What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right
I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

Wrong.
There were some attempts at early rules, such as preventing Blacks from being armed, but they were struck down as being unconstitutional.
There were never any weapons regulations at all until the first that was not struck down in 1911,

{...

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
,,,}
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
You just said as long as there is a square circle.

You cannot have the right to BEAR arms IN YOUR HOME. Those concepts are not related.
why are they not related?
Because, having a weapon in your home is keeping weapons, also part of the right. However, to bear arms is a verb. It an action and is the action of carrying your weapon with you. You cannot bear arms in your own home in the same way that you cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

I can't argue with that.
Cities can do what they think is best, although I think the War on Drugs, poor police training, etc., are the cause of problems in cities, not firearms themselves.
It is mainly all federal weapons laws that I believe are totally and completely in violation of the 2nd amendment prohibition against any federal firearm laws.
That’s a fair point
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right
I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

Wrong.
There were some attempts at early rules, such as preventing Blacks from being armed, but they were struck down as being unconstitutional.
There were never any weapons regulations at all until the first that was not struck down in 1911,

{...

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
,,,}
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
You just said as long as there is a square circle.

You cannot have the right to BEAR arms IN YOUR HOME. Those concepts are not related.
why are they not related?
Because, having a weapon in your home is keeping weapons, also part of the right. However, to bear arms is a verb. It an action and is the action of carrying your weapon with you. You cannot bear arms in your own home in the same way that you cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
You can bear arms on your private property. Go do your gardening with you glock for all I care. Keep a gun behind the counter of your store. But if a city doesn’t want you carrying them in their spaces or if a business doesn’t want you bringing your guns in then they have the right to restrict that
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
673
Reaction score
628
Points
873
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

I can't argue with that.
Cities can do what they think is best, although I think the War on Drugs, poor police training, etc., are the cause of problems in cities, not firearms themselves.
It is mainly all federal weapons laws that I believe are totally and completely in violation of the 2nd amendment prohibition against any federal firearm laws.

City governments are beholdened to the Constitution just like the Feds.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right
I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

Wrong.
There were some attempts at early rules, such as preventing Blacks from being armed, but they were struck down as being unconstitutional.
There were never any weapons regulations at all until the first that was not struck down in 1911,

{...

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
,,,}
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
You just said as long as there is a square circle.

You cannot have the right to BEAR arms IN YOUR HOME. Those concepts are not related.
why are they not related?
Because, having a weapon in your home is keeping weapons, also part of the right. However, to bear arms is a verb. It an action and is the action of carrying your weapon with you. You cannot bear arms in your own home in the same way that you cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
You can bear arms on your private property. Go do your gardening with you glock for all I care. Keep a gun behind the counter of your store. But if a city doesn’t want you carrying them in their spaces or if a business doesn’t want you bringing your guns in then they have the right to restrict that
The city does, yes. The feds do not.

And, again, it does not matter what you may or may not care about. You cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

I can't argue with that.
Cities can do what they think is best, although I think the War on Drugs, poor police training, etc., are the cause of problems in cities, not firearms themselves.
It is mainly all federal weapons laws that I believe are totally and completely in violation of the 2nd amendment prohibition against any federal firearm laws.

City governments are beholdened to the Constitution just like the Feds.
Not really in our current structure.

Municipalities commonly regulate things the feds cannot.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right
I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

Wrong.
There were some attempts at early rules, such as preventing Blacks from being armed, but they were struck down as being unconstitutional.
There were never any weapons regulations at all until the first that was not struck down in 1911,

{...

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
,,,}
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
You just said as long as there is a square circle.

You cannot have the right to BEAR arms IN YOUR HOME. Those concepts are not related.
why are they not related?
Because, having a weapon in your home is keeping weapons, also part of the right. However, to bear arms is a verb. It an action and is the action of carrying your weapon with you. You cannot bear arms in your own home in the same way that you cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
You can bear arms on your private property. Go do your gardening with you glock for all I care. Keep a gun behind the counter of your store. But if a city doesn’t want you carrying them in their spaces or if a business doesn’t want you bringing your guns in then they have the right to restrict that
The city does, yes. The feds do not.

And, again, it does not matter what you may or may not care about. You cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
So how would a city gun law be constitutional in your opinion?
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival
What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right
I understand that this is your stance but that does not make it true. Since the drafting of our constitution we’ve had rules regulating guns. Your stance that any rules involved in guns is against the constitution is ludicrous and not supported by our history

Wrong.
There were some attempts at early rules, such as preventing Blacks from being armed, but they were struck down as being unconstitutional.
There were never any weapons regulations at all until the first that was not struck down in 1911,

{...

The Sullivan Act is a gun control law in New York state that took effect in 1911.[1] The NY state law required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Private possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, and carrying them in public was a felony. The act was named for its primary legislative sponsor, state senator Timothy Sullivan, a notoriously corrupt Tammany Hall Democratic politician.

For handguns, the Sullivan Act qualifies as a may issue act, meaning the local police have discretion to issue a concealed carry license, as opposed to a shall issue act, in which state authorities must give a concealed handgun license to any person who satisfies specific criteria, often a background check and a safety class.
,,,}
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.
You just said as long as there is a square circle.

You cannot have the right to BEAR arms IN YOUR HOME. Those concepts are not related.
why are they not related?
Because, having a weapon in your home is keeping weapons, also part of the right. However, to bear arms is a verb. It an action and is the action of carrying your weapon with you. You cannot bear arms in your own home in the same way that you cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
You can bear arms on your private property. Go do your gardening with you glock for all I care. Keep a gun behind the counter of your store. But if a city doesn’t want you carrying them in their spaces or if a business doesn’t want you bringing your guns in then they have the right to restrict that
The city does, yes. The feds do not.

And, again, it does not matter what you may or may not care about. You cannot go out to eat in your dinning room.
So how would a city gun law be constitutional in your opinion?
Under the current interpretation? Not sure how far it would go. My opinion on what the constitution says and how it should be interpreted, blanket bans on weapons in common use are unconstitutional but local ordinance that does not allow guns of any type in certain areas would be like courthouses. Clearly the current view of the second is not that strict and localities are able to do quite a lot. I would like to see a challenge to may issue states, those are clearly unconstitutional but the courts have refused to take that up afaik.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival
What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.
Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time
 

FA_Q2

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
19,797
Reaction score
3,665
Points
290
Location
Washington State
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival
What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.
Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time
Ill revise that then. Very few and even less of those that have any impact.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,007
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

But the federal and state governments are not the source or limits to the rights of defense.
Cities and each home also have the right and authority to organize their own militia as well.
In fact, the small and closer to individuals you get, the more right and authority one then has.
Larger levels like state and federal are weaker, delegated, and more distant expressions of individual rights and authority.
Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via due process in federal venues.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,044
Reaction score
2,056
Points
290
Location
GNO
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival
What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.
Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time
It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,529
Reaction score
1,482
Points
245
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival


From Wikipedia:


To reduce crime in Tombstone, on April 19, 1881, the city council passed ordinance 9, requiring anyone carrying a bowie knife, dirk, pistol or rifle[40][41] to deposit their weapons at a livery or saloon soon after entering town.

To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons
Section 1. It is hereby declared unlawful to carry in the hand or upon the person or otherwise any deadly weapon within the limits of said city of Tombstone, without first obtaining a permit in writing.
Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.
Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance.
— Tombstone City Ordinance Number 9 Effective April 19, 1881, [42]
The ordinance was the legal basis for City Marshal Virgil Earp's decision to confront the Cowboys on the day of the shootout.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,007
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".
Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. The unorganized militia does not and are subject to the traditional police power of their State as a result.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,529
Reaction score
1,482
Points
245
From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
 

Richard-H

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2008
Messages
6,529
Reaction score
1,482
Points
245
It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".
Well regulated militia of the whole and entire People have literal recourse to our Second Amendment. The unorganized militia does not and are subject to the traditional police power of their State as a result.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

The "Right of individual Citizens to keep and bear arms" is NOT infringed by federal gun regulations.

That right does not mean that the individual can bear ANY type of arms. It is a limited right (like all rights).

The level of arms allowed is limited to a reasonable level needed for personal security.

Any arms above that limit must only be controlled by well-regulated state militias.

Even State militias must be regulated as to the level of arms they are allowed..i.e. NO NUKES.
 

Hutch Starskey

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
24,509
Reaction score
3,721
Points
290
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
It’s called the National Guard. There are no legal militias.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,007
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
From:
The Supreme Court & the Second Amendment | Giffords

"In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia noted: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top