Amendment II, US Constitution

[dpr112yme]

"...In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government."

I cannot believe this. Bearing arms is not dependent on the Constitution or the Constitution is not dependent on this amendment?

So, basically, Federal Government can outlaw guns?

 

[dpr112yme]

or is gun selling part of the capital market?

 

[dpr112yme]

I know Federal Government can legalize certain things, but can they also il-legalize things, as well?

They did legalize marijuana, right?

 

[dpr112yme]

if Federal Government legalized marijuana, then the next common sense thing to do is to illegalize guns...

 

[dpr112yme]

if Federal Government legalized marijuana, then the next common sense thing to do is to illegalize guns...

not every gun-toting person likes pot smokingstoners, and not every pot smoking stoner likes gun toting persons.

 

[dpr112yme]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is Heller/McDonald.

In Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

In McDonald the Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

Like all rights the Second Amendment right is fundamental and inalienable – it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on the right to possess firearms.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving – during the coming years and decades the Supreme Court will determine what weapons are considered ‘in common use’ and entitled to Constitutional protections, and what weapons are considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

"...In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government."

I cannot believe this. Bearing arms is not dependent on the Constitution or the Constitution is not dependent on this amendment?

No, it is a pre-existing right.

The BOR grants nothing, but merely restricts the government from interfering with what already exists.

 

[Crick]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is Heller/McDonald.

In Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

In McDonald the Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

Like all rights the Second Amendment right is fundamental and inalienable – it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on the right to possess firearms.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving – during the coming years and decades the Supreme Court will determine what weapons are considered ‘in common use’ and entitled to Constitutional protections, and what weapons are considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Nothing is the Constitution is "inalienable" since the Constitution itself spells out a procedure by which ANY of its text may be altered.

 

[williepete]

The constitution doesn't grant rights. It restricts government from infringing on natural rights. Another failing of left wing indoctrination centers.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is Heller/McDonald.

In Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

In McDonald the Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

Like all rights the Second Amendment right is fundamental and inalienable – it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on the right to possess firearms.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving – during the coming years and decades the Supreme Court will determine what weapons are considered ‘in common use’ and entitled to Constitutional protections, and what weapons are considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Nothing is the Constitution is "inalienable" since the Constitution itself spells out a procedure by which ANY of its text may be altered.

Incorrect.

The Constitution acknowledges citizens’ inalienable rights; its jurisprudence places limits on government with regard to the regulation of those rights.

With regard to the Second Amendment, government may prohibit possession of specific types of firearms, but may not comprehensively ban the possession of all firearms.

 

[jwoodie]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is Heller/McDonald.

In Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

In McDonald the Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

Like all rights the Second Amendment right is fundamental and inalienable – it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on the right to possess firearms.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving – during the coming years and decades the Supreme Court will determine what weapons are considered ‘in common use’ and entitled to Constitutional protections, and what weapons are considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Nothing is the Constitution is "inalienable" since the Constitution itself spells out a procedure by which ANY of its text may be altered.

Incorrect.

The Constitution acknowledges citizens’ inalienable rights; its jurisprudence places limits on government with regard to the regulation of those rights.

With regard to the Second Amendment, government may prohibit possession of specific types of firearms, but may not comprehensively ban the possession of all firearms.

Incorrect.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the Federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms.

However, since the Federal government does have jurisdiction over Military affairs, it has the authority to regulate private ownership of military equipment.

 

[emilynghiem]

Current Second Amendment jurisprudence is Heller/McDonald.

In Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment recognizes and protects an individual right to possess firearms pursuant to the right to self-defense.

In McDonald the Court incorporated the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

Like all rights the Second Amendment right is fundamental and inalienable – it can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute,’ government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on the right to possess firearms.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, currently evolving – during the coming years and decades the Supreme Court will determine what weapons are considered ‘in common use’ and entitled to Constitutional protections, and what weapons are considered ‘dangerous and unusual’ and not entitled to Constitutional protections.

Nothing is the Constitution is "inalienable" since the Constitution itself spells out a procedure by which ANY of its text may be altered.

Incorrect.

The Constitution acknowledges citizens’ inalienable rights; its jurisprudence places limits on government with regard to the regulation of those rights.

With regard to the Second Amendment, government may prohibit possession of specific types of firearms, but may not comprehensively ban the possession of all firearms.

Incorrect.

The U.S. Constitution prohibits the Federal government from infringing on the right to bear arms.

However, since the Federal government does have jurisdiction over Military affairs, it has the authority to regulate private ownership of military equipment.

Dear jwoodie
Isn't there already an interpretation that the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms applies to "law abiding responsible citizens"

So the real issue is how to police or regulate
who is and who is not a law abiding citizen.

The dissension and conflicts is over laws that don't distinguish and pinpoint just the people with criminally illness or intent,
but overreach to affect the law abiding citizens who haven't committed a crime or gone through due process before losing liberties (ie a violation of other Constitutional rights weighed equally).

Can we agree that the real issue is how to regulate just the criminal dangerous or legally incompetent/irresponsible people WITHOUT infringing on rights of law abiding citizens who haven't committed crimes and have no intent of doing so.

(NOTE: I find the best way to screen out who is and who isn't a law abiding citizen, and people who are criminally ill or abusive, is to work district by district with police and local schools to educate and train all residents in each district on the same Constitutional laws, process and procedures that police and military use for training and screening. This helps both the law abiding citizens to work with teachers and police to identity who is and who isn't a risk or threat to the public, and it helps those with mental, criminal or social disorders to get help in advance, at first sign of abuse, addiction or conflicts that could otherwise lead to civil or criminal violations. Communities that have taken this approach, to working cooperatively with police and public, have reduced their rates of crime and complaints of profiling etc. So the benefits cover a broader scope in solving multiple problems.)

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, basically, Federal Government can outlaw guns?

No.
Fast forward to 2008.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[M14 Shooter]

With regard to the Second Amendment, government may prohibit possession of specific types of firearm...

Nothing in current jurisprudence supports this.