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

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Please point out where the 1st Amendment mentions kiddie porn, libel, slander, inciting a riot etc.

BTW - the 4th has all kinds of exceptions, in plain view, open fields, on and on…

The First doesn't mention kiddie porn, libel, slander, inciting a riot, etc etc stupid. Again, that is why it wasn't meant to apply to the STATES , so that THEY could pass laws against such , the feds weren't supposed to have that kind of power. That was the whole god damned point.

 

[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

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.

Another lie by M14, a lie by omission. My entire post was this:

"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 database 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."

M14 shooter may be the most prolific liar to frequent this message board.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that are delegated to the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people.

Any power that the federal government tries to exercise, that is not among its Constitutionally-delegated powers, it does so illegally; it is not doing pursuant to the Constitution; and its doing so is not protected by the Supremacy Clause.

Exactly, and I think we can all agree that the founders never meant for states not to be allowed to make kiddie porn illegal, for example, Meaning the first was not meant to be "incorporated" and neither was the 2nd.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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.

Another lie by M14, a lie by omission. My entire post was this:

"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 database 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."

M14 shooter may be the most prolific liar to frequent this message board.

Oh please, at least for the most part he limits his lies to one specific issue as opposed to the tons of other posters here who post countless lies on a multitude of issues every day.

 

[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.

Another lie by M14, a lie by omission. My entire post was this:
"It's an inconvenience, that's for sure.

Nothing here changes the fact that 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 not inconvenienced, but unconstitutionally violated.
No difference.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Also, you must be kidding me "extremely small scope of federal law endorsement?"

That was what the Constitution established, and what it requires. Federal government was given a very limited set of delegated powers,and the Tenth Amendment prohibits it from going outside those powers.

 

[bendog]

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

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion. There's a legal distinction between being stopped on the street just so the gummit can check to see if everyone is not a fleeing felon (not that I'm aware of any gummit doing that) and between the gummit stopping every car at a checkpoint to see if all drivers are licensed.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok. In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales. They are intended to make sure everyone on the road in gun commerce is legally entitled to buy a gun. Like license check points, some guys may be arrested, but in reality people are just told "you didn't pass the check, so I can't sell you the gun."

So, both license checks and background checks pose small inconveniences to every one in that their 4th and 2nd rights suffer a little bit of inconvenience. You agree felons can be prohibited from ownership. I don't see a distinction between the two. Do you?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Also, you must be kidding me "extremely small scope of federal law endorsement?"

That was what the Constitution established, and what it requires. Federal government was given a very limited set of delegated powers,and the Tenth Amendment prohibits it from going outside those powers.

Of course, I was laughing at the notion that that is what we have, not at the fact that that was what was intended.

I just don't see how people can't understand how much power we've given the federal government that the founding fathers NEVER intended them to have.

Not just over individuals , but over states as well. They most certainly didn't intend for the federal government to tell states that they couldn't allow guns if that is what the majority of voters in that state wanted, as an example.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

Selling to a gun to a felon shouldn't be a crime. At least not unless the seller has good reason to know that the buyer is a felon, and intends to use the gun to commit more crimes.

If I go to a hardware store and buy a gas can, and then to a gas station, to fill it with gasoline, is either the hardware store or the gas station obligated to make sure I'm not an arsonist before selling me the respective products?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Our gun rights were associated with the need for maintaining an unorganized militia that was the force pool of potential militia soldiers.

If you were disqualified from the militia you lost your right to bear a gun in public, though this didnt mean you could not.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion. There's a legal distinction between being stopped on the street just so the gummit can check to see if everyone is not a fleeing felon (not that I'm aware of any gummit doing that) and between the gummit stopping every car at a checkpoint to see if all drivers are licensed.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok. In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales. They are intended to make sure everyone on the road in gun commerce is legally entitled to buy a gun. Like license check points, some guys may be arrested, but in reality people are just told "you didn't pass the check, so I can't sell you the gun."

So, both license checks and background checks pose small inconveniences to every one in that their 4th and 2nd rights suffer a little bit of inconvenience. You agree felons can be prohibited from ownership. I don't see a distinction between the two. Do you?

I can think of several instances where people were stopped for no other reason than to check and see if they were prison escapees etc etc.

 

[HUGGY]

It is a simple decision. Do you believe in the words of the constitution or do you believe in the state's right to infringe on the constitution. The conflict for those that believe in the constitution is clear. Most of the states are bent on disarming it's citizens or at the very least forming lists that guarantee the state can find the weapons at large when the state deems it is in it's interest to do so. The media assists the disarming trends as they have the citizenry scared shitless with the constant bombardment of crime reporting.

Apparently the American Revolution conflict is not entirely over. Tyranny is still alive and well.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The First doesn't mention kiddie porn, libel, slander, inciting a riot, etc etc stupid.

No right exists to the point of using that right to harm others, or to violate the rights of others.

Government cannot impose conditions on the sale and possession of printing presses, just on the premise that someone might use one to public child pornography. If someone does publish child pornography, then that's a crime, not inherent to the ownership of a press itself,and not an excuse for government to interfere with anyone else's acquisition, ownership, or use of a press.

The right to keep and bear arms does not include a “right” to either deliberately or carelessly use that arm to unjustly harm, endanger, or threaten others. If someone does so, then that's a crime, not inherent to the possession of the arm itself, and not an excuse to interfere with anyone else's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[martybegan]

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

Selling to a gun to a felon shouldn't be a crime. At least not unless the seller has good reason to know that the buyer is a felon, and intends to use the gun to commit more crimes.

If I go to a hardware store and buy a gas can, and then to a gas station, to fill it with gasoline, is either the hardware store or the gas station obligated to make sure I'm not an arsonist before selling me the respective products?

A good argument, kind of like the ideal gas law is a good approximation of actual conditions.

It ignores the fact that a specific punishment, by law, for certain crimes is the loss of the ability to possess a firearm, and by extension, legally buy one. I fail to see any laws that prevent an arsonist from being near a flame.

To me an instant check of the ID presented to the seller of a firearm is not infringement. The issue is again, give an inch, lose a mile, and I can understand your concern (as a person who lives in NYC I experience the "taken mile" directly, but trying to remove any sort of check/ID check from firearms purchases is a losing battle.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

Selling to a gun to a felon shouldn't be a crime. At least not unless the seller has good reason to know that the buyer is a felon, and intends to use the gun to commit more crimes.

If I go to a hardware store and buy a gas can, and then to a gas station, to fill it with gasoline, is either the hardware store or the gas station obligated to make sure I'm not an arsonist before selling me the respective products?

Wrong . States should be able to outlaw selling guns to criminals, and then implement a system for sellers to ensure they don't.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Not just over individuals , but over states as well. They most certainly didn't intend for the federal government to tell states that they couldn't allow guns if that is what the majority of voters in that state wanted, as an example.

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”

Where, in those words, do you find that the power belongs to the state, to infringe this right of the people?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The First doesn't mention kiddie porn, libel, slander, inciting a riot, etc etc stupid.

No right exists to the point of using that right to harm others, or to violate the rights of others.

Government cannot impose conditions on the sale and possession of printing presses, just on the premise that someone might use one to public child pornography. If someone does publish child pornography, then that's a crime, not inherent to the ownership of a press itself,and not an excuse for government to interfere with anyone else's acquisition, ownership, or use of a press.

The right to keep and bear arms does not include a “right” to either deliberately or carelessly use that arm to unjustly harm, endanger, or threaten others. If someone does so, then that's a crime, not inherent to the possession of the arm itself, and not an excuse to interfere with anyone else's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

But of course if you just make that sort of blanket statement you are asking for trouble.

Let's say you have a law against kiddie porn because of course children can't consent to being in porn.

You then have a problem with a technology that allows people to create porn that stars video characters. Certainly a video character isn't being harmed by being in a porn, even if that porn is kiddie porn. But that of course isn't the point. The point is we don't want sick freaks making porn starring images of children claiming their first amendment rights.

So, due to the first amendment, Congress can't pass a law against kiddie porn starring video character children. They just can't. So LOGICALLY we must allow states to do so to achieve our aims, which means states are not covered by the first amendment, which SHOULD be clear to anyone who can read since the first SPECIFICALLY says "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW"

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Wrong . States should be able to outlaw selling guns to criminals, and then implement a system for sellers to ensure they don't.

The Constitution disagrees with you. And the Constitution is this nation's highest law. If you don't like it, try to get an amendment ratified to change it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Not just over individuals , but over states as well. They most certainly didn't intend for the federal government to tell states that they couldn't allow guns if that is what the majority of voters in that state wanted, as an example.

…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.”

Where, in those words, do you find that the power belongs to the state, to infringe this right of the people?

How about over the 150 years of jurisprudence that occurred before the 2nd was "incorporated" in 2010?

I ask again, are you aware that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city the COTUS was ratified in the day it was ratified?

How did that happen? Oh yeah that's right, the founders only meant to limit the federal government.

 

[M14 Shooter]

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on confusion.

-I- was not confused; YOU introduced traffic stops.

In the first, the gummit is conducting a policing activity and investigating for specific crimes. The fact that a person may be a felon doesn't necessarily mean he poses an imminent threat. He have embezzled, for example. So, the scotus says that's not ok.

As I said - you agree that the sate unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case'. This is exactly what background checks do.

In the second, the license checkpoint, the gummit is solely seeking to promote public safety to make sure everyone on the road is legally licensed. There are strict limits on sobriety checks, and there are limits on checking to see if someone's a felon. But license checks do incidentally discover DUI's. But the primary purpose of the checks is not to uncover crimes that might be occurring.

The primary purpose is to see if someone is driving illegally.... that is, to uncover a specific crime.
You may promote pubic safety by doing so, but in the end the driver is stopped for the same reason.

Background checks are not primarily intended to prosecute illegal sales.

Background checks investigate for specific crimes, including and especially the crime of illegally buying a gun as well as perjury on a 4473.

And so, there's no constitutional difference between restraining you on the street and restraining you for background check.