'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[9thIDdoc]

The government is itself governed by the Constitution. Should it abrogate the Constitution it would no longer hold power legally and it would be treason to do other than oppose it and replace it with a legal one.

Well, since that is not happening it really is a moot point.

No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental. Always has been. It is subject to reasonable regulation the same as any other. But no more than resonable. I expect that actual bans on most types of small arms will be tough to prove as "reasonable".

 

[PratchettFan]

The government is itself governed by the Constitution. Should it abrogate the Constitution it would no longer hold power legally and it would be treason to do other than oppose it and replace it with a legal one.

Well, since that is not happening it really is a moot point.

No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.

Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia.... No, it doesn't.

 

[PratchettFan]

The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental. Always has been. It is subject to reasonable regulation the same as any other. But no more than resonable. I expect that actual bans on most types of small arms will be tough to prove as "reasonable".

"Reasonable" is determined by the courts. So far, the courts have not been particularly enthusiastic about restricting this in any but the most extreme situations. So, I think such bans will not prove all that tough.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The right to keep and bear arms is individual and fundamental. Always has been. It is subject to reasonable regulation the same as any other. But no more than resonable. I expect that actual bans on most types of small arms will be tough to prove as "reasonable".

"Reasonable" is determined by the courts. So far, the courts have not been particularly enthusiastic about restricting this in any but the most extreme situations. So, I think such bans will not prove all that tough.

Reasonable

I'll take what is, shall not be in fringed Alex for 1000.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here's a free lesson, well regulated in the time of the founders, referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

Here's a free lesson for you, well regulated is already defined in the Constitution and you are not even close.

The only place the phrase well regulated appears in the entire Constitution of the United States of America is in the 2nd Amendment. I am 100% positive those 27 words do not define well regulated, so I would love to know which part of the Constitution you have access to that no one else has ever seen.

Impossible, he has the liberal version

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course they can be banned without violating the Constitution. They are being banned without violating the Constitution. This really seems to be a difficult concept to understand. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is not to allow you to own whatever weapon you please. It is to support a well regulated militia. Well regulated. Militias are regulated either by the state or the federal government. You cannot have a well regulated militia without the power to regulate. Since the organization of a militia falls under the state, in accordance with article I of the Constitution, that is the primary job of the state.

You are confusing the 21st century word well regulate, government control
With the 18th century word well regulate to be as expected in working order
Please try and keep up.

You are engaged in wishful thinking, so I won't expect you to keep up.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, either you won't read the Constitution or you did and didn't like what you read. No worries. In this country you are free to be as wrong as you like. But I will do you a favor, just in case it is simple laziness...

Article I (Legislative Powers) Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Article I Section 10

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.


Now seriously, what part of controlled by the federal government are you not getting?

Militia are not troops when not called up. They are MILITIA. Further the Federal Government can not call up all of a States militia. But that part they do call up they have to pay and arm. Leaving them to be trained by the States and officer-ed by the States. A militia not called to duty is not standing troops, that would be WHY every State before the Civil war and after had several militias.

You are aware that the National Guard units were State militias in being before being designated National Guard? You are aware that several States have independent militias separate from the National Guard? That the 2nd Amendment confers a right to the States and to the Individual?

Further the Constitution does not say the Federal Government controls all militia. It clearly states it only controls those elements called to duty by the Federal Government, since the 1880's early 1890's that has been the National Guard.

I agree. As a militia which has not been called up, the states have the right to regulate them. A militia consists of the entire citizenry of a specific age and sex. So the states have the right to determine how that citizenry is to be armed or - in reality - not armed.

However, a state cannot call up the militia without the permission of the Congress and Congress can, in fact, take the entire militia if it so pleases. There is nothing in Article 1 which limits the Congress in this regard. For practical purposes, they would not. Since the state can only call up troops with Congressional permission (barring invasion or insurrection) the militia is under federal control.

What you are arguing is basically like saying that since a platoon is under the command of a Lt., is does not fall under the command of the general.

What you are arguing is basically like saying that since a platoon is under the command of a Lt., is does not fall under the command of the general.

No he isn't, you're not even close.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Well, since that is not happening it really is a moot point.

No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.

Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia.... No, it doesn't.

Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind. However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.

According to whom?

According to the Supreme Court. From the much quoted Heller decision:

"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. "

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it speaks to the purpose of a militia.

Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia.... No, it doesn't.

Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.

I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority. However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.

 

[PratchettFan]

According to whom?

According to the Supreme Court. From the much quoted Heller decision:

"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. "

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?

Can't help you there. I guess you will just have to ask the states that do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Since no interpretation of the Consitution could possibly lead to the conclusion that is the purpose of a militia.... No, it doesn't.

Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.

I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority. However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.

To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

According to the Supreme Court. From the much quoted Heller decision:

"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. "

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?

Can't help you there. I guess you will just have to ask the states that do.

In other words they can't?

 

[PratchettFan]

Militias were overturning-or attempting to-governments for long before there was a US Constitution which exists in great part becase of militia involvement. I think my opinion is held by the majority.

I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority. However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.

To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.

By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own. I believe I will stick with the supreme court. They agree with me. You can stick with "those who have knowledge on the subject."

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to the Supreme Court. From the much quoted Heller decision:

"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. "

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?

Can't help you there.

So... you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
Fair enough.

I shall then ask again:

Originally Posted by PratchettFan
That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind. However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.

According to whom?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority. However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.

To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.

By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own. I believe I will stick with the supreme court. They agree with me.

Not that you have neen able to show.

 

[PratchettFan]

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?

Can't help you there.

So... you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
Fair enough.

I shall then ask again:

Originally Posted by PratchettFan
That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind. However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.

According to whom?

According to the Supreme Court. When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.

 

[signelect]

The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.

Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?

It doesn't make any difference as long as he obey the law. The kid in China killed 9 people with a knife, it doesn't make any difference what kind of knife. You are just as dead regardless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Can't help you there.

So... you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
Fair enough.

I shall then ask again:

Originally Posted by PratchettFan
That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind. However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.

According to whom?

According to the Supreme Court.

When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.

What you really mean to say here is that you cannot explain how the paragraph you cited supports your statement because you know that it doesn't.

Disagree? Provide your explanation.

Else, you're just copping out.