Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

[froggy]

The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.

“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.

“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

Could, but it's not a good idea and could be contested.

They should do it on a real emergency, like Russian influence in politics, a couple billion to investigate.

It all boils down to showing how stupid the Democrats are going to be so everyone should just vote Republican

 

[Clementine]

The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.

“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.

“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

She is proving yet again that the left either doesn't know or doesn't care about our constitution.

We have laws regarding immigration. The president's duty is to protect America. When the laws are ignored and we have millions here illegally, it is time to take action and uphold the laws. The drug runners and human traffickers currently own the border. That is bad news for us as well as innocent people trying to get here. We have an obligation to take control of our borders. Border patrol is overwhelmed and cannot do the job. The left does not want us to secure the border and prefers to allow the criminals to run things. It means votes for them, no sovereignty, and furthers their leftist radical agenda.

As far as Pelosi's comments, they cannot declare an emergency to fight against our 2nd amendment rights. Gun owners are not breaking laws by owning guns. They can declare an emergency if criminals continue to take over our streets but they cannot start taking guns from law abiding citizens. They cannot interfere with our rights.

Border and national security is a duty. Going after guns because of an agenda is treason.

 

[jc456]

The national emergency is 20 million are in our country. When we had troops in Europe, how many were there?

 

[Lakhota]

More gun violence today. Speaker Pelosi is correct. Gun violence is a real national emergency - not like Trump's manufactured fake crisis at the border.

 

[xyz]

More gun violence today. Speaker Pelosi is correct. Gun violence is a real national emergency - not like Trump's manufactured fake crisis at the border.

Yeah, but I don't think you need 8 billion bucks to strengthen background checks.

 

[Lakhota]

Dems Look To Declare National Emergency Over Climate Change, Not A ‘Fake Crisis’

Well, that would certainly make more sense than Trump's phony crisis at the border.

 

[BULLDOG]

A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

 

[BULLDOG]

What a goofy remark. I have guns myself. If you think I don't want anyone to have guns, you're nuts. Only a goofy gun nut thinks reasonable restrictions aren't a good thing, Idiot.

1. If you are not a gun-grabbing socialist nut job, God bless you. You are in the MINORITY in the new Leftist-Hijacked Socialist Democrat Party (if you are a Democrat).

2. We have reasonable restrictions, and yes many of them are not working....and a large part of that problem is the lack of enforcement of those laws. Another part of that is going to remain a constant FACT - Bad People / Criminals will always be able to get guns and will always do bad things with them. Disarming law-abiding citizens will NOT stop that. It will just make it easier to commit their crimes.

3. There are a LOT of things that need to be addressed before putting more restrictions on weapons....like addressing our cultural addiction to gun violence... I am talking about all the violent movies, video games, etc... Hollywood clowns who often make their living starring in extremely violent movies then speaking out against gun violence are just hypocritical assholes I ignore.

The disintegration of the family unit, replacement of parents by the govt, schools, tv, video games, etc - what happened to sitting down at the table together, doing things together, getting to know your child, being the primary influence in their lives, teaching them, raising them, INVESTING in who your child becomes / is? I scratch my head and wonder when in cases like one of the school shooters home was searched and weapons, ammo, even bomb-making material were found just laying around in the basement and the parents said 'I had no idea......' REALLY? WTF?!

Honestly I've lived around the world where those same violent video games and tv shows exist and they don't have gun violence like the US. I've seen Iraq and Afghanistan where those games and shows are rare and gun violence is very high. Trying to point a finger and say gun owners are "fragile minded people that can be swayed by watching a tv show to commit murder" is not a belief I share.

Normal gun owners probably aren't adversely affected, but gun nuts aren't stable to start with.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A presidential claim of national emergency can bypass all of that.

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Dems Look To Declare National Emergency Over Climate Change, Not A ‘Fake Crisis’

Well, that would certainly make more sense than Trump's phony crisis at the border.

No, because the crisis at the border is real.....not made up.

 

[BULLDOG]

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.

Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.

 

[toomuchtime_]

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

You appear to have no idea what powers the President has under a national emergency. Nancy is just trying to save face with her looney remarks about what a future Democratic president, if there ever is one, might do. Obama declared 13 national emergencies and claimed to be in favor of more gun control, so if it were possible to impose gun control by means of a declaration of national emergency, why didn't Obama do it? Clearly, Nancy thinks you are too stupid to think this through.

Obama didn't do that because you don't claim national emergencies for partisan purposes.

In other words, you think Nancy is full of shit.

 

[BULLDOG]

A president can declare a national emergency for tort actions?

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

Not really, because the issue would be whether claiming a national emergency for partisan purposes was valid, not magazine capacity. If Trump is allowed to get away with it this time, that precedent will be set..

 

[toomuchtime_]

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

Not really, because the issue would be whether claiming a national emergency for partisan purposes was valid, not magazine capacity. If Trump is allowed to get away with it this time, that precedent will be set..

Don't let Nancy make a fool of yourself. The Democrats' opposition to the border fence is purely for partisan reasons, but since the Democrats supported spending billions of dollars to build hundreds of miles of border fence in 2013 in Chuck Schumer's bill, S. 744, and continued to support it right up until President Trump embraced the idea, building the border fence is hardly a partisan, only the present opposition to it is partisan.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Oh, declaring a national emergency and taking funds to set up universal background checks wouldn't be unconstitutional. And arguably making illegal magazines with a certain capacity would not be unconstitutional.

Yes it would, as any restrictions on a person to be free in the country as long as they dont break the law, is unconstitutional. So lets say Blinkie Pelosi enacts a law that all 30 round magazines are now illegal, does that mean that all 200 million gun owners are now breaking the law? Do you think the democrats have the balls to try to enforce the law and bring all 200 million US citizens to justice, while they cant even bring an illegal border crosser to jail?

You were asking a theoretical but now try to change the goal posts.

Of course the gummit has the power to declare it illegal to own something that once was legal to own .... gold bullion. But the gummit has to pay for the gold bullion.

So if the 200 million people do not sell their 30 round magazines, would the Dimwitocraps have the balls to go up against all that firepower?

You are now asking what is likely rather than what is legally possible.

Obama might well have done what we did with the "assault weapons ban" and made it illegal to sell new magazines of a certain capacity. But that is really irrelevant to the. Again having lost the argument, you attempt to move the goal posts.

Sorry dumbfuck, you libs always claim victory even when you lose, that is sociopathic of you.
In New Jersey right now there are millions of people who are now criminals because of the new law there.

New Jersey Declares War On Its Residents: Plans Door-To-Door Gun Confiscation Campaign

This wildly unconstitutional law instantly criminalizes hundreds of thousands of New Jersey citizens who legally acquired normal capacity firearms magazines - which include 17-round pistol magazines and 30-round rifle magazines - as tools of self-defense against the very same violent criminals that are protected by the Democrats who passed the gun magazine ban.

Now for my apology..

I am truly sorry that God didnt give you enough brain matter to compete against me. Next time will only try to use 1/8 of my brain to converse with you, just to make it fair..



Man walks into a brain surgeons office. He notices two jars, each with a human brain in it. The first brain looks old and has many wrinkles in it. The other brain looks like it si brand new. He asks the doctor how he came upon such a new brain. The doctor replied, it isnt really new, came out of a 75 year old liberal, it just never has been used..

Well, if it says so in ZeroHedge, it MUST be true!

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats will do anything to keep the borders open. Their cartel masters won't like it if Americans protect the country.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

Yes, but, sadly, all of those laws on firearm types of restrictions are technically unconstitutional as well. The words "shall not be infringed" apply here.

One of the things the left like to do is take things to the extreme and say "well, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, or rockets, or nukes?". My answer to that is, when the framers were writing the 2nd, it's clear by the text of the amendment, and by supporting documents (federalist papers), they were referring guns, muskets being what they had at the time. The 2nd amendment was written In 1791, the first automatic weapon wasn't made until 1892.

Actually many have been challenged in court and proven Constitutional time and again, so your statement is in fact incorrect and untrue according to US law. You can not carry your pistol onto a domestic flight on your person even though the Constitution gives you the right to bear arms.

And yes they were referring to muskets... So I guess an apples to apples comparison for you would be that only single shot, non rifled, non-cartridge long rifles can be allowed under the first amendment.

So, you are citing examples of where the law restricts carrying weapons on planes, and even into certain establishments. While the words of the constitution say the right to keep and bear arms (meaning the ability to carry on your person), should allow for national reciprocity, you are delving into an area where the constitution makes no mention, specifically, "where" you have the right to keep and bear arms.

What I'm talking about is a person's right to own firearms in their own homes.

The reason I mentioned muskets is because it was written to pertain to the weaponry at the time. They didnt have automatic rifles at the time of writing, so, they would have never thought to make specific mention of them.

If you look at the reasoning behind why the amendment was written, it was for the people to protect themselves from possible tyrannical government. It would be implied that the people would be able to equip themselves with weapons commensurate to what the government would have. At that time, it was muskets. In today's age, that would be automatic weapons

 

[ThisIsMe]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

Yes, but, sadly, all of those laws on firearm types of restrictions are technically unconstitutional as well. The words "shall not be infringed" apply here.

One of the things the left like to do is take things to the extreme and say "well, does that mean you should be able to own a tank, or rockets, or nukes?". My answer to that is, when the framers were writing the 2nd, it's clear by the text of the amendment, and by supporting documents (federalist papers), they were referring guns, muskets being what they had at the time. The 2nd amendment was written In 1791, the first automatic weapon wasn't made until 1892.

I disagree with what you say, but using your logic, automatic weapons aren't protected by the 2nd amendment. They were only referring to muskets.

No sir, it was referring to whatever weapon was current at the time. Then, it was muskets, because that's all they had, today, its auto and semi auto weapons.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

A national emergency can justify almost anything, up to and including martial law. That's why it shouldn't be allowed to be used as a political tactic like trump is trying to do.

Actually the Declaration of a National Emergency' triggers up to something like 120 other laws and regulations, depending on the TYPE of 'National Emergency' declared.

The TYPE of NE Trump is considering would only trigger 1 (ONE) of those, pre-established Congressional-authorized moving / freeing up of money to fund the wall - nothing else.

Pelosi is full of shit regarding Trump's NE would 'set precedence', but by all means, don't let the fact that she is lying to your ass again, snowflakes, stop you from parroting her BULLSHIT.

NEs have been declared approx. 59 times since they were 1st used beginning with Jimmy Carter. 32 (I believe) of those remain in existence today -- YEAH, THERE ARE APPROX 32 STATES OF EMERGENCY IN EXISTENCE TODAY...yet no one is freaking out about any of them except the one that might be declared NEXT. (32 still exist, to include the very 1st one Carter declared regarding Iranian-sponsored Terrorism.)
- So, again, Pelosi's claim that Trump's would set precedence is PURE BULLSHIT.

Also, as mentioned, a President can not use a NE to violate the Constitution or infringe on Constitutional Rights. This is just a lie and more Democratic party Fear-Mongering.

Not to mention that the Supreme Court ruled a long time ago that emergency powers do not include the ability to seize private property without Congressional approval. Which means the Democrats would have the same problem with gun-grabbing that they have right now: they can't convince enough people to agree with them.

You've fallen for your own rhetoric. Nobody will come for anybody's guns. Manufacture of certain guns will be banned, and sales will be monitored. Rules for who can carry and where will also be looked at. That is all gun control advocates have ever wanted, but with the power of a national emergency behind it, the regulations will go much further than anyone ever hoped was possible.

And that would be a good thing, because then it would end up at the Supreme Court; our Supreme Court. Once the court rules that you can't ban magazine capacity or types of handguns, it's set in stone.

Not really, because the issue would be whether claiming a national emergency for partisan purposes was valid, not magazine capacity. If Trump is allowed to get away with it this time, that precedent will be set..

You can declare a national emergency, but not take steps that violate our Constitution. The Constitution rules over any law or policy.