Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

Please quote anything I have said about limiting anybody's right to keep and bear arms, with the exception, of course, of those who can't pass a background check.


You support universal background checks...which is the Trojan horse for gun registration......which you need to eventually ban and confiscate guns.
 
Yet we have background checks for dealers without any problems. Do those checks mean we don't have a bill of rights any more?


Background checks at gun stores do not register guns to individual owners......universal background checks would require registering guns to their owners, so that fascists like you would know who owns the gun .........
 
You support universal background checks...which is the Trojan horse for gun registration......which you need to eventually ban and confiscate guns.
You keep saying that. It's bullshit, but that hasn't made any difference to you in the past.
 
This is more cost effective and rational:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
You keep saying that. It's bullshit, but that hasn't made any difference to you in the past.
Kind of like the bullshit you throw around when you say people legally carrying concealed weapons kill innocent bystanders
 
Right now I have 48 firearms.

Sooooo, if you have 49 or more that makes you a gun nut. :)
No, if you have registered each weapon, have had sufficient training in the safe use of each weapon, if you keep all your weapons in a secure location, then no, you are not a gun nut... other than the fact you have a need for 48 weapons... surely one is enough?
 
This "aspirational" 2ndA is nothing new; and it doesn't exist off on its own, without any connection or reliance on judicial opinion. The nation went 66 years with the lower federal courts perverting Miller and creating their various collective right interpretations in the lower federal courts. That misconstruction is what became the "judicial 2nd Amendment" the article speaks of . . . With none of it endorsed by SCOTUS or relying on SCOTUS precedent.

Nobody really believed that collective right "judicial 2nd Amendment" was the correct interpretation and settled law.

I sure know I had a blast back in the early 90's when I first started debating gun rights vs. gun control and I was definitely arguing the "aspirational 2nd Amendment" against lots of leftist anti-gun wackos arguing collective right theories. Their arguments were never consistent or compelling.

And then Heller happened and it was an affirmation.

All those years I always knew I was correct on the law and I know I'm correct now, arguing against the bullshit legal interpretations that the lower federal courts are putting out now, still misconstructing and twisting SCOTUS . . . The "judicial 2nd Amendment" is a zombie, walking around, not knowing it is dead and should be under 6 feet of dirt. The dumb theories making up this article's "judicial 2nd Amendment" have already been overruled, abrogated, it just needs to be buried.

So, is it really your position that the "judicial 2nd Amendment" is correct when it says AR-15's can be banned because the 4th Circuit says they are:


"convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach." -- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)


Of course the "aspirational 2nd Amendment" that follows Miller says "assault weapons" are absolutely protected by the 2nd Amendment.

I agree and I argue that has always been the correct interpretation. I'll tell you, I will take delight in rubbing your nose in the big piles of aspiration coming from the Court in the next couple years.

.
Another example of how the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law and the predominance among the right of the aspirational, political Second Amendment is the wrongheaded notion advanced by most conservatives that any firearm regulatory measure manifests as an ‘infringement’ of the Second Amendment right, willfully ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court has never determined the constitutionality of that measure.
 
‘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."’


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.
The 10th Amendment makes any State law that restricts gun right unconstitutional.
 
The article in the OP says that state laws protect gun rights more than the Second Amendment these days.
Much of it is frustration with the Supreme Court perceived to be too hesitant to take on Second Amendment cases – AWBs in particular.

Of course, most of these laws are superfluous or just outright ridiculous – Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ nonsense being a prime example.
 
With all due respects to the Duke Professor the "huge array of firearms laws" come "after" you get to the Constitution, not before it. The difference is important.
 
The 10th Amendment makes any State law that restricts gun right unconstitutional.
This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) – the Supreme Court rules that the Bill of Rights places limits only on the Federal government, not the states; including the Second Amendment.

The states were at complete liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit – state laws regulating firearms were not only Constitutional, they were also beyond the authority of the Federal courts, immune from judicial review by the Supreme Court.

After the passage of the 14th Amendment, pursuant to the doctrine of substantive due process, the Supreme Court began to incorporate – apply – provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – the Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

As a consequence, state laws regulating firearms are now subject to review by Federal courts – ultimately the Supreme Court, where their constitutionality can be finally determined.
 
This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

Barron v. Baltimore (1833) – the Supreme Court rules that the Bill of Rights places limits only on the Federal government, not the states; including the Second Amendment.

The states were at complete liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit – state laws regulating firearms were not only Constitutional, they were also beyond the authority of the Federal courts, immune from judicial review by the Supreme Court.

After the passage of the 14th Amendment, pursuant to the doctrine of substantive due process, the Supreme Court began to incorporate – apply – provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) – the Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

As a consequence, state laws regulating firearms are now subject to review by Federal courts – ultimately the Supreme Court, where their constitutionality can be finally determined.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment.

"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". 2nd Amendment

Any laws passed by the States that infringe on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.
 
No, if you have registered each weapon, have had sufficient training in the safe use of each weapon, if you keep all your weapons in a secure location, then no, you are not a gun nut... other than the fact you have a need for 48 weapons... surely one is enough?


Except if you hunt...need rifles and maybe shotguns depending on the game......if you compete in 3 gun....you need a rifle, pistol and shotgun......if you are a cowboy shooter...you need a repeating rifle, SAA revolver, and a double barreled coach gun....and for self defense, a good rifle or shotgun, or both....one for you and the wife, plus maybe one for the kids......and pistols...one full size for the home, and smaller one for carrying in public...

You have no idea what you are talking about...

This girl needs more than one......



And this one...



And this woman doing a report...



And this Cowgirl....

 
No, if you have registered each weapon, have had sufficient training in the safe use of each weapon, if you keep all your weapons in a secure location, then no, you are not a gun nut... other than the fact you have a need for 48 weapons... surely one is enough?


Since you poked your head up.....

Do you believe that a woman who doesn't want to be gang raped in a London park does not have "good reason," to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped?

Do you believe, instead, that a member of the House of Lords, who wants to go quail hunting with his wealthy friends, on his private land on his country estate, has "good reason," to get a gun? Over the woman getting her gun?
 
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." 10th Amendment.

"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". 2nd Amendment

Any laws passed by the States that infringe on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
 
Another example of how the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law and the predominance among the right of the aspirational, political Second Amendment is the wrongheaded notion advanced by most conservatives that any firearm regulatory measure manifests as an ‘infringement’ of the Second Amendment right,
Fortunately, this represents an exceptionally tiny fraction of the pro-gun side.
 
Another example of how the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law and the predominance among the right of the aspirational, political Second Amendment is the wrongheaded notion advanced by most conservatives that any firearm regulatory measure manifests as an ‘infringement’ of the Second Amendment right, willfully ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court has never determined the constitutionality of that measure.

Take a breath Pops, you're sounding winded from the exertion of scrambling around for a response.

None of that crapstorm spoke to anything I wrote.

The only thing I was talking about was the DIFFERENT judicial interpretations of the 2nd Amendment since courts have been speaking on the RKBA. SCOTUS has been saying one thing consistently from Cruikshank in 1876 to 2016 in Caetano; the lower federal courts were saying something diametrically opposite, for 66 years between 1942 (Tot and Cases) to 2008 when Heller invalidated Tot and Cases--.

Do you disagree with that?

Do you even understand that your vaunted and sacrosanct "judicial Second Amendment” is a schizophrenic mess? tell me, which persona do you identify with, the one that dwelled in the lower courts or the one that's alive and well in SCOTUS?

You denigrate this "aspirational Second Amendment" as being disconnected, but it is much closer to the truth than the collective right "judicial Second Amendment” you seem to want to ignore (or you actually embrace).

Which persona will SCOTUS align with in June in NYSRPA? Will it be the Blocher & Winkler and your "judicial" persona that, given your incoherence above, you can't even recognize has been inconsistent, or will SCOTUS' NYSRPA holding fall closer to the "aspirational Second Amendment", a holding along the lines of what the gun nuts believe, a holding that is going to stake-out territory of the right to arms yet uncharted?

I really need to ask, do you know what the actual case law is, or are you a complete poseur?
 
With all due respects to the Duke Professor the "huge array of firearms laws" come "after" you get to the Constitution, not before it. The difference is important.

That entire Duke Center for Firearms Law group hasn't met a gun control law they don't like and if Adam Winkler is speaking, you know anti-individual right gruel is flowing heavy.

.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top