The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[martybegan]

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporation is not a lie. As a Citizen of the United States, I have the rights granted to me by the amendments. They were incorporated by the 14th amendment. States cannot interfere with rights of US Citizens.

So you are saying if a State wanted to abolish search warrants, it could do it?

I'm fairly certain all states have a state constiton that guarantees the right against warrrantless searches, but yes I'm specifically saying the COTUS was NEVER meant to constrain states. It was SPECIFICALLY meant to constrain the FEDERAL government. For the first 150 years of our existence SCOTUS agreed.

Again, 14th amendment changed all that.

Yes, that's why the 14th was ratified in 1868 and for another 50 + years SCOTUS was still ruling that the Bill of Rights did not apply to states, right?

In fact it was 2010 when SCOTUS decided (incorrectly) that the 2nd was also incorporated.

I swear you partisans are stupid. You can't even understand that empowering the federal government over the states in one area where you agree will naturally later on bite you in the ass when other morons empower the federal government over states somewhere that you disagree.

If the 2nd was meant to apply to states, why then would all these state constitutions need to include their own provision guaranteeing the right to own firearms?

NRA-ILA | Guarantees of the Right to Arms In State Constitutions


There are 6 states which do not have the right to bear arms in their state constitution. Seriously, if those morons want a state where people aren't legally allowed to own firearms, who are you to use the federal government to force them to allow it?

Courts take time. They took decades to fix plessey, and they took decades to fix firearm bans.

So bascially giving the States Carte Blanche to ignore the US constitution and its amendments is your idea?

LOL.


States add protections to firearm ownership to re-enforce the federal right, and to protect their citizens in case the fed courts pull a fuck up.

 

[martybegan]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

It's an inconvenience, that's for sure. Seems a problem easily solved. Of course fee based systems are alway regressive which is why a national data base funded by taxes would satisfy all. Those of us who want to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not legally obtain one, and those who want to own guns and not wait six months and pay an enormous fee.

It's not an inconvenience, its a deliberate infringement.

So, do you consider the NYC law constitutional or not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

 

[bendog]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Come on. You're the one who admitted the second didn't protect felons's rights to own hand guns.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If the 2nd was meant to apply to states, why then would all these state constitutions need to include their own provision guaranteeing the right to own firearms?

Due to the fear that big-govt pushers, gun-rights haters, and other fanatical persons of the southpaw persuasion, would do their best to violate the clear language and intent of the 2nd amendment.

And as we can now see, those fears were all too well grounded.

The clear language and intent was that the 2nd would apply to the FEDERAL government. I mean the 2nd even says right there "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW" it doesn't say a god damned thing about a state

I mean seriously dude, it was 2010 before SCOTUS said "oh yeah we'll incorporate the 2nd as well" and of course that ruling only existed because other amendments had already incorrectly been incorporated.

I know it's WikiLinks, but read this article and see the overwhelming precedent that had to be ignored to incorporate the Bill of Rights.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And just plain old common sense tells you it was never meant to apply to states. Plainly any law passed by Congress is unconstitutional. That's plain as day, but OBVIOUSLY states can pass laws against felons owning guns or what have you, unless their state constitution also say "may not infringe" which they don't. Every state which has an Amendment has a provision in said amendment to allow for certain restrictions in COMPLETE contrast to the 2nd Amendment of the COTUS, which has NONE.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Come on. You're the one who admitted the second didn't protect felons's rights to own hand guns.

And see, he is wrong on that point as well. The 2nd absolutely guarantees that the federal government can not prevent felons from owing guns. There are NO provisions, it simply says "may not infringe"

This mickey mouse system of "well people lose their rights when they become felons" is also unconstitutional. YOu can't lose your rights. Once you open up a system to allow the federal government to decide you have lost your rights, who's to stop them from going further than intended? The federal government CAN NOT INFRINGE on gun ownership.

States , on the other hand, clearly were not supposed to be covered by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Come on. You're the one who admitted the second didn't protect felons's rights to own hand guns.

Also, DUI checkpoints are legal because SCOTUS ruled "they are unconstitutional, but only a little bit, so we will allow them" seriously, that was their ruling LOL

Once again, the 4th Amendment was NOT meant to apply to states and so if a state didn't have state amendment barring such, the 4th shouldn't have anything to do with DUI check points unless the feds are running them, which of course they are not.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)

but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

The First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…”, clearly supporting the notion that it was intended to apply only to the federal government. I think it was the original intent that people would be allowed to form communities, up to the state level, organized along religious lines, with each community having laws that were consistent with the faith of its residents. Catholics would group together in a community, and would establish laws consistent with Catholic principles. Somewhere else, Episcopalians would form a similar community, and elsewhere, there'd be a Quaker community, and so on.

Our nation did not end up growing along those lines; instead, communities formed mostly with people of mixed religions. It made perfect sense, eventually, to incorporate the First Amendment under the Fourteenth,and apply it to all levels of government.

The Bill of Rights ends with the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, to the states, and to the people.

Most of the rest of the Bill of Rights speaks specifically of rights and powers that belong to the people, not to the state nor to the federal government.

The Second Amendment is explicit on this point. It does not speak of any right or power belonging to the state or to the federal government, it speaks of “…the right of the people…”, and explicitly forbids this right from being infringed. It does not just say that the federal government is forbidden from infringing this right. It does not say, “…shall not be infringed, except…”. It says, “…shall not be infringed.”. Period. End of sentence. No exceptions.

Several of the other Amendments deal with law enforcement. Given the extremely small limited scope of the federal government's intended authority, it stand to reason that nearly all law-enforcement was expected to be at the state or lower levels. What sense does it make, then, to suppose that only the federal government was intended to be constrained from performing unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures, with states being free to do so? What sense does it make to suppose that only the federal government was intended to be prohibited from depriving one of life, liberty or property without due process of law, with no such restrictions on the states? What sense does it make to suppose that states were to be allowed to set excessive bail, or to impose cruel and unusual punishments? The Fourth through Eighth Amendments all deal with things that were rarely going to happen at the federal level.

 

[Wry Catcher]

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporation is not a lie. As a Citizen of the United States, I have the rights granted to me by the amendments. They were incorporated by the 14th amendment. States cannot interfere with rights of US Citizens.

So you are saying if a State wanted to abolish search warrants, it could do it?

I'm fairly certain all states have a state constiton that guarantees the right against warrrantless searches, but yes I'm specifically saying the COTUS was NEVER meant to constrain states. It was SPECIFICALLY meant to constrain the FEDERAL government. For the first 150 years of our existence SCOTUS agreed.

Again, 14th amendment changed all that.

Yes, that's why the 14th was ratified in 1868 and for another 50 + years SCOTUS was still ruling that the Bill of Rights did not apply to states, right?

In fact it was 2010 when SCOTUS decided (incorrectly) that the 2nd was also incorporated.

I swear you partisans are stupid. You can't even understand that empowering the federal government over the states in one area where you agree will naturally later on bite you in the ass when other morons empower the federal government over states somewhere that you disagree.

If the 2nd was meant to apply to states, why then would all these state constitutions need to include their own provision guaranteeing the right to own firearms?

NRA-ILA | Guarantees of the Right to Arms In State Constitutions


There are 6 states which do not have the right to bear arms in their state constitution. Seriously, if those morons want a state where people aren't legally allowed to own firearms, who are you to use the federal government to force them to allow it?

Interesting comment ^^^, see:

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

 

[M14 Shooter]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

 

[hazlnut]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Please point out where the 1st Amendment mentions kiddie porn, libel, slander, inciting a riot etc.

BTW - the 4th has all kinds of exceptions, in plain view, open fields, on and on…

 

[bendog]

The law is broken the second (time frame) when a felon makes an offer to buy the gun. so, you're saying that the gummit cannot make everyone go through a background check to discover that felon making an offer.

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th. I said they undisputedly were violations, but the scotus said that was ok because they were very small and served a public safety purpose. I then asked you TWICE how that differed from background checks, and I notice you've avoided answering.

 

[HUGGY]

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state

A "condition" debunked many times on this forum. Apparently little rightwinger thinks enough time has gone by that he can try to fool people into thinking it's true again.

How do you view our gun policy and second amendment? | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I can read. I don't need your lengthy double-talk to convince me of a damned thing. The 2nd amendment is clear.

You have "debunked" nothing. Go back to your "defense position" of hiding under your bed when someone is kicking in the front door to pillage your house and rape your wife.

I have said this before and I will say it again..and again. DO NOT REGISTER your weapons. It is NOBODIES business as clearly stated in the US Constitution.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The government has no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to do so; as you agreed, restraining the exercise of a right w/o cause other than "just in case" violates the constitution.

Again,
False comparison.
Driving down the road is a privilege granted by the state, not the exercise of a right.
As such, the state does not violate your rights by making sure you are exercising said privilege granted to you in accordance to the rules set by the granting authority.

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)

but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

The First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…”, clearly supporting the notion that it was intended to apply only to the federal government. I think it was the original intent that people would be allowed to form communities, up to the state level, organized along religious lines, with each community having laws that were consistent with the faith of its residents. Catholics would group together in a community, and would establish laws consistent with Catholic principles. Somewhere else, Episcopalians would form a similar community, and elsewhere, there'd be a Quaker community, and so on.

Our nation did not end up growing along those lines; instead, communities formed mostly with people of mixed religions. It made perfect sense, eventually, to incorporate the First Amendment under the Fourteenth,and apply it to all levels of government.

The Bill of Rights ends with the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, to the states, and to the people.

Most of the rest of the Bill of Rights speaks specifically of rights and powers that belong to the people, not to the state nor to the federal government.

The Second Amendment is explicit on this point. It does not speak of any right or power belonging to the state or to the federal government, it speaks of “…the right of the people…”, and explicitly forbids this right from being infringed. It does not just say that the federal government is forbidden from infringing this right. It does not say, “…shall not be infringed, except…”. It says, “…shall not be infringed.”. Period. End of sentence. No exceptions.

Several of the other Amendments deal with law enforcement. Given the extremely small limited scope of the federal government's intended authority, it stand to reason that nearly all law-enforcement was expected to be at the state or lower levels. What sense does it make, then, to suppose that only the federal government was intended to be constrained from performing unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures, with states being free to do so? What sense does it make to suppose that only the federal government was intended to be prohibited from depriving one of life, liberty or property without due process of law, with no such restrictions on the states? What sense does it make to suppose that states were to be allowed to set excessive bail, or to impose cruel and unusual punishments? The Fourth through Eighth Amendments all deal with things that were rarely going to happen at the federal level.

What are you talking about? As far as I know, EVERY state has an Amendment to their state constitution requiring in most cases a warrant for searches. Their own state Constitutions constrain them, the Bill of Rights was not intended to do so.

It would be pretty damn rare , read impossible, to find a state that would have enough votes to form a state and allow that state to conduct warrant less searches on its citizens, BUT if that is what people in that state wanted, who are you to object? If you don't like their laws, fucking move to a state more to your liking.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)

but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

The First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…”, clearly supporting the notion that it was intended to apply only to the federal government. I think it was the original intent that people would be allowed to form communities, up to the state level, organized along religious lines, with each community having laws that were consistent with the faith of its residents. Catholics would group together in a community, and would establish laws consistent with Catholic principles. Somewhere else, Episcopalians would form a similar community, and elsewhere, there'd be a Quaker community, and so on.

Our nation did not end up growing along those lines; instead, communities formed mostly with people of mixed religions. It made perfect sense, eventually, to incorporate the First Amendment under the Fourteenth,and apply it to all levels of government.

The Bill of Rights ends with the Tenth Amendment, which speaks of powers belonging to the federal government, to the states, and to the people.

Most of the rest of the Bill of Rights speaks specifically of rights and powers that belong to the people, not to the state nor to the federal government.

The Second Amendment is explicit on this point. It does not speak of any right or power belonging to the state or to the federal government, it speaks of “…the right of the people…”, and explicitly forbids this right from being infringed. It does not just say that the federal government is forbidden from infringing this right. It does not say, “…shall not be infringed, except…”. It says, “…shall not be infringed.”. Period. End of sentence. No exceptions.

Several of the other Amendments deal with law enforcement. Given the extremely small limited scope of the federal government's intended authority, it stand to reason that nearly all law-enforcement was expected to be at the state or lower levels. What sense does it make, then, to suppose that only the federal government was intended to be constrained from performing unwarranted and unreasonable searches and seizures, with states being free to do so? What sense does it make to suppose that only the federal government was intended to be prohibited from depriving one of life, liberty or property without due process of law, with no such restrictions on the states? What sense does it make to suppose that states were to be allowed to set excessive bail, or to impose cruel and unusual punishments? The Fourth through Eighth Amendments all deal with things that were rarely going to happen at the federal level.

Also, you must be kidding me "extremely small scope of federal law endorsement?"

 

[martybegan]

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

 

[martybegan]

No no nooooo. Stopping a car is an infringement upon the Fourth Amend.

:yawn:
All this means is the traffic stops you describe violate the constitution; it does nothing to negate the argument laid out against background checks, under a premise that you agreed to.

You agree that the state violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same absent cause; that said, you must agree that a background check violates the constitution.

If you're being honest, anyway.

NO the traffic checkpoint stops infringe on the right against seizure BUT THEY ARE CONSTITUTIONAL because they serve a purpose in public safety and don't inconvience people all that much. Background checks likewise to infringe on our rights to buy guns. But why is a background check different?

Since you agree that the state unconstitutionally violates your rights when it restrains your exercise of same, absent cause or suspicion, with no better reason than 'just in case', you should argue against these stops.

Not sure how this is supposed to mean that background checks, the exact same thing, do not violate the constitution.

I never said traffic stops unreasonably violated the 4th....

You agreed that it was unconstitutional for the state to stop you while walking down the street and restrain you, absent any cause or suspicion, while checking to see if you were an escaped convict.
This does not differ from a background check.
So, where does this leave you?

Just as an aside, what if background checks are looked at as the method sellers use to show good faith effort towards their legal duty not to sell to a felon?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that are delegated to the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people.

Any power that the federal government tries to exercise, that is not among its Constitutionally-delegated powers, it does so illegally; it is not doing pursuant to the Constitution; and its doing so is not protected by the Supremacy Clause.