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"

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
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)

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.
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.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
67,006
Reaction score
3,667
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
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.
Well regulated militias are a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

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.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,396
Points
2,250
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

No, actually, they don't. They didn't have the Right to segregate public spaces by race....they don't have the Right to keep people from carrying their legal weapons....Constitutionally protected weapons, from those public spaces...
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,396
Points
2,250
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.”


And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.


Caetano v Massachusetts...



Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,396
Points
2,250
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.


You really don't know your history, do you?

And how well did those laws on guns work in Tombstone?

As Tombstone shows....gun laws only work on the law abiding.....the Earps found this out the hard way...

You know......there was a famous gun fight in that gun free town, do you understand that? And Doc Holiday just ignored the law and carried whatever he wanted....knowing he was friends with the Earps......

And in that gun free town, one Earp was shot to death, another Earp was shot and maimed for life.....it that gun free town.....

Within six months of the first gunfight, Morgan Earp was assassinated and Virgil Earp was badly wounded. Wyatt presumed the Clantons and McLaurys were behind the attacks.

.


And how effective was the rule on not carrying guns in Tombstone? Do you know?

According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons and drew their pistols instead.
-----


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapo
n[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------


Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges

h
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

Now, knowing what I just posted....tell us again how effective gun control was in the town of Tombstone.......please...
 

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.”


And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.



Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.


Caetano v Massachusetts...



Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.




If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

Entire volumes could be written in response to your post. You should limit your posts to the primary focus of your argument.

However, the logic that just because millions of Americans own AR-15's and are not engaging in mass murder, is absolutely wrong.

That's like saying that because millions of Americans have been or are addicted to heroin and haven't died from overdoses means that heroin should be legal.

AR-15s have been banned before, and that ban was not found to be unconstitutional. They can be banned again.
 

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.


You really don't know your history, do you?

And how well did those laws on guns work in Tombstone?

As Tombstone shows....gun laws only work on the law abiding.....the Earps found this out the hard way...

You know......there was a famous gun fight in that gun free town, do you understand that? And Doc Holiday just ignored the law and carried whatever he wanted....knowing he was friends with the Earps......

And in that gun free town, one Earp was shot to death, another Earp was shot and maimed for life.....it that gun free town.....

Within six months of the first gunfight, Morgan Earp was assassinated and Virgil Earp was badly wounded. Wyatt presumed the Clantons and McLaurys were behind the attacks.

.


And how effective was the rule on not carrying guns in Tombstone? Do you know?

According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons and drew their pistols instead.
-----


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapo
n[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------


Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges

h
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

Now, knowing what I just posted....tell us again how effective gun control was in the town of Tombstone.......please...

Effective enough to give legal justification for a Federal Marshall & his deputies to kill those that violated it.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,396
Points
2,250
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.”


And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.



Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.


Caetano v Massachusetts...



Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.




If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis

Entire volumes could be written in response to your post. You should limit your posts to the primary focus of your argument.

However, the logic that just because millions of Americans own AR-15's and are not engaging in mass murder, is absolutely wrong.

That's like saying that because millions of Americans have been or are addicted to heroin and haven't died from overdoses means that heroin should be legal.

AR-15s have been banned before, and that ban was not found to be unconstitutional. They can be banned again.


No...they can't....they are protected rifles, and the weapon ban was unConstitutional.

Separate but equal was also declared Constitutional by democrat party Supreme Court Justices....

Interning Japanese Americans was also Constitutionl...

Care to argue that they were, in fact, Constitutional decisions by the Court?

5, unelected, politically appointed lawyers are not gods......they do not hand down judgements that are beyond question...
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,396
Points
2,250
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.


You really don't know your history, do you?

And how well did those laws on guns work in Tombstone?

As Tombstone shows....gun laws only work on the law abiding.....the Earps found this out the hard way...

You know......there was a famous gun fight in that gun free town, do you understand that? And Doc Holiday just ignored the law and carried whatever he wanted....knowing he was friends with the Earps......

And in that gun free town, one Earp was shot to death, another Earp was shot and maimed for life.....it that gun free town.....

Within six months of the first gunfight, Morgan Earp was assassinated and Virgil Earp was badly wounded. Wyatt presumed the Clantons and McLaurys were behind the attacks.

.


And how effective was the rule on not carrying guns in Tombstone? Do you know?

According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons and drew their pistols instead.
-----


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapo
n[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------


Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges

h
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

Now, knowing what I just posted....tell us again how effective gun control was in the town of Tombstone.......please...

Effective enough to give legal justification for a Federal Marshall & his deputies to kill those that violated it.


Did those laws stop the criminals from carrying guns in the town?
 

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.


You really don't know your history, do you?

And how well did those laws on guns work in Tombstone?

As Tombstone shows....gun laws only work on the law abiding.....the Earps found this out the hard way...

You know......there was a famous gun fight in that gun free town, do you understand that? And Doc Holiday just ignored the law and carried whatever he wanted....knowing he was friends with the Earps......

And in that gun free town, one Earp was shot to death, another Earp was shot and maimed for life.....it that gun free town.....

Within six months of the first gunfight, Morgan Earp was assassinated and Virgil Earp was badly wounded. Wyatt presumed the Clantons and McLaurys were behind the attacks.

.


And how effective was the rule on not carrying guns in Tombstone? Do you know?

According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons and drew their pistols instead.
-----


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapo
n[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------


Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges

h
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

Now, knowing what I just posted....tell us again how effective gun control was in the town of Tombstone.......please...

Effective enough to give legal justification for a Federal Marshall & his deputies to kill those that violated it.


Did those laws stop the criminals from carrying guns in the town?

They certainly stopped the Clantons.
 

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
It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".
You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority
 

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


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.
Great post Huckleberry!
 

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

No, actually, they don't. They didn't have the Right to segregate public spaces by race....they don't have the Right to keep people from carrying their legal weapons....Constitutionally protected weapons, from those public spaces...
They have been doing it since the days of the Wild Wild West haven't they?
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
87,774
Reaction score
27,396
Points
2,250
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.


You really don't know your history, do you?

And how well did those laws on guns work in Tombstone?

As Tombstone shows....gun laws only work on the law abiding.....the Earps found this out the hard way...

You know......there was a famous gun fight in that gun free town, do you understand that? And Doc Holiday just ignored the law and carried whatever he wanted....knowing he was friends with the Earps......

And in that gun free town, one Earp was shot to death, another Earp was shot and maimed for life.....it that gun free town.....

Within six months of the first gunfight, Morgan Earp was assassinated and Virgil Earp was badly wounded. Wyatt presumed the Clantons and McLaurys were behind the attacks.

.


And how effective was the rule on not carrying guns in Tombstone? Do you know?

According to the Earps' version of events, the fight was in self-defense because the Cowboys, armed in violation of local ordinance, defied a lawful order to hand over their weapons and drew their pistols instead.
-----


Gunfight at the O.K. Corral - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of many people who ignored Tombstone gun control....and he was a good guy....

Joyce ordered Holliday removed from the saloon but would not return Holliday's revolver. But Holliday returned carrying a double-action revolver. Milt brandished a pistol and threatened Holliday, but Holliday shot Joyce in the palm, disarming him, and then shot Joyce's business partner William Parker in the big toe

-----

Boyle later testified he noticed Ike was armed and covered his gun for him. Boyle later said that Ike told him, "'As soon as the Earps and Doc Holliday showed themselves on the street, the ball would open—that they would have to fight'...

------

Later in the morning, Ike picked up his rifle and revolver from the West End Corral, where he had deposited his weapons and stabled his wagon and team after entering town. By noon that day, Ike was still drinking and once-again armed in violation of the city ordinance against carrying firearms in the city.

--------

Tom McLaury's concealed weapo
n[edit]

Outside the court house where Ike was being fined, Wyatt almost walked into 28 year-old Tom McLaury as the two men were brought up short nose-to-nose. Tom, who had arrived in town the day before, was required by the well-known city ordinance to deposit his pistol when he first arrived in town. When Wyatt demanded, "Are you heeled or not?", McLaury said he was not armed. Wyatt testified that he saw arevolver in plain sight on the right hip of Tom's pants

----------

Billy and Frank stopped first at the Grand Hotel on Allen Street, and were greeted by Doc Holliday. They learned immediately after of their brothers' beatings by the Earps within the previous two hours. The incidents had generated a lot of talk in town. Angrily, Frank said he would not drink, and he and Billy left the saloon immediately to seek Tom.

By law, both Frank and Billy should have left their firearms at the Grand Hotel. Instead, they remained fully armed.[2]:49[57]:190

--------


Virgil testified afterward that he thought he saw all four men, Ike Clanton, Billy Clanton, Frank McLaury, and Tom McLaury, buying cartridges.[79] Wyatt said that he saw Billy Clanton and Frank McLaury in Spangenberger's gun and hardware store on 4th Street filling theirgun belts with cartridges

h
ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral

Now, knowing what I just posted....tell us again how effective gun control was in the town of Tombstone.......please...

Effective enough to give legal justification for a Federal Marshall & his deputies to kill those that violated it.


Did those laws stop the criminals from carrying guns in the town?

They certainly stopped the Clantons.


No, it didn't....they took their guns and walked in town.......the law did not stop the Clantons, or, for that matter, Doc Holiday from carrying guns......
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
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.”


And you guys always cite that tiny portion of Heller in order to say it lets you ban or confiscate anything you want......what you fail to point out, is the rest of what Scalia wrote in Heller, and what he also wrote in his dissent on the court refusing to hear Friedman v Highland park....then we can point out what Alito wrote in the ruling on Caetano v Massachusetts

Heller...the parts you guys never quote....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001),



the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.



Friedman v Highland Park..

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.



Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.”

Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.


Caetano v Massachusetts...



Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.


Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.




If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis
So in one section Scalia is recognizing that regulations are constitutional. Your counter to that is against those who make the argument that only 18th century weapons are to be protected. That’s a disingenuous argument. Do you accept what Richie posted from Scalia that guns can be regulated to a degree? We can argue about what that degree is later.
 

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.

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".
You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?
 

bendog

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
37,676
Reaction score
5,679
Points
1,140
Location
Dog House in back yard
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.
You may want to read what Heller has to say about the militia clause and viability today
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
65,113
Reaction score
13,793
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
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".
You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?
 

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
It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".
You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?
A pepperoni and pineapple pizza would be nice
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,903
Reaction score
6,851
Points
1,840
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".
You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority

The system is regulated. Murder is illegal. What more do you want?

What Creep is saying is if you can talk but government decides what you can say, your right to free speech isn't infringed since you can still talk. Or say government decides Islam is illegal, Creep is saying your right to worship freely is not infringed since you can still worship.

See how that works?
If your speech or religion crosses a line to endanger the public then it has a right to be regulated
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$350.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List