The 2nd Amendment Wins Again

[ZZ PUPPS]

The matter of settled 2nd amendment law:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'll ask you. Do you think we should have control?

Absolutely.

You have no business picking up a gun if you can't control it.

Learn the features before loading it, especially the safety features. Sight it in, understand the range and recoil of the weapon.

A shooter must have control of the weapon.

Thanks for answering .Then the dispute is what controls .

I am not against gun ownership . I took the safety class , next step is to apply for my license .

I think you might have missed the inherent sarcasm.

Gun control is hitting what you're aiming at.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?

Can you show where registration has stopped even a single crime, ever?

 

[Uncensored2008]

The matter of settled 2nd amendment law:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.

 

[OKTexas]

[


so who here says that any felon should be able to buy a gun?

if there's that many it should be easy to find a quote

It depends on the felony.

Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.

Violent felons are a different story.

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The matter of settled 2nd amendment law:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.

It would appear so but the legal precedent has been established that states have the right to apply regulations while the fed doesn't, like Pupps stated yesterday.

4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban

 

[Uncensored2008]

[


so who here says that any felon should be able to buy a gun?

if there's that many it should be easy to find a quote

It depends on the felony.

Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.

Violent felons are a different story.

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

And that is wrong.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The matter of settled 2nd amendment law:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.

It would appear so but the legal precedent has been established that states have the right to apply regulations while the fed doesn't, like Pupps stated yesterday.

4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban

Yet Heller established that states do not have a right to infringe the 2nd. (as did the 14th Amendment.) The 4th violated both the precedent of Heller and the 14th with their openly unconstitutional ruling.

 

[ZZ PUPPS]

The matter of settled 2nd amendment law:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.

It would appear so but the legal precedent has been established that states have the right to apply regulations while the fed doesn't, like Pupps stated yesterday.

4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban

Yet Heller established that states do not have a right to infringe the 2nd. (as did the 14th Amendment.) The 4th violated both the precedent of Heller and the 14th with their openly unconstitutional ruling.

From my prior reference:
In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right.

In the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the operative clause. The Court found that analogous contemporaneous provisions in state constitutions, the Second Amendment’s drafting history, and post-ratification interpretations were consistent with its interpretation of the amendment. The Court asserted that its prior precedent was not inconsistent with its interpretation.

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The Court found that the D.C. ban on handgun possession violated the Second Amendment right because it prohibited an entire class of arms favored for the lawful purpose of self-defense in the home. It similarly found that the requirement that lawful firearms be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock made it impossible for citizens to effectively use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense, and therefore violated the Second Amendment right. The Court said it was unnecessary to address the constitutionality of the D.C. licensing requirement.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.

It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?

infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.

The problem there is requiring a license doesn't prohibit people from that right. So if challenged, that may be the grounds on which they base their case. You have to register to vote. In some states, you have to obtain a Voter-ID as well.

False equivalent, you don't have to pay to register to vote and common State issued IDs are acceptable for voting. Oh and there's no proficiency or political knowledge test to register to vote.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.

It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?

infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.

What is unconstitutional about this law?

 

[ChrisL]

The individual states CAN make laws regarding guns/gun ownership as long as those laws are not unconstitutional, like I stated previously. The problem is when the feds get involved and try to make a "rule of the land" to cover all the states (out of their jurisdiction) whether the states agree or not.

 

[OKTexas]

It depends on the felony.

Stripping civil rights from someone convicted of cheating on their taxes rubs me the wrong way.

Violent felons are a different story.

IMO a criminal is a criminal

choose to break the law lose your rights

Have you ever got a speeding ticket?

Not in 30 years besides I thought we were talking about felonies

You can lose gun rights with a misdemeanor conviction.

And that is wrong.

Don't tell me, tell your congressman.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, the beauty of it is if you don't like the laws in your state, you CAN always move to another state. Even if you are anti 2nd amendment, this is not nearly as frightening as the FEDS getting involved in state matters. States are allowed to have their own rules when it comes to these things as long as they are not unconstitutional. As far as I see it, there is nothing unconstitutional about this law, so I don't know what you leftists are whining about.

It's not a States matter, the 2nd Amendment is one of the least ambiguous clauses in the Constitution. Exactly what is hard to understand about, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."?

infringe
verb
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:

It's simple, any act to limit or undermine the right IS AN INFRINGEMENT, no government entity has that right constitutionally, federal, State or local. Rights can only be withheld as a result of due process.

What is unconstitutional about this law?

Nothing, they repealed an unconstitutional law that was on the books. They should have never needed this one in the first place.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We've had unlicensed conceal/carry in Arizona for a couple years now.....Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by. A mechanic buddy of mine told me he's surprised when he doesn't see a pistol in the glove box or under the seat when the vehicle is in his shop. So far so good...only ones getting shot are those who have it coming.

should we give Chicago, "the memo"?

Chicago???? OH Yea, that's the place with all those tough gun restrictions.

don't believe your own, right wing propaganda?

Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by.

The memo should be, more guns equals less crime.

Obviously less guns don't mean less crime. You are safer in Afghanistan than many parts of Chicago.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[danielpalos]

How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?

Because it leads to confiscation....as was done in Germany, France, Britain and Australia...it is not the governments business to know who owns a gun...

Which can't happen here because we have the 2nd . So your crazy scenario doesn't make sense .

And aren't you guys Big on nationwide FED voter ID ?!?

we have the 2nd and yet I cannot buy certain rifles or magazines in my state

Only the unorganized militia whines about it, instead of having a solution of getting well regulated.

When the federal government regulates anything it fucks over the citizens of this country.

is our military and police exempt from your otherwise, cognitive dissonance?

 

[danielpalos]

Bingo !

That's why guns should have "titles" like cars . But nooooooo the GOP doesn't want that .

Are you stupid in the head or are you continually falling down the well.
Any form of firearm registration is 100% unconstitutional… Fact

How is that a fact ? How does registration stop a right to bear?

Really? Registration is the first step on the road to confiscation

Do you have to register to exercise any other Constitutionally protected right?

No.

Simply mustering into well regulated militia, secures your rights, literally.

I am a militia of one charged with the protection of my wife and property

Dear, there can be, no Militia of One. That means we lost. Only paid regulars can afford, paid advertisement.

 

[danielpalos]

We've had unlicensed conceal/carry in Arizona for a couple years now.....Very little "road rage" any more other than by drunks because everybody has a little something close-by. A mechanic buddy of mine told me he's surprised when he doesn't see a pistol in the glove box or under the seat when the vehicle is in his shop. So far so good...only ones getting shot are those who have it coming.

should we give Chicago, "the memo"?

still don't know the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal huh?

still trying to claim that more guns equals less crime?

The red areas are where firearms outnumber the people many, many times over… Less violent crime in those areas. Because people kill people not firearms. Fact

You claim that; but low population density is what red states red areas use for cover; unlike high population blue states and blue areas.

Does, more guns equal less crime, ceteris paribus?

 

[danielpalos]

The matter of settled 2nd amendment law:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Sanctuary cities are all that is standing between gun lovers and federal supremacy.

 

[danielpalos]

The matter of settled 2nd amendment law:

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

Yes, but the 4th circuit utterly and completely ignored the settled law and precedent.

It would appear so but the legal precedent has been established that states have the right to apply regulations while the fed doesn't, like Pupps stated yesterday.

4th Circuit Upholds Maryland's 'Assault Weapon' Ban

Yet Heller established that states do not have a right to infringe the 2nd. (as did the 14th Amendment.) The 4th violated both the precedent of Heller and the 14th with their openly unconstitutional ruling.

The State legislature has the authority to regulate the unorganized militia.