Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[martybegan]

Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. You have heard of the amendment process, right?

the amendment process changes the constitution, therefore it's not about interpretation at that point.

And absolute is a strong term. What should be the standard is any right is only limited for an overwhelming government interest, and even then only the minimal actions needed should be taken to meet that interest.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Can you take a bazooka into a bank?

A bank is private property. Try again.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. You have heard of the amendment process, right?

Is private property absolute?

 

[Mac1958]

View attachment 597129

Interesting that your mind would go directly there.

Trump voter?

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Just stop it . . .

There are hundreds of thousands of full-auto NFA arms in the hands of private citizens.

I cited precisely the 1986 law that closed the NFA-34 registration of newly manufactured NFA arms. That effectively froze the nation's available census of NFA arms (and juiced the value of those guns --real "assault rifles"-- into the many tens of thousands of dollars.

You can go to Gunbroker right now and buy a full auto "machine gun":

Screengrab taken seconds ago . . .

View attachment 597113

IT AIN'T A BAN!!!!!!!

Google Big Sandy Shoot or Knob Creek . . . All private citizens shooting machine guns up to anti-aircraft guns and Vulcan mini-guns . . .

Again, just stop saying crap when you don't know what you are talking about!

In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens. This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).

Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun?

With the right licensing, it is perfectly legal to own a full-auto machine gun! We show you, step by step, how to get the right licensing.

rocketffl.com

 

[Abatis]

I believe he said it was the"unfettered individual right" to weapons like machine guns and Saturday night specials that he didn't agree with. Most states allowed hunting weapons, rifles, shotguns and handguns.

Sigh . . .

Burger didn't say "unfettered individual right", that was the characterization of the author of the Politico commentary you linked to, the anti-gun hack Michael Waldman.

Here is the segment of the 12/16/1991 PBS interview when Burger discusses the 2nd Amendment:

"MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Some scholars have argued that the Bill of Rights is still flawed, that some of its provisions need reconsidering, that it's over rated. How do you respond to that?​

​

JUSTICE BURGER: That is as with anything in this life, it could be better here or there.​

​

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Like where, for example?​

​

JUSTICE BURGER: Well, that's a harder one to answer. If I were writing the Bill of Rights now there wouldn't be any such thing as the Second Amendment.​

​

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Which says.​

​

JUSTICE BURGER: That says a well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, people's rights to bear arms. This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word "fraud," on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. Now just look at those words. There are only three lines to that amendment. A well regulated militia -- if the militia, which was going to be the state army, was going to be well regulated, why shouldn't 16 and 17 and 18 or any other age persons be regulated in the use of arms the way an automobile is regulated? It's got to be registered, that you can't just deal with it at will. Someone asked me recently if I was for or against a bill that was pending in Congress calling for five days' waiting period. And I said, yes, I'm very much against it, it should be thirty days' waiting period so they find out why this person needs a handgun or a machine gun.​

​

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the opinion polls, finally, that suggest that the Bill of Rights would not be popularly supported if it were up for ratification today?​

​

JUSTICE BURGER: I don't believe that at all. I don't believe that at all. In fact, I think it's a little bit ridiculous. Any poll can be manipulated by how the question is asked and if you ask some active member of the NRA if the Second Amendment should be changed, of course, he or she would go up in the air.​

​

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: That's the National Rifle Association.​

​

JUSTICE BURGER: Yes. I don't want to get sued for slander, but I repeat that they have misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see -- and I am a gun man. I have guns. I've been a hunter ever since I was a boy.​

​

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you think the poll suggesting that the public wouldn't support a Bill of Rights is just wrong?​

​

JUSTICE BURGER: It might not be exactly the same as this one. It might have some more things in than are here. It might just, bail provisions right now to provide that if a person comes into court charged with one crime and he is now on bail from a previous crime for which he has not yet been tried that he shouldn't be released, that's a debate that's going on right now. There might be some stricter provisions about bail. But I'm not even sure of that. When we have the hysteria that we have right now, with six, eight, ten people being killed over a weekend in a small area like Washington, people get a little bit emotional. I don't think we ever want to change the Constitution or any part of it based on some immediate emotional appeal and that's why that's, of course, where the Supreme Court and all the other judges come in. And the judges will see to it that emotion doesn't dominate these things.​

​

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, Mr. Chief Justice, thank you for being with us."​

​

Holy Christ what gall . . . First, there shouldn't be a 2ndA but since we have it, let's not bother the people and actually amending the Constitution, let's allow judges to act for emotional reasons (but without emotion) to change the Constitution.

His meandering constitutionally incoherent musings show he knows the 2nd Amendment expressly forbids what he wants to do and that the structure of the Constitution frustrates the leftist, authoritarian usurpation he would arbitrarily force, to violate the fundamental rights of citizens.

I would be happy knowing Burger and Stevens are holding hands, roasting in Hell.

.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Mac1958

What's so funny? You didn't know a bank is private property?...lol

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens. This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).

Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun?

With the right licensing, it is perfectly legal to own a full-auto machine gun! We show you, step by step, how to get the right licensing.

rocketffl.com

Someone with a class 7 FFL can build, own and possess a new automatic weapon.

Anyone can own and possess an automatic weapon with a tax stamp (the tax stamp is unconstitutional).

 

[Abatis]

For fun and the amusement of the class, let's recap:

NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.

Does it? NFA-34 required registration and a tax paid for transfer.

You could argue the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did, by utilizing Title II of the GCA-68 and closing the registration window for NFA / Title II arms . . .

You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.

I cited precisely the 1986 law that closed the NFA-34 registration of newly manufactured NFA arms. That effectively froze the nation's available census of NFA arms (and juiced the value of those guns --real "assault rifles"-- into the many tens of thousands of dollars.

In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens. This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).

Did you think bolding the text would make what you wrote sound original or authoritative or especially compelling or that it corrected or refuted anything I wrote?

It would seem you finally convinced and corrected yourself, so I guess some "welcome to the party" congratulations can be sent your way.

Not by me; I think you are an obstinate blowhard who sometimes, after a few stumbles, trips over the truth . . . Problem is you will pick yourself up, dust yourself off and go right back to spewing wrong BS like nothing happened.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Someone with a class 7 FFL can build, own and possess a new automatic weapon.

Anyone can own and possess an automatic weapon with a tax stamp (the tax stamp is unconstitutional).

Yes, like those Hollywood companies that rent firearms to movies.

 

[2aguy]

NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.

That's clearly against the Second Amendment.

They banned black Americans from owning

They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Let me fix that for you...

They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment....

It should actually read......

The democrat party, the party created by slave owners, banned black slaves and later black Americans from owning guns from the days of slavery into jim crow in a clear violation of the Second Amendment...

 

[2aguy]

A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

www.brennancenter.org

Not a conservative if that was his view on the 2nd Amendment......

And wrong....till 2008 it was accepted that Americans could own, and carry guns for self defense, it wasn't until fascists like you began your moves to ban more and more guns that it had to be taken to court as you tried your best to take guns away from people.......

Heller was not the first time, it was resolved in most states long before morons like you made your moves to ban and confiscate guns...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.

And was an example of the US Curcuit court invalidating a law based in the 2nd Amendment
Thus, it disproves your claim that no such ruling existed before DC v Heller.

Your criticisms of Heller have no basis in reality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In 1986 federal legislation, called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens. This meant that only machine guns made prior to this date in 1986 were lawful to be possessed by citizens (this is still true).

Who Can Own a Full-Auto Machine Gun?

With the right licensing, it is perfectly legal to own a full-auto machine gun! We show you, step by step, how to get the right licensing.

rocketffl.com

That's not exactly correct.
Only machineguns -registered- prior to the date were transferrable to civilians.
Obviously, this includes any guns manufactured after that date, but it also applies to that old Sten gun your grandfather brougnt home from the war and hid in his attic.

 

[Abatis]

What I posted was what Chief Justice Warren Burger said about it and how the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008. Before that, gun regulations and laws by the States were not overturned by the SC.

Can you comprehend that the Supreme Court can recognize the individual right to arms without overturning the challenged law?

One of the biggest problems with 2nd Amendment case law is that in the majority of the cases the Court has heard before Heller, the citizen claiming the 2nd Amendment's protection were felons or otherwise barred from owning a gun.

For instance, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the petitioner was a felon and he was challenging his conviction as a felon in possession. The case was granted because Lewis' conviction was uncounseled, no lawyer appeared for him so it was technically a bad conviction. So the question for the Court was, is any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm?

SCOTUS upheld the prohibition, but the case clearly endorses the right of a citizen to acquire and possess and use guns -- up to the moment he is convicted of a crime for which the dispossession is enforced.

For instruction, the Court quoted the Senator who wrote the section of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that established the gun prohibition for crimes punishable of over a year in prison.

The Court said (internal citations removed):

"Senator Long, who introduced and directed the passage of Title VII, repeatedly stressed conviction, not a "valid" conviction, and not a conviction not subject to constitutional challenge, as the criterion. For example, the Senator observed:​

​

"So, under Title VII, every citizen could possess a gun until the commission of his first felony. Upon his conviction, however, Title VII would deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and had been expressedly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm."​

​

Inasmuch as Senator Long was the sponsor and floor manager of the bill, his statements are entitled to weight."​

​

It's clear if you read the case there are no other demands on "every citizen" for the Court to recognize the citizen's right to keep and bear arms but to not become a felon.

The Court goes through all the mechanisms Lewis had to relieve the gun dispossession before he armed himself in violation of the law, such as appeal his bad conviction and be granted a pardon.

It is worthy of noting that never does the Court say Mr Lewis would then need to present himself at the local National Guard Recruiting Office and enlist, to have his 2nd Amendment rights restored.

Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.

The lower (DC Circuit) case that was appealed by DC to the Supreme Court as DC v Heller was Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007).

DC lost Parker, the DC statutes were declared unconstitutional in Parker by the DC Court of Appeals. SCOTUS heard DC's appeal (refiled with Dick Heller as named party) and upheld the lower court's decision, invalidating DC's handgun ban and storage law.

A big hint when looking at federal cases is the first name is the party that lost previously, and is appealing the lower decision to a higher Court.

So, Parker lost at the District court, appealed to the Circuit court and won and then DC appealed to SCOTUS . . . (Against the wishes of every Democrat)

 

[woodwork201]

True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.

Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..


Have you guys caught on yet or do you want to continue to show your ignorance?

Does the Second Amendment say that you have the right to shoot your gun? Of course not. Keeping and bearing are not shooting. No one said they're one in the same or that the right to keep and bear includes the right to kill.

Talk about showing your ignorance. Geez.

 

[woodwork201]

You need to learn how to read bro. I said that certain people shouldn't be allowed to have weapons and background checks should be performed, as it's not the weapon that's the issue it's the person using it. Just like a car wouldn't kill somebody unless there was a person behind the wheel controlling it.

Thanks for the clarification. At first, I thought you were implying Joe Biden is wrong (which he is). Now I see that you agree with him.

 

[woodwork201]

Thanks to the Constitution they have a right to deny firearms to felons and they can also use a conviction to make you a slave.

Where is that in the Constitution? Mine doesn't say that.

 

[woodwork201]

The article never made that claim. U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008.

According to the 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.”9 Prior to the Heller decision, there was little disagreement among the courts about this language's meaning. In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.

Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: The US Supreme Court's Recent Second Amendment Decisions - PMC

In 2 recent cases—with important implications for public health practitioners, courts, and researchers—the US Supreme Court changed the landscape for judging the constitutionality of firearm laws under the Constitution's Second Amendment. In ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But appellate courts aren't the final arbiter, are they?

 

[woodwork201]

Nothing in the Constitution is absolute. You have heard of the amendment process, right?

Everything in the Constitution is absolute. If you amend the Constitution to take something out, it's no longer in the Constitution.