Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.

"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.

Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.

"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’

Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation. Joseph...

www.yahoo.com

This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.

The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.

 

[Esdraelon]

"Aspirational"? Come for them, you'll SEE how "aspirational" 2A is for Americans. Punks. Cowards. Scum.

 

[BULLDOG]

"Aspirational"? Come for them, you'll SEE how "aspirational" 2A is for Americans. Punks. Cowards. Scum.

Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"The Bill of Rights, by its terms, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out." ibid

Another point of conflict between the two camps.

The judicial camp recognizes incorporation doctrine and the application of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

The political camp rejects incorporation doctrine but is inconsistent with its advocacy of “states’ rights” – advocating that the Supreme Court invalidate state measures such as assault weapon bans and universal background checks.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

What's going to allow gun control is that few of young men hunt or shoot these days. They're all playing video games.

58% of NRA membership is over retirement age. Give it another 20-30 years and gun rights won't disappear with a bang, they'll disappear with a whimper.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?

Well.....there's ranchers on our borders that need guns to protect their lives and their livestock from illegals, drug cartels, and Cougars.
Then there's the BLM and ANTIFA assholes that try to pull you out of your car and beat you to death.
Then there's the massive increase in violent crime in cities like NYC, Chicago, and anywhere that Democrats run the show.

It's not cowardice.....it's common-sense.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What do we need more gun laws for if the courts won't enforce the ones on the books already?

*****SMILE*****

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘It goes back to that widening gap between the judicial Second Amendment as the courts interpret it and the aspirational Second Amendment as used in politics, according to Winkler and Blocher.

"There's a difference between the Second Amendment as interpreted and applied by courts and the Second Amendment as it's invoked in political discussions. And for many gun rights advocates, the political version of the Second Amendment is quite a bit more gun protective than the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court and lower courts have applied it," he said.’ ibid

And it’s pointless to tell purveyors of the political/aspirational Second Amendment that although they are entitled to their opinions, those opinions are subjective, irrelevant and devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

Only the judicial Second Amendment carries the force of Constitutional law, authorizing government to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[progressive hunter]

‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.

"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.

Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.

"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’

Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation. Joseph...

www.yahoo.com

This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.

The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.

your premise is a lie,,,

the 2nd is more relevant today than its been in 235 yrs,,

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘In all 50 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun in public, subject to varying restrictions depending on the state, but at least 20 do not require permits for either open or concealed carry of firearms, with Texas becoming the latest to enact what advocates call "constitutional carry."

Permitless or "constitutional carry" is not something the Supreme Court's reading of the Second Amendment currently calls for.’ ibid

"Constitutional carry" is a prime example of the political Second Amendment – in that it’s a political contrivance having nothing to do with Second Amendment case law; indeed, requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is likewise Constitutional carry.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The judicial camp recognizes incorporation doctrine and the application of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

Right. The anti-gun left doesn't seem to understand this -- they belive CA and NY and MD and HI aren't limited by the 2nd Amendment.

The political camp rejects incorporation doctrine but is inconsistent with its advocacy of “states’ rights” – advocating that the Supreme Court invalidate state measures such as assault weapon bans and universal background checks.

As you know the 'states' rights' premise does not in any way include the states having the right to violate the rights of the people, your statement, above, is a lie.

 

[M14 Shooter]

58% of NRA membership is over retirement age.

Prove this to be true.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘"It's a rallying cry. It's easy. It's a sound bite," she said. "But the Second Amendment gets thrown around politically in a way that's not based in law."

Blocher agreed and argued the Second Amendment debate is among the most partisan in the nation.

"The gun debate has gone far beyond judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment and these days has much more to do with personal, political and partisan identity," he said.’

True.

Indeed, the gun ‘debate’ has gone so far beyond judicial interpretations of the Amendment that those hostile to the case law use rhetoric having nothing to do with what the right protects or the intent of the Amendment.

Examples of this would be the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment ‘authorizes’ lawless armed rebellion against a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

That private citizens who are members of a ‘militia’ have a right to possess weapons on par with the military – such as fully automatic rifles and carbines.

And that all regulatory measures are an ‘infringement’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those measures.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And that all regulatory measures are an ‘infringement’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those measures.

If a "measure" has not been ruled constitutional by the court, how can you, with any honesty or acumen, say it is constitutional?

 

[BULLDOG]

Well.....there's ranchers on our borders that need guns to protect their lives and their livestock from illegals, drug cartels, and Cougars.
Then there's the BLM and ANTIFA assholes that try to pull you out of your car and beat you to death.
Then there's the massive increase in violent crime in cities like NYC, Chicago, and anywhere that Democrats run the show.

It's not cowardice.....it's common-sense.

I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?

 

[toobfreak]

Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate​

There is no gun debate, except between leftists looking to disarm America. They debate the gun as cause because they cannot debate the actual cause of violence which is progressivism upon society.

 

[MisterBeale]

"The Bill of Rights, by its terms, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out." ibid

Another point of conflict between the two camps.

The judicial camp recognizes incorporation doctrine and the application of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

The political camp rejects incorporation doctrine but is inconsistent with its advocacy of “states’ rights” – advocating that the Supreme Court invalidate state measures such as assault weapon bans and universal background checks.

This is an interesting POV.

I wonder where the Federal government gets the right to regulate nation wide voting rights, civil rights, the right to abortion, etc. etc. if this is your standard then.

Should that be up to each and every state then?

 

[Concerned American]

‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.

"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.

Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.

"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’

Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation. Joseph...

www.yahoo.com

This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.

The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.

Only in you moron's minds is the second amendment irrelevant. The fact that you posted this moronic thread speaks volumes as to the second amendment's relevance. LOL. Try again.

 

[Abatis]

‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.

"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.

Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.

"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’

Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation. Joseph...

www.yahoo.com

This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.

The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.

Utter bullshit that is projection and panic porn for leftists who see their grasp on unconstitutional laws slipping away.

The 2nd Amendment was a non-entity, unenforceable on the states until 2010 and then went on a hiatus.

All the laws this twatwaffle is pissing and moaning about, from preemption (or not) to concealed carry (or not) to permitless carry (or not) were states enacting laws (or not) under the authority of their state constitutions in conformance to the RKBA as recognized and protected in their state constitutions (or not) . . . It's no surprise the states with strict gun control are states without RKBA provisions in their state constitutions. Those shitholes never developed a sophisticated legal framework testing contested laws against their state's RKBA . . . They never discerned (or cared) what the right to arms is, their legislaturs took the fact of no RKBA provision as permsssion to do whatever they wanted.

Those shithole states then compounded their error by lazily relying on the collective right lower federal court decisions to sustain their laws when challenged. Well, Heller invalidated those cases and smashed their crutches and these constitutional cripples, NY, NJ, CA, MD are all going to be knocked down and kicked in the head, finally and with as much legal violence as can be mustered.

That crap article is proof leftists have no clue what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does and know even less about how rights are regarded in state constitutions.

Jesus H Christ, just when I thought this can't get any more fun!

 

[Abatis]

Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?

And this is the level that the gun control side's argument has devolved into.

Voltaire's prayer has been answered abundantly; thank you Lord for making my enemies ridiculous.