Admitting drug use = no guns?

[M14 Shooter]

If you have a restraining order against you you lose your rights to firearms as well. There is no due process there as well. That is the Lautenburg Amendment.

Yes. Someone petitions a court with cause, and the court (possibly) issues a temporary restriction of your rights. That's exceptionally different than the idea presented here.

But it appears that he is simply fixing on a method of enforcing what is already law

Except for the due process clause.
if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, then you can be jailed in this manner.

That's called the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" for a reason.

Except that in both cases you're talking about the same thing - depriving someone of a liberty. If the suggestion in question is sufficient due process to deprive someone of -a-liberty, then it is sufficient to deprive them of -any- liberty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sorry -- your response doesn't address what I said.
The prohibition against criminals, etc, buying guns isn't a form of prior restraint, the background check on someone to see if they are a criminal, etc, is.
Please try again.

Well then "prior restraint" must currently use a very broad stroke, since an employer can now deny employment based on a background check not just for criminal activity but for credit history. Why should the private sector get a pass on "prior restraint" and only the government be bound by the Constitutional restrictions?

IF (and its a big if) prior restraint is applied to all constitutional rights then gun ownership would fall under its protection. A job, however is a contract between two parties, and since it is a contract would not fall under consitutional protection, but legislative protection.

This bring the interesting case of IF (again big IF) you can use prior restraint to prevent background checks being required what would prevent the government making a gun SELLER liable criminally for selling a weapon to a restricted party?

If they -knowingly- do so, they are already criminally liable -- it is illegal to sell a gun to someone you know cannot legally buy one.

If the seller then did his own check prior to the sale to protect his own ass would that fall under the whole prior restraint line of logic?

Prior restraint is a restriction placed on the exercise of a right by the state.
If a gun store wants to conduct a chsck on its own, it is not prior restraint.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. Someone petitions a court with cause, and the court (possibly) issues a temporary restriction of your rights. That's exceptionally different than the idea presented here.


Except for the due process clause.
if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, then you can be jailed in this manner.

That's called the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" for a reason.

Except that in both cases you're talking about the same thing - depriving someone of a liberty. If the suggestion in question is sufficient due process to deprive someone of -a-liberty, then it is sufficient to deprive them of -any- liberty.

Ownership of a firearm is not a "liberty." It is a right. That is different. It is also not an unrestricted right, as all of them are. This was clear from Heller.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That's called the "Slippery Slope Fallacy" for a reason.

Except that in both cases you're talking about the same thing - depriving someone of a liberty. If the suggestion in question is sufficient due process to deprive someone of -a-liberty, then it is sufficient to deprive them of -any- liberty.

Ownership of a firearm is not a "liberty." It is a right. That is different.

In the context of the 5th amendment, all rights are liberties (though not all liberties are rights). You cannot be be deprived of you right to life, liberty or property w/o due process And so, If the suggestion in question is sufficient due process to deprive someone of -a-liberty, then it is sufficient to deprive them of -any- liberty.

It is also not an unrestricted right, as all of them are. This was clear from Heller.

You are correct, and no one claims otherwise. HOWever, as a constitutionally protected fundamental, individual right, there is a very narrow defintion of what 'restrictions' to the right to arms are allowed by the Constution -- that is, to pass muster, it must pass strict scrutiny. To get a good idea of these allowable restrictions, see the jurisprudence surroundng the 1st amendment.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supreme Court did not declare whether the 2A imposed a "fundamental" right that would demand strict scrutiny. You are simply making that up.

And the idea that depriving someone of firearms rights is the same as jailing them does not pass the laugh test.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court did not declare whether the 2A imposed a "fundamental" right that would demand strict scrutiny. You are simply making that up.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
See: Opinion, Section III, p19-31

And the idea that depriving someone of firearms rights is the same as jailing them does not pass the laugh test.

I see that you cannot actually counter what I said.
Rights are rights - if (x) is sufficent due process to deprive you of one, it is sufficient to deprive you of any.
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

 

[The Rabbi]

The Supreme Court did not declare whether the 2A imposed a "fundamental" right that would demand strict scrutiny. You are simply making that up.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
See: Opinion, Section III, p19-31

And the idea that depriving someone of firearms rights is the same as jailing them does not pass the laugh test.

I see that you cannot actually counter what I said.
Rights are rights - if (x) is sufficent due process to deprive you of one, it is sufficient to deprive you of any.
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

Please cite where the Supreme court, or any court, has said that the 2A confers a "fundamental" right requiring strict scrutiny. There is no such thing.

You are using the slippery slope fallacy. There is no relationship between a disability to own a firearm and liberty. None.

 

[MaggieMae]

If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people...

Guns don't kill, it's really the bullets...

You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand...

Did I leave any out?

I can understand all the reasons normal people would want to own a gun: Hunting, protection, Constitutional right. But what is the purpose of semi-automatics that can rattle off a dozen rounds other than to kill or maim a whole bunch of people?

 

[MaggieMae]

To me a instant background check does not constitute any infringement as seen by court decsions.

Show how it is -not- prior restraint.
Show how prior restraint passes strict scrutiny.

What is it called when the State Police pull you over and the first thing they do is ask for your license and registration, take it back to their vehicle and run a check even if you've done nothing wrong? Why do they have a "right" to prior restraint?

 

[MaggieMae]

So would this mean people on medical weed would lose their right to guns?

Either way it's a bad law. It's very possible to be a drug addict and only use your gun sober. Also it's possible to quit using drugs.

Decisions, decisions. Should I quit using drugs or buy a gun and shoot my wife?

 

[MaggieMae]

Would you submit to the above tests to get a driver's licsence?

I would. Why not? If, as the mantra goes, you've got nothing to hide, you won't have a problem.

One must wonder if you think the same thing about tapping your cell phone.

Wonder no more. I couldn't care less if someone wants to listen in on what would be very boring conversations for them.

 

[MaggieMae]

So you wouldn't mind infringing on the Second Amendment? Having to take a drug test and a mental health evaluation puts an undue burden on someone's right to bear arms. Not going to happen.

Once again, I'm sure the framers of the Constitution hadn't the slightest idea that the extremely broad language of the Second Amendment would be creating a monster to be dealt with in the modern world.

How are you sure of that? There's absolutely nothing to support this.
The Framers intended the 2nd to protect the weapons necessary for the militia to remain effective - why do you suppose the framers held the belief that the progression of firearms technology would negate this principle?

Operative word.

 

[MaggieMae]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb.

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

If you have a restraining order against you you lose your rights to firearms as well. There is no due process there as well. That is the Lautenburg Amendment.
I didnt see the details so can't comment on it. But it appears that he is simply fixing on a method of enforcing what is already law.

I can't believe I'm agreeing with you for once. At least on this particular issue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please cite where the Supreme court, or any court, has said that the 2A confers a "fundamental" right requiring strict scrutiny. There is no such thing.

Allow me to repeat myself:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
See: Opinion, Section III, p19-31. Pretty plain language.

Strict Scrutiny:

A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.

The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny. Strict Scrutiny synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

So....
-The right to arms, is, according to the court, a fundamental right, and is protected by the Constitution.
-Strict Scrutiny is applied to fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
-Thus, strict scrutiny is applied to acts/policies that affect the right to arms.
:shrug:

And.. AGAIN....
I see that you cannot actually --counter-- what I said.
Rights are rights - if (x) is sufficent due process to deprive you of one, it is sufficient to deprive you of any.
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

You are using the slippery slope fallacy.

You already said this and I already negated it.

There is no relationship between a disability to own a firearm and liberty. None.

Except, of course, that owning a firearm is a fundamental right, and as such, very clearly a liberty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can understand all the reasons normal people would want to own a gun: Hunting, protection, Constitutional right. But what is the purpose of semi-automatics that can rattle off a dozen rounds other than to kill or maim a whole bunch of people?

Um...
The 2nd Amendment, rather than hunting or recreation, is all about people being able to kill people, especually those that might be shooting back. "Semi-automatics that can rattle off a dozen rounds" are, therefore, just the sort of weapons the 2nd was intended to protect.
:shrug:

 

[M14 Shooter]

To me a instant background check does not constitute any infringement as seen by court decsions.

Show how it is -not- prior restraint.
Show how prior restraint passes strict scrutiny.

What is it called when the State Police pull you over and the first thing they do is ask for your license and registration, take it back to their vehicle and run a check even if you've done nothing wrong? Why do they have a "right" to prior restraint?

You apparently do not understand the nature of prior restraint.

You are pulled over because the police officer has cause to pull you over -- in fact, it is unconstitutional for a police officer to pull you over without cause.
That, alone, describes the difference, as prior restraint is a restriction placed on you w/o cause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once again, I'm sure the framers of the Constitution hadn't the slightest idea that the extremely broad language of the Second Amendment would be creating a monster to be dealt with in the modern world.

How are you sure of that? There's absolutely nothing to support this.
The Framers intended the 2nd to protect the weapons necessary for the militia to remain effective - why do you suppose the framers held the belief that the progression of firearms technology would negate this principle?

Operative word.

Not in any meaningful way, given that the right to these weapons is posessed by the individual, regardless of his relationship to any militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Calling this "prior restraint" is simply dumb.

The prior restraint argument revolves around the background check.

The primary issue wiith Schumer's poposal is the lack of due process - if you can lose your right to arms in this manner, you can be just as eaisly jailed.

If you have a restraining order against you you lose your rights to firearms as well. There is no due process there as well. '

I missed the bolded text before, but my original response covered it.
There IS Due Process w/ a TRO -- someone with cause petitions the court and the court, sometimes, isses a temporary restriction on the rights on the person in question. Thus, due process, to a sufficient degree given the temporary restriction of the right.

Schumer proposes a permanent disability w/o any due process.

 

[The Rabbi]

Please cite where the Supreme court, or any court, has said that the 2A confers a "fundamental" right requiring strict scrutiny. There is no such thing.

Allow me to repeat myself:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
See: Opinion, Section III, p19-31. Pretty plain language.

Strict Scrutiny:

A standard of Judicial Review for a challenged policy in which the court presumes the policy to be invalid unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest to justify the policy.

The strict scrutiny standard of judicial review is based on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Federal courts use strict scrutiny to determine whether certain types of government policies are constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court has applied this standard to laws or policies that impinge on a right explicitly protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as the right to vote. The Court has also identified certain rights that it deems to be fundamental rights, even though they are not enumerated in the Constitution.

Strict Scrutiny legal definition of Strict Scrutiny. Strict Scrutiny synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

So....
-The right to arms, is, according to the court, a fundamental right, and is protected by the Constitution.
-Strict Scrutiny is applied to fundamental rights protected by the Constitution.
-Thus, strict scrutiny is applied to acts/policies that affect the right to arms.
:shrug:

And.. AGAIN....
I see that you cannot actually --counter-- what I said.
Rights are rights - if (x) is sufficent due process to deprive you of one, it is sufficient to deprive you of any.
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?

You are using the slippery slope fallacy.

You already said this and I already negated it.

There is no relationship between a disability to own a firearm and liberty. None.

Except, of course, that owning a firearm is a fundamental right, and as such, very clearly a liberty.

OK. SO you see the words "fundamental" and "rights" and assume the Supreme COurt held what you think they held.
THey did not.
THey did not extend to 2A protection the same protections as 1A or voting rights as "fundamental" in the technical sense.
The opinion itself backs this up:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill," "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." Id., at ___-___ (slip op., at 54-55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating
firearms.

McDonald did not change the basic framework of the law, that legislatures may pass laws that restrict ownership of firearms in some way or other.

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK. SO you see the words "fundamental" and "rights" and assume the Supreme COurt held what you think they held.
THey did not.

Sure they did. Read what they wrote.
They spent 12 pages supporting the argument that the right to arms is a fundamental right.

THey did not extend to 2A protection the same protections as 1A or voting rights as "fundamental" in the technical sense.
The opinion itself backs this up:

No, it doesn't.
Everythnig you quoted applies to -all- rights - that no right is unlumited, that all rights have restrctions, especially those on time, place and manner, and tthat not everyone posses that right. These words apply to the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to an abortion, the right to travel - they apply to -all- fundamental rights. That they noted that the right to arms is not unlimited in no way supports the idea that it is not entitled to the same protections as al other constitutionally-protected fundamental rights as ALL rights are similarly limited.

Further, from Heller:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional

Please note specifically the restrctions that were rejected under ANY standard of scrutiny:
- Banning a class of weapons in common use for legal purposes
- A restriction that renders a weapon useless (with as little as a trigger lock) for the purpose of self-defense
Any similar restriction would then, unquestionably, also be struck.

More, from Heller:

Justice Breyer correctly notes that this law, like almost all laws, would pass rational-basis scrutiny. Post, at 8. But rational-basis scrutiny is a mode of analysis we have used when evaluating laws under constitutional commands that are themselves prohibitions on irrational laws. See, e.g., Engquist v. Oregon Dept. of Agriculture, 553 U. S. ___, ___ (2008) (slip op., at 9–10). In those cases, “rational basis” is not just the standard of scrutiny, but the very substance of the constitutional guarantee. Obviously, the same test could not be used to evaluate the extent to which a legislature may regulate a specific, enumerated right, be it the freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, the right to counsel, or the right to keep and bear arms. See United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U. S. 144 , n. 4 (1938) (“There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality [i.e., narrower than that provided by rational-basis review] when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution, such as those of the first ten amendments…&#8221. If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect

This throws rational basis out the widnow, and puts the right to arms on the same level as freedom of speech, the guarantee against double jeopardy, and the right to counsel.

So... there's no support here (or anywhere) for the argument that the 2nd is not a fundamental right, and that it is not entitled to the protection of strict scrutiny.

McDonald did not change the basic framework of the law, that legislatures may pass laws that restrict ownership of firearms in some way or other.

No one questions that ANY right can be restrcited - the question is, to what degree can laws constitutionally restrict the right in question. This is determimed by the relevant standard of scrutiny; fundamental rights protected by the Constitution enjoy the protection of strict scrutiny.

And.. AGAIN....
I see that you cannot actually --counter-- what I said.
Rights are rights - if (x) is sufficent due process to deprive you of one, it is sufficient to deprive you of any.
If telling a federal official that you commited a felony is sufficient due process to forever remove your right to arms, why then is it NOT sufficient to put you in jail and/or forever remove yor right to vote?