The 2ndA does NOT say "except by due process of law" or "except for felons". Why not?

[Little-Acorn]

Why was the 2nd is written without qualifications? It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." It does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a felon or other type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example: 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.

So what does the cop do? Cracks him over the head with a billy club and takes his gun away anyway.

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 legally 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 the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 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. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

I never said the cops shouldn't take the murderer's gun away. The murderer said that, with bodies still bleeding around him. Whereupon the cop whacked him over the head with a billy club and took it from him anyway.

And later when the murderer brought charges against the cop for violating his 2nd amendment rights, the jury let the cop walk. The cop had no more worries since double jepoardy isn't allowed. And the murderer went to the chair as he deserved. And that's exactly how the system should work.

And when some govt official tried to take the gun of a law-abiding citizen, the jury did NOT let the govt official walk, but threw him into jail with all those nice criminals, where they could discuss obeying the Constitution, and the advantages of jury nullification, all they wanted. And, again, that's exactly how the system should work. And was designed to work, in fact, by those founders the leftist fanatics keep desperately denigrating and insulting.

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute... because of the many horrifying examples that happen when it isn't. And imperfect as we are, the closer we come to making it that way, the safer and more prosperous (and, BTW, the freer) our society will be.

 

[Little-Acorn]

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

Could that be the reason why the 2nd amendment was carefully written with NO exceptions whatsoever?

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

If only we could. It will never happen.

 

[g5000]

The Second Amendment acknowledges your liberty to own a gun. The Founders, in their wisdom, provided for the ability of the government to restrict your liberty via due process of law in the Fifth Amendment.

NEXT!

 

[rightwinger]

Me and everyone in my well regulated militia need our guns to fight off invaders

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Founders, in their wisdom, provided for the ability of the government to restrict your liberty via due process of law in the Fifth Amendment.

That applies, obviously, to only the rights named in that statement within the 5th ("be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), and not at all to the command that the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons shall not be infringed.

Or were you about to try to pretend the 5th amendment says that the government CAN compel a person to testify against himself, merely by its making a law saying so?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The Second Amendment acknowledges your liberty to own a gun. The Founders, in their wisdom, provided for the ability of the government to restrict your liberty via due process of law in the Fifth Amendment.

NEXT!

Dang - he worked so hard to cut and paste that rant.

Dispatched so quickly.

Life is cruel.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Founders, in their wisdom, provided for the ability of the government to restrict your liberty via due process of law in the Fifth Amendment.

That applies, obviously, to only the rights named in that statement within the 5th ("be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), and not at all to the command that the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons shall not be infringed.

Or were you about to try to pretend the 5th amendment says that the government CAN compel a person to testify against himself, merely by its making a law saying so?

Dang - he worked so hard to cut and paste that rant.

Dispatched so quickly.

Life is cruel.

Truth is cruel, especially to people unfamiliar with it.

Hopefully he'll be a little more familiar, next time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, the right guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, IS absolute...

No, it is not.

You really need to stop exhibiting your ignorance like this, and instead research the issue to address your ignorance.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

And as with all other rights, the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute and are subject to reasonable restrictions by the state:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

When the state seeks to restrict citizens’ rights, it must do so in accordance with this case law, the restriction must be rationally based, it must be supported by objective, documented evidence, and it must pursue a proper legislative end – prohibiting felons from possessing firearms meets these criteria.

And when a given jurisdiction enacts a measure the people perceive as to violate the Second Amendment right, they may challenge that restriction in Federal court and compel that jurisdiction to defend its action in a court of law, and in accordance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Founders, in their wisdom, provided for the ability of the government to restrict your liberty via due process of law in the Fifth Amendment.

That applies, obviously, to only the rights named in that statement within the 5th ("be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), and not at all to the command that the people's right to own and carry guns and other such weapons shall not be infringed.

Or were you about to try to pretend the 5th amendment says that the government CAN compel a person to testify against himself, merely by its making a law saying so?

You still don’t understand.

Laws are subject to judicial review to indeed determine their constitutionality, where a ‘law’ compelling criminal defendants to self-incriminate is prima facie un-Constitutional, and where laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are not.

 

[The Rabbi]

There are no absolute rights. It is simply ignorant to speak of such things. You would think voting would be an absolute right. But it is subject to restrictions like all the others.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You still don’t understand.

Laws are subject to judicial review to indeed determine their constitutionality, where a ‘law’ compelling criminal defendants to self-incriminate is prima facie un-Constitutional, and where laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are not.

TRANSLATION: "I can ignore some clear Constitutional bans, while not ignoring others, all I want. And if you don't like it, it's your fault."

 

[The Rabbi]

You still don’t understand.

Laws are subject to judicial review to indeed determine their constitutionality, where a ‘law’ compelling criminal defendants to self-incriminate is prima facie un-Constitutional, and where laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are not.

TRANSLATION: "I can ignore some clear Constitutional bans, while not ignoring others, all I want. And if you don't like it, it's your fault."

No, that's not a translation of what he wrote. Wake up.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

Could that be the reason why the 2nd amendment was carefully written with NO exceptions whatsoever?

Its certainly true that there is a large minority who want terrorists, criminals, illegals, mental cases have the same rights to own guns as the rest of us.

We just need to continue to fight that minority.

IMO.

 

[Little-Acorn]

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

Could that be the reason why the 2nd amendment was carefully written with NO exceptions whatsoever?

Its certainly true that there is a large minority who want terrorists, criminals, illegals, mental cases have the same rights to own guns as the rest of us.

TRANSLATION: "I'm going to ignore what you wrote, even though I'm quoting it, and tell a lie to reiterate a point you have just debunked, and hope nobody notices."

 

[Navy1960]

See the Heller Decision as mentioned as well as the 5th and 14th amendment. It's pretty clear that the right to own a gun is " not absolute" . In fact the rights of a convicted felon are not technically taken away , they are put into a class of person(s) that are limited or denied by state, federal or local law.

Example.
Though many circuits have already rejected Second Amendment claims brought by felons prosecuted and sentenced under the federal felon-in-possession criminal statute, the Eleventh Circuit's opinions today in US v. Rozier, No. 08-17061 (11th Cir. Mar. 4, 2010) (available here), has the broadest language in any of these rulings that I can recall. Here are snippets:
One of the major thrusts of the [Heller] Court’s ruling was “the inherent right of self-defense ... central to the Second Amendment right.” Id.at 2817. Rozier argues that his case parallels the facts in Heller, in that his possession of a handgun was in the home and for the purposes of self-defense. For the purposes of this appeal, we accept Rozier’s assertion that he possessed the handgun for self-defense; however, the motive behind Rozier’s possession of the handgun is irrelevant. We find 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) to be constitutional, even if a felon possesses a firearm purely for self-defense....
Prior to taking into account Rozier’s purpose for possessing the handgun, we must determine whether he is qualified to possess a handgun. Rozier’s Second Amendment right to bear arms is not weighed in the same manner as that of a law-abiding citizen, such as the appellant in Heller. While felons do not forfeit their constitutional rights upon being convicted, their status as felons substantially affects the level of protection those rights are accorded...

Thus, statutory restrictions of firearm possession, such as § 922(g)(1), are a constitutional avenue to restrict the Second Amendment right of certain classes of people. Rozier, by virtue of his felony conviction, falls within such a class. Therefore, the fact that Rozier may have possessed the handgun for purposes of self-defense (in his home), is irrelevant.

Sentencing Law and Policy: Eleventh Circuit rejects Second Amendment right of felon to possess a gun for any purpose

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You still don’t understand.

Laws are subject to judicial review to indeed determine their constitutionality, where a ‘law’ compelling criminal defendants to self-incriminate is prima facie un-Constitutional, and where laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms are not.

TRANSLATION: "I can ignore some clear Constitutional bans, while not ignoring others, all I want. And if you don't like it, it's your fault."

This doesn’t make any sense.

It is the responsibility of the people to challenge laws they believe to be un-Constitutional pursuant to their First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances in Federal court.

The courts decide, in the context of Constitutional case law, what measures are valid and what measures are offensive to the Founding Document.

No one is seeking to “ignore some clear Constitutional bans.”

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the same reason the 1st Amendment doesn't say 'except for child pornography' or 'except for human sacrifice'.

The reason: It's assumed (perhaps wrongly) that normal people are intelligent enough not to think otherwise.

 

[bendog]

My own guess is, the Framers intended for the principle of Jury Nullification to apply here. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull with his billy club, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Maybe yes. But is there a judge or jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

And yet 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 nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

Could that be the reason why the 2nd amendment was carefully written with NO exceptions whatsoever?

It was not written without exception.

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[buckeye45_73]

Me and everyone in my well regulated militia need our guns to fight off invaders

I was sure you were bringing them to scott walker or the supreme court after citizens united