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

[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.

Right up until that data base was used to ban and confiscate some or all guns....as per Germany, Britain and Australia........this isn't a new tactic....it has been done before and we know it......no matter what we will resist a national data base of gun owners.....

Resist? In what manner?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Technically, it isn't an inconvenience...it is a violation of your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination in order to exercise another right......

I myself am alright with current federally mandated background checks for licensed gun dealers...I will compromise that far...but that is it....we have more than enough laws to deal with criminals.

You have no 5th amend right to prevent disclosure of any public record. If I have your name, I can get a background check on you today if I'm willing to pay with my credit card.

Stick with the thread. You're saying your rights to firearms cannot be even infringed with a national or state mandated background check?

it is the thread.....forcing someone to prove they are not a criminal before they exercise a right is Unconstitutional...even when it applies to the 2nd Amendment.......

Well, that's an honest answer. I appreciate that.

And regardless of courts saying background checks are const, I think it's at least debatable.

I just don't see the distinction of it being legal for the cops to stop everyone on a road to check to see if they have licenses and stop to check on all gun sales. The first infringes on the Fourth, the latter on the Second.

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

This is true, but why fix something that ain't broken?

Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.

 

[Rustic]

You have no 5th amend right to prevent disclosure of any public record. If I have your name, I can get a background check on you today if I'm willing to pay with my credit card.

Stick with the thread. You're saying your rights to firearms cannot be even infringed with a national or state mandated background check?

it is the thread.....forcing someone to prove they are not a criminal before they exercise a right is Unconstitutional...even when it applies to the 2nd Amendment.......

Well, that's an honest answer. I appreciate that.

And regardless of courts saying background checks are const, I think it's at least debatable.

I just don't see the distinction of it being legal for the cops to stop everyone on a road to check to see if they have licenses and stop to check on all gun sales. The first infringes on the Fourth, the latter on the Second.

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

This is true, but why fix something that ain't broken?

Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.

So called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

You need to learn the differences between Enumerated powers, Delegated powers and Implied powers! All three are incorporated within the Constitution, and from what you wrote, you don't understand the distinct differences between the three. Amendment X deals ONLY with those powers NOT DELEGATED to the national government being reserved to the States or the people.

BTW, you never responded to my post #764...I wonder why (Mona Lisa Smile).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Correct.

Articles III and VI authorize the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, the final appellate court in the Federal judiciary, to determine what the Constitution means, to invalidate measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framing Generation, who fully expected the Federal courts to continue to follow the doctrine of judicial review just as Colonial courts had done for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.

And that’s exactly what the Heller Court did: it determined the meaning the Constitution concerning the the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment right is an individual – not collective – right, that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was un-Constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.

These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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?

No, it was not illegal.

What was illegal was that city infringing a right, that the Constitution explicitly forbade from being infringed.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Correct.

Articles III and VI authorize the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court, the final appellate court in the Federal judiciary, to determine what the Constitution means, to invalidate measures repugnant to Constitutional case law, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framing Generation, who fully expected the Federal courts to continue to follow the doctrine of judicial review just as Colonial courts had done for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era.

And that’s exactly what the Heller Court did: it determined the meaning the Constitution concerning the the Second Amendment, holding that the Second Amendment right is an individual – not collective – right, that the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was un-Constitutional, and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.

These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Precisely, but the honyocks and other uninformed neo-Antifederalists populating this board who have accepted the elephant piss propaganda from the usual suspects refuse to think beyond their faction's talking points, the bloody creatures!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Precisely, but the honyocks and other uninformed neo-Antifederalists populating this board who have accepted the elephant piss propaganda from the usual suspects refuse to think beyond their faction's talking points, the bloody creatures!

Does anyone have any idea what this strange person is saying?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

No, the current and incorrect interpretation of the law disagrees with me.

That “current and incorrect interpretation of the law” directly and irreconcilably contradicts the clearly-written words thereof.

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

Those words cannot honestly be reconciled with any law other government action which infringes the right so affirmed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

You need to learn the differences between Enumerated powers, Delegated powers and Implied powers! All three are incorporated within the Constitution, and from what you wrote, you don't understand the distinct differences between the three. Amendment X deals ONLY with those powers NOT DELEGATED to the national government being reserved to the States or the people.

BTW, you never responded to my post #764...I wonder why (Mona Lisa Smile).

Also correct.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both expressed and implied (McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)).

The notion that the government’s authority is somehow ‘finite’ is as ignorant as it is untenable.

The government acts at the behest of the people, through their elected representatives, reflecting the will of the people, as the government is the creation of the people, where the people and the government they created are one in the same.

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional, as it is presumed the people have acted in good faith, and deference shown to the will of the people by the courts and government administrators (US v. Morrison (2000)).

And when the people err, and exact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief from such measures, consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

This, then, reflects the genius and wisdom of the American people: to create a Constitutional Republic, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.

It was settled in 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified.

That our corrupt government refuses to obey the law, in this case, does not mean that the law is not settled. It just means that our government is corrupt and lawless.

 

[Little-Acorn]

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them.

Umm, no.

The 2nd amendment says that since X is true, the people's right to KBA cannot be restricted or taken away by ANY govt in the U.S., Federal, state, or local governments... including California's.

and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.

Sorry, no.

The Heller court said that the issue of so-called "reasonable regulations" would simply not be addressed in this decision, so the present regulation would be allowed to stand. A later case that actually examined them could change that dramatically, of course.

These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

TRANSLATION: I hate it when you conservatives keep bringing these issues up, because we liberals can't defend our agenda on them, and we keep losing the debate on them. So I'll lie again, and claim they are "settled, accepted, and beyond dispute", and hope somebody believes me even though I can't back it up.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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, and while federal background checks would disclose at least some attempted purchases by felons, background checks are unconstitutional because they infringe on your rights ... even though you still get to buy whatever firearm you want.

Apply that to voting.......a Poll Tax does not keep you from voting...if you pay the tax....a Literacy Test does not keep you from voting...if you pass the test....democrats are very familiar with how to keep people from exercising their rights....and they are trying to do the same thing with the 2nd Amendment....

I gotta say that's a false analogy, no offense. Poll taxes were to keep the poor (blacks) from voting despite being eligible. Background don't discourage legal purchases, but they do inconvenience them

And Reagan supported the Brady bill

Background checks cost money.......universal background checks will cost more money......they are a Poll Tax on buying a Constitutionally protected Item....

 

[Wry Catcher]

it is the thread.....forcing someone to prove they are not a criminal before they exercise a right is Unconstitutional...even when it applies to the 2nd Amendment.......

Well, that's an honest answer. I appreciate that.

And regardless of courts saying background checks are const, I think it's at least debatable.

I just don't see the distinction of it being legal for the cops to stop everyone on a road to check to see if they have licenses and stop to check on all gun sales. The first infringes on the Fourth, the latter on the Second.

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

This is true, but why fix something that ain't broken?

Gun policy isn't fixed law. It is unsettled law, and one which has become a political football / wedge issue which distracts from other serious issues.

So called "gun violence" is really a nonissue in this country, more people die from falling out of bed than from mass shootings...
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

Gun violence is "death at the hands of another"! It is not suicide, accidental or of natural causes. That's obvious to anyone with a brain. So sorry Rustic, you need to join Dorothy on the Yellow Brick Road.

 

[2aguy]

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.

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, and while federal background checks would disclose at least some attempted purchases by felons, background checks are unconstitutional because they infringe on your rights ... even though you still get to buy whatever firearm you want.

Apply that to voting.......a Poll Tax does not keep you from voting...if you pay the tax....a Literacy Test does not keep you from voting...if you pass the test....democrats are very familiar with how to keep people from exercising their rights....and they are trying to do the same thing with the 2nd Amendment....

I gotta say that's a false analogy, no offense. Poll taxes were to keep the poor (blacks) from voting despite being eligible. Background don't discourage legal purchases, but they do inconvenience them

And Reagan supported the Brady bill

And the anti gunners want to make the time period for background checks to be extended....to the point they can essentially deny you a gun on the grounds they have to have more time.......

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.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

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?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

If we had universal checks original ownership would not be relevant.

It would be entirely relevant....universal background checks are for sales between individuals...if you don't know that I own gun A...and I sell it to someone...we can just say it was his in the first place...and you on't know if that is true......that is the reason you need registration for universal background checks to work....

And the only reason anti gunner leaders,want them is because 10-20 years from now they want to be able to ban or confiscate guns...just like they did in Australia and Britain...ho first registered their guns then years later implem noted the confiscation...when they had the political power to do it....

 

[2aguy]

The 1st Amendment doesn't say 'except for human sacrifice rituals'.

You can't murder people...that is violating their rights..failed again...

 

[Wry Catcher]

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them.

Umm, no.

The 2nd amendment says that since X is true, the people's right to KBA cannot be restricted or taken away by ANY govt in the U.S., Federal, state, or local governments... including California's.

and that the Second Amendment right was not ‘absolute,’ where government may place reasonable restrictions with regard to the acquisition and possession of firearms.

Sorry, no.

The Heller court said that the issue of so-called "reasonable regulations" would simply not be addressed in this decision, so the present regulation would be allowed to stand. A later case that actually examined them could change that dramatically, of course.

These facts are settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

TRANSLATION: I hate it when you conservatives keep bringing these issues up, because we liberals can't defend our agenda on them, and we keep losing the debate on them. So I'll lie again, and claim they are "settled, accepted, and beyond dispute", and hope somebody believes me even though I can't back it up.

There was no Heller Court. The Supreme Court decided Heller on a 5-4 vote and one of the five (Justice Scalia) wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendmentor state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Maybe you ought to read Heller:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[2aguy]

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.

Right up until that data base was used to ban and confiscate some or all guns....as per Germany, Britain and Australia........this isn't a new tactic....it has been done before and we know it......no matter what we will resist a national data base of gun owners.....

Resist? In what manner?

As they found out in New York and Canada...people will simply not comply with the registration...and you nuts will turn law abiding people into criminals over paperwork...since they will not have used any gun in a crime......

Which is exactly what you want...you will pound some normal gun owner with a felony conviction..ruin their life as an example to others.....and they will not have committed any crime with a gun...meanwhile..criminals do not have to register their guns.....according to Haymes v. UNited States...so gun registration will only apply to the law abiding...

Typical anti gun nonsense...

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The Heller court said that the issue of so-called "reasonable regulations" would simply not be addressed in this decision, so the present regulation would be allowed to stand. A later case that actually examined them could change that dramatically, of course.

That's dead wrong! Scalia wrote the following in D.C. v Heller immediately below:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

You falsely characterize what Scalia wrote in the first clause and ignore the remainder of that quote! What comes after that first clause and emboldened set legal precedent, and what you wish was not written in the decision to fit your wishes of what you want the law to be!

 

[Little-Acorn]

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

Exactly. Nothing in the Heller court's decision has any effect on existing regulations outside the narrow boundaries of this case. You'll have to wait for a different case for those to be examined and ruled on.

Thanks for agreeing with me!