"Assault" Weapons

[progressive hunter]

Can't be.
Written law is always full of generalizations and mistakes that judges have to account for, over ride the wording, devine intent, etc.
If wording was the source of law, then no law could ever be struck down, no rebellion would ever be right, protest would always be wrong, etc.
Why did we fight a Civil War over slavery?
It is because there are abstractions first, and written words are always imperfect and always have to be reformed into reflecting those abstract ideals more perfectly.
If written law was supreme, then no protest, rebellion, reform or anything to make things better could be possible.
Then we would have stayed with the old monarchy.

thanks for another opinion but I live in the real world,,

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

The second amendment is absolute because it does not say what manner anyone can keep or carry weapons.
What is says is that there shall be no federal infringement (meaning no federal legislation), on firearms, in any way.
Sure there can be gun laws, but just not federal.
Nor did it ever make any sense to ever make any federal gun laws.
It is not something states are unable to legislate themselves.
Similarly the federal war on drugs is also illegal.
It is not authorized in the constitution, is not necessary, and infringes upon what is traditionally up to states to decide.
And any unnecessary federal law violates individual rights because individuals have less input and recourse to federal abuse.

 

[Rigby5]

You are wrong.

There are no more ‘militias.’

That a dozen or so private citizens call themselves a ‘militia’ doesn’t make it so – and it certainly doesn’t entitle them to fully automatic weapons.

Wrong.
Militias are not something created by government, but are to fight against all threats to rights, from criminals to corrupt bureaucrats alike.
If anyone can have fully automatic weapons, then anyone must be able to.
We are supposed to have an egalitarian society.
And frankly, it is government having these weapons that results in the most murder and crime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which is what people owned; hunting rifles.

A distinction without a difference.

The evolution of firearms over the last 200 years has resulted in a variety of classes of weapons which government can lawfully regulate consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

AHH but the 2nd A isnt about guns but about arms for the purpose of a secure state ,, so your hate for guns is a moot point

No, the Second Amendment is about the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service or the notion of ‘securing’ a free state.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

if that were true it would say that,, SCOTUS be damned,,

Dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second amendment is absolute because it does not say what manner anyone can keep or carry weapons.
What is says is that there shall be no federal infringement (meaning no federal legislation), on firearms, in any way.
Sure there can be gun laws, but just not federal.
Nor did it ever make any sense to ever make any federal gun laws.
It is not something states are unable to legislate themselves.
Similarly the federal war on drugs is also illegal.
It is not authorized in the constitution, is not necessary, and infringes upon what is traditionally up to states to decide.
And any unnecessary federal law violates individual rights because individuals have less input and recourse to federal abuse.

You can help the other ignoramus dig up Scalia and argue with him about it.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, the Second Amendment is about the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service or the notion of ‘securing’ a free state.

you forgot to add a link to that,, I am sure its just an oversight on your part,,,

now on the otherhand here is the law that says its about military reasons,,

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.

 

[Rigby5]

A distinction without a difference.

The evolution of firearms over the last 200 years has resulted in a variety of classes of weapons which government can lawfully regulate consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Not the federal government, because it is totally banned from any infringement.

 

[progressive hunter]

Not the federal government, because it is totally banned from any infringement.

the states are also banned from any infringement,,,

 

[Rigby5]

No, the Second Amendment is about the individual right to possess firearms pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service or the notion of ‘securing’ a free state.

Don't get your point.
If the second amendment is about the individual right to possess firearms, regardless of anything else, then all federal firearm laws are illegal.
The Korean grocers in the LA riots showed very clearly why self-defense these days require military style firearms.
Katrina and other events also show this to be true.
And it is likely to become more true with time, not less.

 

[Rigby5]

the states are also banned from any infringement,,,

How would the 2nd amendment enticed states to sign on if the intent of the 2nd amendment was to restrict state jurisdiction over firearms?

 

[justinacolmena]

Your average farmer in 1791 didn't own "weapons of war", they owned hunting rifles. Why? Because they hunted for food to feed their families. Why would anyone doubt or dispute this?

Hell. Were we hunting deer or enemy soldiers with it? What's the difference? Why do people have to be so illiterate with so much jackass stupidity and Delilah-like eye-stabbing prison lust when it comes to guns?

 

[progressive hunter]

How would the 2nd amendment enticed states to sign on if the intent of the 2nd amendment was to restrict state jurisdiction over firearms?

then show me where the states have that authority,,,

all you give is opinions and never show proof,, why is that??

 

[justinacolmena]

No, feds do not have any database and are restricted from doing do.
All background check info comes from state or local.

There's some U.S. Code or CFR claimed to authorize that in spite of the Constitution, but yes, the NICS "system" is almost entirely state-to-state town-hall local county government managed, not federal.

Just like state-to-state "reciprocity" for gun permits and concealed pistol licenses issued outside federal government control.

 

[Rigby5]

then show me where the states have that authority,,,

all you give is opinions and never show proof,, why is that??

The 9th and 10th amendments say that states and municipal authority, and individuals rights, do not have to be specifically granted by any written law, just federal authority has to be explicitly granted by written law in the federal constitution.

Surely you are not suggesting that no government has any ability to pass any firearms laws?
Like for instance, not selling guns to minors?

 

[progressive hunter]

The 9th and 10th amendments say that states and municipal authority, and individuals rights, do not have to be specifically granted by any written law, just federal authority has to be explicitly granted by written law in the federal constitution.

Surely you are not suggesting that no government has any ability to pass any firearms laws?
Like for instance, not selling guns to minors?

if thats what it says you would have pointed to a specific place it says that like I did where it says "THE PEOPLE" as does the 2nd A says "THE PEOPLE",,,

again just your opinion without proof,,

 

[justinacolmena]

then show me where the states have that authority,,,

all you give is opinions and never show proof,, why is that??

That's who arrests you (state and local police) on the gun charges. Then they refer prosecution to federal court and cite "FBI" on the "charging documents" they bring, but no Special Agents are actually involved in those gun bust arrests or called to testify in those cases.

 

[progressive hunter]

That's who arrests you (state and local police) on the gun charges. Then they refer prosecution to federal court and cite "FBI" on the "charging documents" they bring, but no Special Agents are actually involved in those gun bust arrests or called to testify in those cases.

sorry,, I should have said LEGAL authority,,,

and that is power not authority,,

 

[justinacolmena]

Surely you are not suggesting that no government has any ability to pass any firearms laws?

The Second Amendment does enumerate a particular right that "shall not be infringed." Period. No exceptions.