, the guns wind up in the hands of criminals, the guns are either dumped by the crooks or confiscated by the cops and the gun makers produce more guns! . . . . . . . Rinse, Spin, Repeat!!!!

If these untraceable sales came under the same laws required by gun stores to follow with background checks, straw buyers would virtually disappear and most of those "untraceable" weapons with them.

GFZ's have always been around just never propagandized like they are now by the NRA and their sycophantic following. Do you pack when you go to Church? I never have! If you have fallen for that GFZ crap, you've been taken in by a straw man argument.

I heard ALL of the arguments, but the bottom line is that people use guns as instruments of death and they are not free of regulation despite all the propaganda to the contrary from the misinformed, the uninformed or the ignorant stubborn Bubba's of the world.

To all you NUTTERS who will respond to this post to Chris for the sole purpose of slinging shit, Talk to the HAND!

You do know that almost ALL mass shootings have taken place in Gun Free Zones, right?

 

[bendog]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

 

[ChrisL]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

 

[ChrisL]

ThoughtCrimes

Now, I've answered your questions. Please return the courtesy. Do you think that a person who is considered a felon for writing bad checks should lose his or her second amendment rights? Yes or no and, if yes, then why.

 

[bendog]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree. I'd be more inclined to restore the vote to felons who've served their sentences. I generally like it when prison sentences are lengthened because the criminal was a previously convicted felon in the possession of a firearm. I only recall one time seeing a guy get in trouble for being a felon and genuinely defending himself with a firearm. I don't think he got more time because of it. The cops probably jammed him up pretty good though.

 

[ChrisL]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree. I'd be more inclined to restore the vote to felons who've served their sentences. I generally like it when prison sentences are lengthened because the criminal was a previously convicted felon in the possession of a firearm. I only recall one time seeing a guy get in trouble for being a felon and genuinely defending himself with a firearm. I don't think he got more time because of it. The cops probably jammed him up pretty good though.

I feel the same. If a person is TOO dangerous to be trusted with his or her rights, then that person is too dangerous to be let out of prison, IMO. I would certainly not mind seeing stricter penalties for those who do break our gun laws (the reasonable ones anyway). It seems the people who would like to see our second amendment right "disappear" think they are being tricky by introducing incremental so -called "regulations" into the mix. Do they not know that most of these laws only effect the law-abiding citizens? They don't really effect the criminal element of our society. SOME of them might stop a criminal from obtaining a gun legally, but then that also makes it harder to track such a person after they've used the gun in the commission of a crime when they buy an illegal weapon off the streets.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Unlike the 1st amendment, the 2nd does not specify which government it is forbidding to infringe the RKBA. So, that means it for bids ALL governments in the US, from infringing. Fed, state, local.

The 1st says "Congress shall make no law respecting..." etc. etc. So when it was ratified, it only restricted the Federal govt. It did this because most states at the time had laws specifying the state's official religion! And the Framers didn't want to mess with that. Those state laws mostly fell into disuse if they hadn't already. And the 14th amendment later changed that to extend the 1st to state and local governments ("incorporation").

But the 2nd started off restricting ALL governments, not just the Fed. The Supremes recently announced in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) that it "now" extends to the states and local govts too. But in fact it always did.

If you want to know what the amendment says, read it. Its text overrules any "opinion" from any Court, including the Supremes. Only if the text of an amendment isn't clear, do the courts' "opinions" have any weight... and the 2nd is completely clear.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

 

[bendog]

The McDonald decision said that, in 2010.

But the 2nd amendment said that in 1791. The Supremes just repeated it. See my previous post.

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

 

[bendog]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

do not infringe is not a synonym for govt may not restrict/regulate. See especially the no obsolete use

ngedin·fring·ing
Full Definition of INFRINGE
transitive verb
1
: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2
obsolete : defeat, frustrate

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

You know, restricting the rights of a violent felon, okay. Restricting the rights of a person guilty of "other" types of felonies just doesn't pass the smell test. That is definitely infringing upon their rights. If they haven't committed a violent felony or a felony with a gun, then why on earth would you restrict one of their rights?? I would like an honest answer to this question.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

None of the regulations considered in Heller were upheld. Not one.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I'm only referring to what the Heller decision says . . .

How Heller Affects Gun Control Laws
How much the ruling in Heller will affect gun control laws in various cities and states remains to be seen.

The gun control law at issue in the Heller case -- a nearly across-the-board gun ban in the District of Columbia -- was considered to be the strictest gun-control law in the nation. Because the Supreme Court's ruling concerned only this strict ban on handguns, the decision leaves unclear whether less-stringent bans in other states and cities will survive constitutional challenges.

And, although the Supreme Court's decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court also made it clear that the right to own a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions, including:

• Not everyone can own a gun. The right does not extend to felons or the mentally ill.
• Guns cannot be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding individuals from carrying firearms in "sensitive" places, such as schools and government buildings, will probably stand.
• Certain restrictions on the sale of guns are allowed. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms will most likely stand.
• Individuals do not have the right to carry certain types of guns. The right does not protect guns that are not generally owned for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. Just what kind of handguns may be possessed is not explicitly set forth in the opinion (apart from the one specific reference to sawed-off shotguns, which are not allowed). The Court did endorse the "the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons,'" but did not state whether such weapons include assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons.
• Concealed weapons. Laws forbidding people to carry concealed weapons on their person (or in a place close at hand, such as the glove compartment of a car) probably remain valid.
• Sentence enhancements. A variety of criminal laws provide for increased punishment of offenders who use weapons when committing a crime. Heller does not affect the validity of these laws.

Given this long list of qualifications, it remains unclear how Heller will affect the many different types of gun control laws that exist in cities and states throughout the country.

WE don't acknowledge illegal decisions violating our sovereign rats! (-:

I only agree with restricting the rights of VIOLENT felons. The other poster (thoughtcrimes) refuses to address the point I brought up about the person who writes a bad check over a certain amount and is considered a "felon." That person should lose NO rights, especially the right the defend his or herself. The government is WRONG there, IMO.

I was not mocking you, only those who believe law doesn't exist if they don't agree.

You mean like people who, ignoring the 2nd amendment, push for licensing, registration, taxation, insurance, waiting periods, may-issue permits and bans?

I don't know. I'd say I'd mock you if you were saying regulations approved by Heller were unconst.

Well, since it is quite clear in the Constitution that the government does not GIVE rights and that they inherently exist, some of their restrictions could certainly be considered unconstitutional to some.

The BOR is not about the government's rights, as the government doesn't really HAVE rights. The BOR is outlining our rights as people and human beings.

Now, according to that mind set, a person who is convicted as a felon for forging a check (I'm just using that as an example - I'm sure there are others too), could definitely be having his or her rights infringed by government when they try to take away that person's right AFTER they have already served their time. No?

 

[RKMBrown]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Incorrect.
The 2nd has been incorporated against the states.

That would be the 14th not the 2nd. And it has not been "fully" incorporated.

Mv. CHICAGO
Incorporated.

If it was fully incorporated the states could not have cc laws.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Incorrect.
The 2nd has been incorporated against the states.

That would be the 14th not the 2nd. And it has not been "fully" incorporated.

Mv. CHICAGO
Incorporated.

If it was fully incorporated the states could not have cc laws.

That's yet to be determined.

 

[RKMBrown]

But that's not my assertion.
My assertion is that the fact that the are no exceptions listed in the 2nd in no way means that the 2nd protects -everything- related to the right to keep and bear arms.

(patiently)
The use of a gun to murder someone is not "related to the right to keep and bear arms" in any significant way.
I have yet to find anyone who thinks it is.
The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms. Without exception.
Clear now?

The 2nd protects the right to keep and bear arms, and everything contained therein; it does not protect usage and weaponry that does not fall under its umbrella. Gotcha.
I agree 99.99% - it is possible for infringements on the RKBA to pas constitutional muster, should they survive a strict scrutiny test.

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

I think in the Heller decision, it says that the states cannot infringe on a person's second amendment rights. It also says that this does not mean that states cannot come up with regulations. However, they aren't clear about how far the states can go with "regulations" without infringing on the right. If the states make any new regulations, those can also be challenged.

Correct. The states currently infringe and it's not clear if said infringement is unconstitutional or not regarding the 14th amendment and said incorporation. As I said it's not really a full incorporation.. not yet.

 

[RKMBrown]

The 2nd only protects said right from being infringed by the feds... It does not protect said right from being infringed by the states or the people.

Incorrect.
The 2nd has been incorporated against the states.

That would be the 14th not the 2nd. And it has not been "fully" incorporated.

Mv. CHICAGO
Incorporated.

If it was fully incorporated the states could not have cc laws.

That's yet to be determined.

Yes and no. They already have cc laws that's a fact. The question remains... will the SCOTUS rule those regulations as unconstitutional via incorporation... or not and rule the long held standing that the states have said right and the incorporation only goes so far as to be related to that which is normally regulated by the feds... for example international travel, inter-state commerce etc.