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

[bendog]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Of course they do, for the same reason the state cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent any reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, just in case you are an escaped prisoner, and and hold you there until it determines you are not.

NOW we're getting somewhere. So, you concede the second is subject to the same "rules" on gummit interfering with your other rights. You have a right to buy a gun, but background checks inconvenience you in exercising the right. I agree.

You have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches ... and even being stopped an questioned. I agree. However, the cops can and do regularly put up driver's license check points that stop every car on a road and make the driver show license and registration and even proof of insurance. If they can do that, and they can, how come they can't make you go through a background check? Are we back to the 2nd being "special," and cannot be infringed?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Of course they do, for the same reason the state cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent any reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, just in case you are an escaped prisoner, and and hold you there until it determines you are not.

And again, the COTUS was not meant to prevent states from doing so, that was NEVER the intent.

14th amendment renders any and all of this moot.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.

He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Felons also lose their 4th amendment rights when on parole, they lose most 1st amendment rights when incarcerated, they are immune from the restriction on servitude.

Why is that?

As long as one is under sentence for a crime, it is appropriate and allowable under the Fifth Amendment to impose whatever restrictions are necessary on his liberty. Once he's completed his sentence—“paid his debt to society”—his liberty should be restored. Certainly, someone who has that in his past is still one of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, and elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, and every bit as entitled to his basic Constitutional rights as any other one of “the people”.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear, that the right which it affirms belongs to “the people”, and that government is to keep its filthy hands off of that right.

At the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, and for at least a century afterward, there was no question about dangerous criminals and this right. Anyone whose criminality rose to such a level that they could not be trusted with this right ended up serving his sentence at the end of a rope, after which the question of whether he should be allowed his rights under the Second Amendment was rendered moot.

Since then, we've grown much softer on genuine,dangerous criminals, while, at the same time, expanding the scope of our laws so that even honest citizens are at risk of getting caught in in crimes that they didn't even know they were committing. Once upon a time, to commit a felony, you had to take an action that intentionally caused significant harm to another person. You had to know what you were doing, know that it was seriously wrong, and have the intent to do it anyway. Now, according to one author, the average American unwittingly commits three felonies a day.

In accordance with the precedent that allows convicted felons to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights, this provides ample opportunity for corrupt government to strip anyone of these rights. All they need to do is find out which obscure law that person has unwittingly violated, and prosecute him for that.

Mental illness is another excuse. On the surface, it's easy to paint a picture of a violently-insane person, and make the case that you don't want that person to be armed. On that basis, we get the broad notion that anyone who is mentally-ill should not be allowed to have guns. But even among those legitimately and credibly diagnosed with mental illness, the vast majority are not dangerous or violent; and there is far too much room to define mental illness to include just about anyone. Who among us does not have some characteristic that someone else might claim is mental illness? We've already had one prominent senator make the argument that all combat veterans ought to be denied the right to own guns, on the basis that they are likely to suffer from PTSD or other psychological trauma as a result of their experience in combat. The Soviet Union was big on the use of claims of mental illness as an excuse for suppressing and abusing dissidents, and we can already see the seeds for this being planted in our own society, as those on the left wrong increasingly embrace all forms of sexual deviance, immorality, and perversion, and condemn as “bigots” anyone who declines to play along. Mark my words: If the current trends are not reversed, “bigotry” (meaning anyone who refuses to play along with extreme wrong-wing immorality) will come to be established and defined as a form of mental illness, and used as an excuse to deny good people their Second Amendment rights.

 

[martybegan]

How is that certain. The Brady Bill?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporation is not a lie. As a Citizen of the United States, I have the rights granted to me by the amendments. They were incorporated by the 14th amendment. States cannot interfere with rights of US Citizens.

So you are saying if a State wanted to abolish search warrants, it could do it?

I'm fairly certain all states have a state constiton that guarantees the right against warrrantless searches, but yes I'm specifically saying the COTUS was NEVER meant to constrain states. It was SPECIFICALLY meant to constrain the FEDERAL government. For the first 150 years of our existence SCOTUS agreed.

Again, 14th amendment changed all that.

 

[bendog]

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So does everyone else.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

The same way we keep him from walking into Bass Pro and killing someone - we don't.
Like all other laws, we enforce them after they are broken.

Ah, but a felon breaks the law when he attempts to buy a gun at bass pro. The crime occurs when the felon hands over the credit card, not when he takes possession.

And the state can act on this as soon as the is probable cause to do so; merely buying a gun does not create this.
And, clearly, nothing here changes the fact that the law is enforced -after- it is broken.

What I think you are saying is this: although the second says the right to arms cannot be infringed and does not limit that just to non-felons, you find it can be infringed for them....

Felons do not have the right to arms; as such it is impossible to infringe said right.
Your conclusion, therefor is built on a false premise.

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

Yet, the gummt can stop every car on a street to discover that one driver without a license.

Why? What's the difference between the two?

 

[Little-Acorn]

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere.

Yes. You're getting illegal. Congratulations.

The fact that the gun-rights-haters are OK with violating the Constitution and do it regularly, doesn't mean that it's legal to do.

So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

Too bad the Constitution doesn't. See my explanation in the extreme example given in the OP.

 

[martybegan]

In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.

He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Felons also lose their 4th amendment rights when on parole, they lose most 1st amendment rights when incarcerated, they are immune from the restriction on servitude.

Why is that?

As long as one is under sentence for a crime, it is appropriate and allowable under the Fifth Amendment to impose whatever restrictions are necessary on his liberty. Once he's completed his sentence—“paid his debt to society”—his liberty should be restored. Certainly, someone who has that in his past is still one of “the people” mentioned in the Second Amendment, and elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, and every bit as entitled to his basic Constitutional rights as any other one of “the people”.

The Second Amendment is absolutely clear, that the right which it affirms belongs to “the people”, and that government is to keep its filthy hands off of that right.

At the time the Bill of Rights was enacted, and for at least a century afterward, there was no question about dangerous criminals and this right. Anyone whose criminality rose to such a level that they could not be trusted with this right ended up serving his sentence at the end of a rope, after which the question of whether he should be allowed his rights under the Second Amendment was rendered moot.

Since then, we've grown much softer on genuine,dangerous criminals, while, at the same time, expanding the scope of our laws so that even honest citizens are at risk of getting caught in in crimes that they didn't even know they were committing. Once upon a time, to commit a felony, you had to take an action that intentionally caused significant harm to another person. You had to know what you were doing, know that it was seriously wrong, and have the intent to do it anyway. Now, according to one author, the average American unwittingly commits three felonies a day.

In accordance with the precedent that allows convicted felons to be stripped of their Second Amendment rights, this provides ample opportunity for corrupt government to strip anyone of these rights. All they need to do is find out which obscure law that person has unwittingly violated, and prosecute him for that.

Mental illness is another excuse. On the surface, it's easy to paint a picture of a violently-insane person, and make the case that you don't want that person to be armed. On that basis, we get the broad notion that anyone who is mentally-ill should not be allowed to have guns. But even among those legitimately and credibly diagnosed with mental illness, the vast majority are not dangerous or violent; and there is far too much room to define mental illness to include just about anyone. Who among us does not have some characteristic that someone else might claim is mental illness? We've already had one prominent senator make the argument that all combat veterans ought to be denied the right to own guns, on the basis that they are likely to suffer from PTSD or other psychological trauma as a result of their experience in combat. The Soviet Union was big on the use of claims of mental illness as an excuse for suppressing and abusing dissidents, and we can already see the seeds for this being planted in our own society, as those on the left wrong increasingly embrace all forms of sexual deviance, immorality, and perversion, and condemn as “bigots” anyone who declines to play along. Mark my words: If the current trends are not reversed, “bigotry” (meaning anyone who refuses to play along with extreme wrong-wing immorality) will come to be established and defined as a form of mental illness, and used as an excuse to deny good people their Second Amendment rights.

As long as the loss of 2nd amendment rights is part of the legal code of the State in question, I don't see the issue with it. Of course, someone should be able to petition to get it back, but it is part of the punishment, not an after effect.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

If he's proven to be such a threat to society that he cannot be trusted with arms, then the only answer is to permanently remove him from free society. Keep him in prison, for life, or put him to death.

The answer is most certainly not to release such a subhuman beast back into free society, and then to impose unreasonable restrictions on everyone else in the fraudulent pretense of protecting others from him.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Of course they do, for the same reason the state cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent any reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, just in case you are an escaped prisoner, and and hold you there until it determines you are not.

NOW we're getting somewhere. So, you concede the second is subject to the same "rules" on gummit interfering with your other rights. You have a right to buy a gun, but background checks inconvenience you in exercising the right.

No. They unconstitutionally violate the right, as described above.

You have a constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches ... and even being stopped an questioned. I agree.

Then you must agree that the exact same mechanism , when applied to the right to arms as described above, also violates the constitution.
Good to hear.

However, the cops can and do regularly put up driver's license check points that stop every car on a road....

False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You're wrong,

You have provided no evidence to support this statement. And for good reason: There isn't any in the Constitution. It is written exactly as I said.

and up until the 1920s SCOTUS agreed with me, as well as the founding fathers.

I have noticed that when people want to fool you into thinking the Constitution says something it doesn't, they never refer to the text of the Constitution. They refer to what OTHER PEOPLE have said about the Constitution.... despite the clear difference between what those people claim, and what the text actually says.

There's a reason they do that: They hate what the Constitution actually says, so they try to invoke Herr Goebbels's operating principle: "If you tell a big enough lie, often enough, people will believe it, and it will become The Truth."

 

[martybegan]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

The why not is simple. Well not so simple.

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)

but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

How is that certain. The Brady Bill?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

Yes, it does.

Too bad most so-called "gun control" laws aren't made pursuant to it, but AGAINST what it says.

And so those laws are null and void from their inception.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporation is not a lie. As a Citizen of the United States, I have the rights granted to me by the amendments. They were incorporated by the 14th amendment. States cannot interfere with rights of US Citizens.

So you are saying if a State wanted to abolish search warrants, it could do it?

I'm fairly certain all states have a state constiton that guarantees the right against warrrantless searches, but yes I'm specifically saying the COTUS was NEVER meant to constrain states. It was SPECIFICALLY meant to constrain the FEDERAL government. For the first 150 years of our existence SCOTUS agreed.

Again, 14th amendment changed all that.

Yes, that's why the 14th was ratified in 1868 and for another 50 + years SCOTUS was still ruling that the Bill of Rights did not apply to states, right?

In fact it was 2010 when SCOTUS decided (incorrectly) that the 2nd was also incorporated.

I swear you partisans are stupid. You can't even understand that empowering the federal government over the states in one area where you agree will naturally later on bite you in the ass when other morons empower the federal government over states somewhere that you disagree.

If the 2nd was meant to apply to states, why then would all these state constitutions need to include their own provision guaranteeing the right to own firearms?

NRA-ILA | Guarantees of the Right to Arms In State Constitutions


There are 6 states which do not have the right to bear arms in their state constitution. Seriously, if those morons want a state where people aren't legally allowed to own firearms, who are you to use the federal government to force them to allow it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

It's an inconvenience, that's for sure. Seems a problem easily solved. Of course fee based systems are alway regressive which is why a national data base funded by taxes would satisfy all. Those of us who want to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not legally obtain one, and those who want to own guns and not wait six months and pay an enormous fee.

 

[bendog]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

The Fourth Amendment requires that searches and seizures be reasonable. A search or seizure is ordinarily unreasonable in the absence of individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. (citations omitted) we have recognized only limited circumstances in which the usual rule does not apply. For example, we have upheld certain regimes of suspicionless searches where the program was designed to serve “special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement.”....

It is well established that a vehicle stop at a highway checkpoint effectuates a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 US 32

So, again, how is it constitutional for the gummit to just pull everyone over on a road to check licenses because some will not have them, but not ok to pull over everyone seeking a gun and check for felony convictions?

What is the difference in the two situations?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

It's an inconvenience, that's for sure

If the state restrained the exercise of your right to travel freely for 3-6 months without probable cause or reasonable suspicion while it determined you were/were not an escaped prisoner, you'd scream bloody murder that your rights were unconstitutionally violated.

No difference.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If the 2nd was meant to apply to states, why then would all these state constitutions need to include their own provision guaranteeing the right to own firearms?

Due to the fear that big-govt pushers, gun-rights haters, and other fanatical persons of the southpaw persuasion, would do their best to violate the clear language and intent of the 2nd amendment.

And as we can now see, those fears were all too well grounded.