The definitive guide to the 2nd Amendment

[2aguy]

What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.

And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....

And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.

What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....


You are wrong on both counts...

 

[Lesh]

The Second Amendment BEGINS

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."

That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.

Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".

We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members

Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.

You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".

Nonsense.

If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible

 

[2aguy]

The Second Amendment BEGINS

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."

That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.

Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".

We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members

Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.

You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".

Nonsense.

If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible

You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...

 

[Lesh]

The Second Amendment BEGINS

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."

That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.

Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".

We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members

Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.

You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".

Nonsense.

If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible

You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...

I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.

Scalia backed into his POLITICAL position with the most absurd arguments.

Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.

Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Second Amendment BEGINS

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."

That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.

Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".

We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members

Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

Again, Scalia voiced a dissenting view. That's the losers view. He expounded much longer than the actual ruling. He ragged on and on. His views are not worth the paper it's printed on legally. You keep trying to make Heller V DC from something quite simple into something quite complicated. It's very simple. Heller was denied his right to own a serviceable handgun in his home. He was denied the right to obtain a proper license to possess the gun in his home. The existing law stated that the only way he could have a handgun in his home was to have it either disassembled or with a trigger guard rendering it inoperable and he was denied a licenses to have a serviceable handgun in his home. The Heller v DC ruling reversed that law. Simple as that. Heller still had to have a background check on his handgun, could not bring it out into the street unless rendered inoperable and still was required to have a license for himself to possess that handgun as per the DC laws. This is a bit more restrictive than we have here but it ain't DC here. Stop trying to make it into something difficult.

You are talking, ignorantly, out of your ass again.

Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion for the D.C v Heller Supreme Court decision...... He explained which guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment and explained in terms even you can understand that the 2nd Amendment is an individual Right to own and carry a gun....even explaining in the simplest of terms, for people like you, what "Bear Arms" meant...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I got the Justice name wrong. Simple mistake.
SCALIA , J., delivered the opinion of
the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., joined.

STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ.,
joined. BREYER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, and GINSBURG
, JJ., joined.

But it's a long winded ruling that really only means that Heller was allowed to keep a fully functional handgun in his home. Nothing more. As much as you wish to read into it, no laws were really rewritten that day in anywhere other than DC and most of the DC gun regs stood and still stand today.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Second Amendment BEGINS

"A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary...."

That phrase is in that very spare Amendment for a reason. It tells us WHY what follows is there.

Absent a "well regulated militia"...there is no Constitutional right to "bear arms".

We do not currently HAVE a "well regulated militia". At best...we have an "unorganized militia" that ONLY has MALES under 45 as potential members

Does that mean we don't have the right to own guns? We do within the confines of our state and local laws....

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.

You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".

Nonsense.

If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible

You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...

Are you back on this again? Has enough time passed that you hope that we have forgotten what the rulings really are? Aren't you afraid we just might reread them? Just how many times are you going to do this BS, stupid.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.

And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....

And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.

What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....


You are wrong on both counts...

Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.

 

[hadit]

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.

You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".

Nonsense.

If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible

You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...

I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.

Scalia backed into his POLITICAL position with the most absurd arguments.

Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.

Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it

Yet his opinion holds legal authority while yours does not. Wonder why that is.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.

You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".

Nonsense.

If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible

You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...

I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.

Scalia backed into his POLITICAL position with the most absurd arguments.

Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.

Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it

Yet his opinion holds legal authority while yours does not. Wonder why that is.

The Militia Part of the 2nd Amendment has long since been obsolete. I may disagree with a lot of Scalias rulings but not on that opinion. A Hangun in your Home has nothing to do with a Militia and everything to do with protecting your home and family. While the Militia aspect is obsolete, the home protection is still valid.

 

[2aguy]

And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....

And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.

What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....


You are wrong on both counts...

Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.

And those will be challenged as unConstituitonal....since Poll Taxes on the Right to vote were unConstitutional, and in Murdock v Pennsylvania, any tax on the Exercise of a Right is unConstitutional so any tax or fee on the exercise of your 2nd Amendment Rights is unConstitutional...

 

[2aguy]

No....What you need to do is read the Supreme Court Decision, D.C. v Heller, it breaks down each part of the 2nd Amendment and explains it both legally and historically.....that will put you on the right track.

You're referring to Scalia's insane claim that what the 2A says isn't what it means.

So.... you have not read the D.C v Heller decision...so you don't know what you are talking about......as Scalia went back to the English common law and the actual history and legal precedents that created the words in the 2nd Amendment..... but please, keep posting about something you didn't even read or understand.

You're talking about Scalia's idiot decision that threw out settled law and claimed that the militia clause in the 2A was meaningless rhetorical "throat clearing".

Nonsense.

If you're going to wave SCOTUS decisions at me you might want to remember a SC opinion called Dred Scott. They are certainly not infallible

You didn't read Heller....got it...but if you want to post with intelligence on this topic, please go and read what Scalia actually wrote and how he backed up what he wrote with historical and legal Precedents..... And yes....a democrat Supreme Court did rule in Dredd Scott..... which shows that gun grabbers can be wrong too...

I absolutely read Heller and it's an insane opinion.

Scalia backed into his POLITICAL position with the most absurd arguments.

Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.

Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it

And you don't know what you are talking about...... none of them did......

 

[Abatis]

Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.

Please cite those decisions and either include the page number or better still, quote the specific passage where SCOTUS framed the citizen's right to arms within the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it

No, he was just following SCOTUS precedent, saying that the right to arms of the people is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. As Heller says, (re-affirming 133 year old precedent that recognizes the foundational constitutional principle of pre-existing rights):

"III. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

You would do well to follow Scalia's chiding of Stevens when Stevens dissects the drafting history of the Amendment:

"It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one".​

It is even worse to invent conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right by "interpreting" the words of the 2nd Amendment, chosen only to recognize and secure the right to arms -- NOT GRANT, GIVE, CREATE OR ESTABLISH THE RIGHT.

It is you and your ilk who stand in opposition to SCOTUS holdings on the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Abatis]

But it's a long winded ruling that really only means that Heller was allowed to keep a fully functional handgun in his home. Nothing more. As much as you wish to read into it, no laws were really rewritten that day in anywhere other than DC and most of the DC gun regs stood and still stand today.

LOL. Heller was a consequential decision, it did "rewrite law" for the entire nation. Heller invalidated the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations established in the lower federal courts in 1942, those decisions being; Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) respectively.

Those 20th Century "collective right" interpretations forced gun rights / 2nd Amendment jurisprudence off the constitutional rail between 1942 and 2008.

The Supreme Court in Heller slapped the lower federal courts back into line with longstanding SCOTUS opinion.

 

[Rustic]

What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.

And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

Yes.... and Blacks should have just sat in the back of the bus or moved out of those democrat controlled states. Sorry, Rights can't be taken away by states, they do not very because people like you want fewer of them....

And I suppose you are a proponent to not allow White People to sit in the front of the bus or sit at the counters? What does this have to do with the 2nd amendment? You are sounding like a complete idjit on this one.

What my post demonstrates is that states cannot make laws that violate individual Rights of citizens.... so you saying they can make laws violating the Right to keep and bear arms is stupid......considering you would use the same argument to say that democrat states could keep blacks from sitting in the front of the bus because they are state laws and states get to make laws....


You are wrong on both counts...

Yes, you have an individual right to own a pistol or handgun. But the State can require you to get special licensing to own, possess or carry the handgun even in your home. You may have to meet certain requirements. Or the state can just say that it's your right to have a handgun in your home without special licensing like most do, but not all. In DC, you have to have a special license to have a fully functional handgun in your home and meet certain requirements. This is what came out of Heller V DC.

And those will be challenged as unConstituitonal....since Poll Taxes on the Right to vote were unConstitutional, and in Murdock v Pennsylvania, any tax on the Exercise of a Right is unConstitutional so any tax or fee on the exercise of your 2nd Amendment Rights is unConstitutional...

Heller V DC already upheld the special license to have a fully operational handgun in your home. It's already been contested and failed. It's deemed constitutional. You can scream "Unconstitutional" till your head explodes but the state has that right. And, in case you don't know, in case of levels, the Government of DC is equal to a State in most ways.

There you go again. Equaling gun rights to the first amendment rights and a few other amendment rights which none of them are contained in the 2nd amendment. When are you going to learn. They day that the Government accepts that the Gun is a Higher Being, this might be true. And in your mind, you might think so. But it just ain't going to happen. The rules for Religion and Voting are completely different than gun rights. I guess you think enough time has passed that you think that we will have forgotten the discussion we already have had over and over again. Hope you got that ass velcroed since I am just about ready to hand it back to you once again.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What it means is that the 2nd amendment badly needs to be updated to a more modern law.

And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

 

[Rustic]

And that is a very fair opinion to have. But that is the key. Until the 2nd Amendment is legally and properly amended, I have a right to keep and bear arms.

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

 

[Lesh]

Every previous SC decision regarding guns did so within the framework of the militia clause...because....well...it's THERE.

Please cite those decisions and either include the page number or better still, quote the specific passage where SCOTUS framed the citizen's right to arms within the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Scalia decoupled the militia clause because....he felt like it

No, he was just following SCOTUS precedent, saying that the right to arms of the people is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence. As Heller says, (re-affirming 133 year old precedent that recognizes the foundational constitutional principle of pre-existing rights):

"III. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

You would do well to follow Scalia's chiding of Stevens when Stevens dissects the drafting history of the Amendment:

"It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one".​

It is even worse to invent conditions and qualifications and restrictions on the right by "interpreting" the words of the 2nd Amendment, chosen only to recognize and secure the right to arms -- NOT GRANT, GIVE, CREATE OR ESTABLISH THE RIGHT.

It is you and your ilk who stand in opposition to SCOTUS holdings on the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment.

Precedent?

There were several SC decisions regarding gun rights...and ALL of them dealt with them as they pertained to the militia clause

SO much for precedent huh?

 

[Lesh]

Within Reason. Always within reason. And it's up to the various States to come up with the "Within Reason" and we all have to live with that ruling. We still have the option to vote them out of office or move to a state more to our liking if we disagree with the ruling. But it does no good to just keep bitching about it in blanket statements. I, personally, like the laws in my state which are proven to be common sense laws. We do need to address the Mentally ill people for guns though like a couple of other states already have. But that's about it. You would not live here because you would not wish to live under these laws and, personally, I wouldn't want you here. So we are pretty much in agreement there.

We need to rewrite the 2nd amendment for todays world. It was written by some pretty naive people when it came to firearms and weapons.

The federal government has no credibility in the matter

Then who does? The 2nd amendment has been chipped away until about only a 5 word part of it actually makes sense and even that is too broad a statement. Nothing like that would ever be allowed to stand in a court of law if presented today. I already laid out the reasons it has to be rewritten to make it up to todays standards. But that would mean that you would no longer be able to hammer anyone over the head with it with your own interpretation of it. And you really can't have that, can you.

Now, back to the question, if the Feds don't, who does?

Because the deep state/career politicians react with emotion rather than common sense.
No amount of bleeding heart frivolous gun control laws will change crazy people

Then you admit that the 2nd amendment needs updated. Okay, fine, now back to the 64,000 dollar question, who makes that determination?

I did state amended. And you should have the right to keep and bear arms. What is lacking is the laws that have passed in the background that have actually changed the 2nd amendment like the 1934 Federal Firearms Act and such. These should be part of the 2nd amendment or the 2nd amendment should have a clause that allows these types of things. The 1934 Federal Firearms Act, by definition, is Unconstitutional as it was done by the Feds and not the States.

Leave the second amendment as it is, Technology has no bearing on individual rights

And the 2A has no bearing on gun rights other than for their use in the militia...which no longer exists

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But it's a long winded ruling that really only means that Heller was allowed to keep a fully functional handgun in his home. Nothing more. As much as you wish to read into it, no laws were really rewritten that day in anywhere other than DC and most of the DC gun regs stood and still stand today.

LOL. Heller was a consequential decision, it did "rewrite law" for the entire nation. Heller invalidated the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations established in the lower federal courts in 1942, those decisions being; Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) respectively.

Those 20th Century "collective right" interpretations forced gun rights / 2nd Amendment jurisprudence off the constitutional rail between 1942 and 2008.

The Supreme Court in Heller slapped the lower federal courts back into line with longstanding SCOTUS opinion.

I took a look at both of these cases.

Cases V was, more or less, an illegal weapons dealer who was running illegal ammo in large quantities. His defense was that the laws for the US did not apply since it was done in Puerto Rico and not the US. The outcome had nothing to do with the 1934 Firearms act at all. It was whether Puerto Rico Citizens could be held to US Federal Laws.

Under US B Tot, Tot was a Convicted Felon. The only question was about the search warrant they had to search him. It only covered the area he was in. It did not cover the next room where his coat was hanging. They only had the right to search the Living Room he was standing in. He could have just as well have had an open suitcase full of Heroin in there for all it mattered. The cops didn't have the right to open that door and enter that room. This falls under the search and seizure laws, not gun laws. And the fact that the state can deny a convicted felon his gun rights. But it has to be done correctly. It wasn't and he went free. The only good that came out of this, the cops got to keep the gun.