The power to ban firearms...?

[M14 Shooter]

Sawed off shotguns, short barrel rifles are all illegal or rather I know it is illegal to cross State lines with them. Some States have the supposed assault rifle bans. And we had a federal Assault weapon ban from 94 to recently.

You can't buy a sawed-off shotgun from any manufacturer. You have to modify it yourself.

False.
Short Barrel Shotgun - Impact Guns

The AWB expired 10 years ago.

So?
They are still an example of firearms banned by the federal government, as are machineguns manufactured after 1985.

Now then....
You did not answer the question. Please do try.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Odd that no one can soundly address the question asked in the OP.
Even more odd that they don't care.
/sarcasm

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still no one? Huh.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

Essentially, in lieu of amending the Constitution, it's the people via the legislature that have given the government the power. As for those of us who own guns and respect the Second Amendment, we will not allow the government to take our guns away.

Also, Fender is incorrect. The regular military is not the militia of the Second Amendment. That's nonsense. The militia is we the people, and nothing else but we the people. In fact, until recently, the regular military could not be deployed in any formal missions whatsoever within the domestic boundary’s of the United States outside federal facilities. Only within the last few years was the Posse Comitatus Act repealed (December 2011), a law that dates back to the formative years of the Republic. It's repeal is a dangerous and frightening precedent. The gun grabbers must be fended off. The politicians among them are thugs. The regular citizens among them are sheep.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Another thing to bear in mind, since the liberals have made guns "evil", fewer and fewer young people receive any firearms training. Consequently, the number of accidental shootings has grown MUCH faster than homicides.

Talk to older Americans and see if they weren't taught to shoot and handle a gun safely when they were children. I was and so was my Dad & Grandfather.

My Dad was on his high school rifle team. And that was before it meant twirling a toy gun.

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

Do you know of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

Also, your constant referral to rednecks shows your own ignorance. Most of the rednecks I know were taught firearm safety as children when they were taught to hunt. Perhaps you mean something else. At any rate, your bigotry and ignorance is noted.

Arizona. In fact in Arizona you can carry open or concealed without a permit. No training required whatsoever.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

No! no! no!, Read Article V. Doesn't take a convention to amend the Constitution. The Constitution has been amended 15 times since it was ratified. The 15 added to the first 10 that were included to get the Constitution ratified make the total 25 Amendments. The last 15 were done without a Constitutional Convention using the first part of the first sentence in Art. V. I have wondered why they didn't use two sentences, but they didn't have my English Teacher.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or," (not and. OR means either procedure can be used)

The First, and only, Constitutional Convention was in session when the first Ten were passed.
That's why they were called the "Bill Of Rights".

The Constitution is not a "Living Document" BTW. That is more Liberal/Progressive propaganda.

Quote - "The Constitution is a living document, and meant to be so." - Quote
I don't know where you got this, but it surely didn't come from the Framers of the Constitution! Maybe started by the Woodrow Wilson Regime.

And the Constitutional is not ‘literal,’ nor is it ‘strictly constructed.’

Justice Kennedy best explained the nature of the Constitution in Lawrence:

Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The Constitution is not, therefore, some static blueprint for government; rather, it is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition that codifies our civil liberties and places restriction on government’s authority to limit those civil liberties.

But our civil rights are not absolute, and are subject to reasonable restrictions by government when warranted and justified in the context of the Constitution and its case law – this includes the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

That is ONE opinion on ONE case. Please tell me you do not believe this one case essentially makes the US Constitution into a mere piece of paper. A document that can be adhered to or ignored based on what a person, group or advocate wants.

Trust me when I tell you from experience, Jones believes precisely that, though he doesn't grasp the ramifications, as he doesn't grasp the immutable and universal imperatives of reality itself.

 

[WinterBorn]

You are right about this. Which is why it is dangerous that some of these redneck yahoos who want to carry guns in bars now get to do so in many states. They have no training with the gun.

A license to own a gun, just like driving a car, would help. At least some of the accidents by lawfully carrying gun owners would go down. The unlawful carriers, that's another story.

Do you know of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

Also, your constant referral to rednecks shows your own ignorance. Most of the rednecks I know were taught firearm safety as children when they were taught to hunt. Perhaps you mean something else. At any rate, your bigotry and ignorance is noted.

Arizona. In fact in Arizona you can carry open or concealed without a permit. No training required whatsoever.

Vermont requires no permit to carry, open or concealed. But that is not quite what I asked. I asked if you knew of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Do you know of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

Also, your constant referral to rednecks shows your own ignorance. Most of the rednecks I know were taught firearm safety as children when they were taught to hunt. Perhaps you mean something else. At any rate, your bigotry and ignorance is noted.

Arizona. In fact in Arizona you can carry open or concealed without a permit. No training required whatsoever.

Vermont requires no permit to carry, open or concealed. But that is not quite what I asked. I asked if you knew of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

South Dakota Secretary of State Jason Gant - Adminservices

 

[FA_Q2]

Do you know of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

Also, your constant referral to rednecks shows your own ignorance. Most of the rednecks I know were taught firearm safety as children when they were taught to hunt. Perhaps you mean something else. At any rate, your bigotry and ignorance is noted.

Arizona. In fact in Arizona you can carry open or concealed without a permit. No training required whatsoever.

Vermont requires no permit to carry, open or concealed. But that is not quite what I asked. I asked if you knew of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

I believe shall issue states are like that. Texas and Florida are both shall issue. I could be incorrect on that though.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Texas requires 10 hours of training, including a proficiency demonstration.

Florida law doesn’t specify a training time period, only that an applicant has completed any number of acceptable training courses; the most common from an NRA certified instructor lasting on an average of four hours. There is no proficiency demonstration requirement.

Arizona does require training to acquire a license to carry a concealed firearm, the requirements are much the same as Florida’s.

 

[hunarcy]

If the Founders were so great...........why didn't they ban slavery? Hmmmm.

Article 1 Section 9 prevented Congress from passing any law that would restrict the importation of slaves into the United States prior to 1808. Congress could however, levy a Per capita duty of up to ten dollars for each slave imported into the country. This clause was further entrenched into the Constitution by Article V, where it is explicitly shielded from constitutional amendment prior to 1808. On January 1, 1808, the first day it was permitted to do so, Congress approved legislation prohibiting the importation of slaves into the United States.

 

[JoeB131]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

"Well-regulated Militia".

Done.

 

[Iceweasel]

Arizona. In fact in Arizona you can carry open or concealed without a permit. No training required whatsoever.

Vermont requires no permit to carry, open or concealed. But that is not quite what I asked. I asked if you knew of any states in which you can get a permit to carry without any training?

I believe shall issue states are like that. Texas and Florida are both shall issue. I could be incorrect on that though.

Washington State is a shall issue state. What that means is there is no requirement to meet for a carry permit, except if you've had mental or legal issues that would prevent it. Otherwise, it is to be issued within 30 days.

States that require training or the discression of the local police are may issue.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The power comes from the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to collectively pass federal law.

The limitation on that power comes from the Supreme Court's constitutional power to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional.

 

[Iceweasel]

The power comes from the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to collectively pass federal law.

The limitation on that power comes from the Supreme Court's constitutional power to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional.

I thought the three branches were to be equal in power.

 

[KevinWestern]

The power comes from the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to collectively pass federal law.

The limitation on that power comes from the Supreme Court's constitutional power to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional.

I thought the three branches were to be equal in power.

I've read that the original design was for all three branches to interpret the Constitution as needed. However nowadays, it seems only the Judicial Branch does this. I really think we are long overdue for some sort of modern overhaul/rethinking of our Governmental structure (while still keeping our core laws and principles in place, of course).

 

[Iceweasel]

I've read that the original design was for all three branches to interpret the Constitution as needed. However nowadays, it seems only the Judicial Branch does this. I really think we are long overdue for some sort of modern overhaul/rethinking of our Governmental structure (while still keeping our core laws and principles in place, of course).

Agreed. The Supremes are political appointments, make political decisions and are on the bench too long. Time to reel them in.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The power comes from the constitutional power of the legislative and executive branches to collectively pass federal law.

The limitation on that power comes from the Supreme Court's constitutional power to overturn laws it deems unconstitutional.

I thought the three branches were to be equal in power.

How would that work?

If the legislature and the executive branches pass a law that bans guns, or certain guns, and you claim the branches are equal,

what happens to the law?

 

[DiamondDave]

Until the ratification of the 18th amendment, the federal government did not have the power to ban alcohol.

Given that, from where, specifically, does it derive the power to ban guns?

"Well-regulated Militia".

Done.

Yet punctuation within the sentence does not end there... maybe you should go back and take basic English again

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I've read that the original design was for all three branches to interpret the Constitution as needed. However nowadays, it seems only the Judicial Branch does this. I really think we are long overdue for some sort of modern overhaul/rethinking of our Governmental structure (while still keeping our core laws and principles in place, of course).

Agreed. The Supremes are political appointments, make political decisions and are on the bench too long. Time to reel them in.

Actually it is that length of service (lifetime) that allows them to cast aside any political motives. If their terms expired, then they may do some political favors to get reappointed or candidates might be continually cutting deals to curry favor in order to push their name up the list.

Our system isn't perfect, but it is a lot better others that I've seen. And most of the kneejerk "fixes" i hear would be a lot worse.