CDZ Second Amendment Rights Must be Complete and Uncondional!

[Pellinore]

It is long established precedent that Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are not absolute. Even setting aside those that conflict with other laws, there are several instances in which rights have to be superseded by threats to public safety. One is that a license is needed for some assemblies, despite the First Amendment (as alang1216 pointed out). Another is the law-school example that freedom of speech does not allow one to yell "Fire!" in a crowded building, and of course the 1934 NFA (amended since) places fully automatic weapons, among others, behind the class 3 license, because people were tired of living in fear of gangsters shooting up their favorite streets with Tommy Guns.

With those precedents set, it would be entirely Constitutional for Congress to pass a law restricting gun ownership far beyond what we have now.

 

[Pellinore]

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

You can never own a gun if you've ever been slandered or libelled as "mentally ill." The law explicitly permits such slander and libel and there is no defense for the victim against that.

Slander and libel are crimes, and if someone is found guilty of either one branding you as mentally ill, I would hope that the ATF wouldn't hold that against you.

If you're judged by a medical professional to be violently mentally ill, however, I would hope that no one on God's green Earth would hand you a firearm. In that case, I would suggest you just acknowledge that it's not for you, and invest instead in a good deadbolt and a dog.

 

[progressive hunter]

It is long established precedent that Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are not absolute. Even setting aside those that conflict with other laws, there are several instances in which rights have to be superseded by threats to public safety. One is that a license is needed for some assemblies, despite the First Amendment (as alang1216 pointed out). Another is the law-school example that freedom of speech does not allow one to yell "Fire!" in a crowded building, and of course the 1934 NFA (amended since) places fully automatic weapons, among others, behind the class 3 license, because people were tired of living in fear of gangsters shooting up their favorite streets with Tommy Guns.

With those precedents set, it would be entirely Constitutional for Congress to pass a law restricting gun ownership far beyond what we have now.

dont confuse constitutional rights with human rights,,

the right of self defense is absolute and not subject to restrictions,, and those against the 1st A are because it effects other peoples rights,,

and you can yell fire in a crowded theater,, more so if there is a fire,, the problem comes when it causes harm,, just like with libel and slander,, I can lie and slander you all day long as long as it doesnt cause you harm,,

now knowing that I hope your idea that congress can pass more restrictions has changed,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

You can never own a gun if you've ever been slandered or libelled as "mentally ill." The law explicitly permits such slander and libel and there is no defense for the victim against that.

Slander and libel are crimes, and if someone is found guilty of either one branding you as mentally ill, I would hope that the ATF wouldn't hold that against you.

If you're judged by a medical professional to be violently mentally ill, however, I would hope that no one on God's green Earth would hand you a firearm. In that case, I would suggest you just acknowledge that it's not for you, and invest instead in a good deadbolt and a dog.

libel and slander are civil not criminal,,

 

[justinacolmena]

libel and slander are civil not criminal,,

With a blanket mental illness exception: the victim loses his/her gun rights for life by law no matter what.

A mental health cert is civil, by fiat, and no defense is permitted in court, because the petitioner's professional interests are always deemed to be for the best standards of care for a patient under involuntary hospitalization pursuant to an emergency civil commitment to ensure gun rights are revoked without fail for the welfare, safety and benefit of the community.

 

[ding]

When you people get over the shock of having to face reality, just let me know.

The intent of this thread is to make it crystal clear that paying the price of dozens of little children murdered in their classrooms is a price that has to be paid for upholding your 2nd. amendment.

Concealed carry on not, the children won't appreciate the difference.

So back to the topic: What possible gun laws can be enacted?

Yes, gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of liberty and freedom. That's not news.

What also isn't news is your desire to ban and confiscate all guns and your deceitful tactic of gradualism to achieve that goal.

Seriously, socialists are evil and should darwinize themselves out of existence as soon as practically possible,

 

[justinacolmena]

Yes, gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of liberty and freedom. That's not news

We've lost our freedom and our liberty already, and gun violence and gun accidents are only becoming more and more common, because our hired oppressors, tormentors, and mob rule enforcers continue to bear arms against us after confiscating our weapons.

 

[ding]

Yes, gun violence and gun accidents are a cost of liberty and freedom. That's not news

We've lost our freedom and our liberty already, and gun violence and gun accidents are only becoming more and more common, because our hired oppressors, tormentors, and mob rule enforcers continue to bear arms against us after confiscating our weapons.

I still have all of mine. Maybe you need a gun safe.

 

[justinacolmena]

I still have all of mine. Maybe you need a gun safe.

Firing squad for crooked cops and crooked doctors. The rights to shoot back at them and kill them when they fire their weapons at me.

 

[ding]

I still have all of mine. Maybe you need a gun safe.

Firing squad for crooked cops and crooked doctors. The rights to shoot back at them and kill them when they fire their weapons at me.

No one is stopping you. Go for it.

 

[justinacolmena]

No one is stopping you. Go for it.

Cops need to lose their rights when they grab our guns and serve junk papers in court.

 

[ding]

No one is stopping you. Go for it.

Cops need to lose their rights when they grab our guns and serve junk papers in court.

Good luck with that.

 

[justinacolmena]

Good luck with that.

SCOTUS is gone. The Supremes are in deep trouble with the Constitution. They can't keep a straight face with a "Beers vs. Barr" on the docket while they revoke our gun rights.

The SCOTUS corruption must be rooted out and the evil judgments of the wicked against the righteous overturned.

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 59:14 - King James Version

And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Anything a solder would carry into battle or operate on the battle field. That includes but is not limited to machine guns, hand grenades, RPGs, tanks, artillery, war ships, and the like.

Somehow I'm not reassured considering how many crazies or disaffected children there are that are ready to die and would like nothing more than taking a city or as many people as possible with them.

those that do that are criminals not 2nd supporters,,

I'd guess they are both. If you're a crazy or a gang member I'm sure you'd support being able to buy large caliber weaponry.

...or a hunter?

What's wrong with large-caliber weapons?

 

[ding]

Good luck with that.

SCOTUS is gone. The Supremes are in deep trouble with the Constitution. They can't keep a straight face with a "Beers vs. Barr" on the docket while they revoke our gun rights.

The SCOTUS corruption must be rooted out and the evil judgments of the wicked against the righteous overturned.

Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 59:14 - King James Version

And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter.

www.biblegateway.com

Why would they want to kill their cash cow? It's their dog whistle.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The intent is for peaceable law abiding citizens to own and possess the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to possess. Today that would be semi-automatic weapons with high capacity magazines, @Donald H

Today, it would mean arms comparable to what we issue our soldiers, meaning true assault rifles, capable of both semi-automatic and either fully-automatic or burst-fire operation—Exactly the weapons which our government, in its degenerate corruption, most refuses to allow us to possess.

The "Security of a Free State" Also Refers to Crime Control


"Assault rifle" is a biased term created by the Liberal Language Lords. In a country free of media tongue-control, it would be called a "counter-assault" rifle. It is definitely needed by store owners to wipe out mobs of looters.

The military defines it as having a selector switch, but yeah, most people misuse it. "Assault weapon" is even more nebulous. I try to lead by example and use "semi-automatic rifle," but *shrug* to limited success.

Rush to Judgment Day

My sergeant used an AR on a scout who had just fatally wounded a Marine. The rounds went up the Commie's spine and cracked his skull open. It was exactly like the old dolls that would break apart sooner or later.

Because we were rushed through training so the Marine Generals would have enough troops to show off to the Army Generals, the wounded Marine didn't know he could have his safety off when on the flank of our column. In the split second it took to click it off and fire, the scout put three bullets in his chest.

Our lieutenant was having problems with the medical-evacuation helicopter, which couldn't find its Landing Zone. Finally, he told the pilot, "You can take your time now. The man is dead."

 

[2aguy]

It is long established precedent that Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are not absolute. Even setting aside those that conflict with other laws, there are several instances in which rights have to be superseded by threats to public safety. One is that a license is needed for some assemblies, despite the First Amendment (as alang1216 pointed out). Another is the law-school example that freedom of speech does not allow one to yell "Fire!" in a crowded building, and of course the 1934 NFA (amended since) places fully automatic weapons, among others, behind the class 3 license, because people were tired of living in fear of gangsters shooting up their favorite streets with Tommy Guns.

With those precedents set, it would be entirely Constitutional for Congress to pass a law restricting gun ownership far beyond what we have now.

LIcenses are not needed as permission to assemble, they are simply there because as a public space, more than one group at a time may want that space for their speech....

Wrong......we already have Supreme Court rulings that show you don't understand the issues....Heller, Caetano, Scalia's opinion in Friedman v Highland Park....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is long established precedent that Constitutionally-guaranteed rights are not absolute. Even setting aside those that conflict with other laws, there are several instances in which rights have to be superseded by threats to public safety. One is that a license is needed for some assemblies, despite the First Amendment (as alang1216 pointed out). Another is the law-school example that freedom of speech does not allow one to yell "Fire!" in a crowded building, and of course the 1934 NFA (amended since) places fully automatic weapons, among others, behind the class 3 license, because people were tired of living in fear of gangsters shooting up their favorite streets with Tommy Guns.

With those precedents set, it would be entirely Constitutional for Congress to pass a law restricting gun ownership far beyond what we have now.

In general, correct.

But a few points:

It’s not a matter where rights have to be superseded by threats to public safety; rather, given the fact that no right is absolute, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with Constitutional case law.

For example, government can prohibit loud music events at 3:00 AM in residential neighborhoods – such time, place, and manner restrictions don’t violate the First Amendment because they’re content neutral and address a compelling government interest.

Unlike the First Amendment, however, Second Amendment case law is in its infancy, still evolving, as to what regulations and restrictions are within the scope of the Second Amendment and which are not – but the fact remains that the Second Amendment is in no manner ‘unlimited’ or ‘absolute.’

Consequently, it would be Constitutional for Congress to pass a law restricting gun ownership far beyond what we have now provided such laws comport with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Congress, for example, may not ban handguns, nor may Congress prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Every right in the Constitution has ended up in the courts as laws are enacted to define it. We have the 1st Amendment and we have laws defining slander and libel. The 2nd is no different.

You can never own a gun if you've ever been slandered or libelled as "mentally ill." The law explicitly permits such slander and libel and there is no defense for the victim against that.

Slander and libel are crimes, and if someone is found guilty of either one branding you as mentally ill, I would hope that the ATF wouldn't hold that against you.

If you're judged by a medical professional to be violently mentally ill, however, I would hope that no one on God's green Earth would hand you a firearm. In that case, I would suggest you just acknowledge that it's not for you, and invest instead in a good deadbolt and a dog.

As reaffirmed in Heller, laws prohibiting the mentally ill from possessing firearms are perfectly Constitutional.

Someone is designated a prohibited person after being adjudicated in a court of law of being mentally incompetent, having been afforded comprehensive due process, his Second Amendment rights in no manner ‘violated.’

 

[danielpalos]

There can be no restrictions on any person's right to buy or sell any guns or any number of guns they choose.
This could present risks to society in America but the risks need to be accepted as necessary for the upholding of the intent of the 2nd. amendment. If any American objects to the sacred rights as stated by the 2nd. amendment then they have the option of purchasing their own weapons with which to defend themselves from harm.

The extreme example: A person released from prison who has murdered with his gun has the right to walk straight across the street from the prison and purchase a gun or guns. The only thing stopping him would be a background check being required to purchase a gun.

On the surface it could seem to be counter-productive to a peaceful society. It might be but there is no legitimate means to stop him unless the 2nd. amendment's unconditional rights are infringed upon.

And so for those who are hesitant to accept the full and complete rights as spelled out by their 2nd. amendment, is there any possible law that could be enacted that could curtail the ex-criminal's rights?

I say there is none! The 2nd. amendment isn't open for compromise for any reason or for any socialist cause.

Opinions?

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.