Assault on Our Rights

a reply to: datguy

This thread is about an amendment tot he constitution that Commiefornia Gov Newsom is proposing, not a state gun law.

If you looked at the OP, which I know you have, he is trying to tighten the noose on the 2nd and put in a back door so that legislators of the future can write and implement as many gun laws restricting the rights of all legal gun owners in the US.

a reply to: Turquosie

The left can't even define what a women is, let alone what an "assault weapon" is. Hard to ban, or even obtain, something that nobody knows the true definition of.

Now if we are talking about fully automatic firearms, well, those are already VERY hard to get. Highly regulated, the paperwork and waiting period alone can take anywhere from 12-24 months. On top of that the tax stamp you have to have for them and the price of the firearm itself will set you back a couple grand at least. That in itself weeds out most of those who seek to do harm with them.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom
Bear with me please, you make good points but i just woke up and I am collecting information to aide in my argument, i hope you wont be disappointed.

a reply to: PorkChop96
Yes I fully understand that and my intent will be known soon, I'm not sorry for the long road, sometimes its the best path, plus I'm bored

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

The 10th grants the States or the People authority, not rights, where that authority is not given to the Federal government.

Since the 2nd specifically assigns the Right to Bear Arms to the People, the 10th implies that the Federal and State governments do not have the authority to infringe on that Right, as it has been reserved for the People.

I only point out that the 10th does not grant authority, it "reserves power"
The 10th also does NOT imply anything, it states : "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."

Since the basis for your stance is interpretation and semantics, we might as well get it right, right?
Since the 2A does NOT prohibit the states, this is indeed a power that the states, "or" the people, retain per the 10th.
This is where I was looking for legal precedent, there is no place I could find that defined which has a higher authority, the states or the people and I refuse to quote news articles on the matter.

As such it has been "suggested" by the SC that the states and the people are one in the same
though there is no "constitutional" definition or declaration
supreme.justia.com...
"Printz v. United States 1997"

So without semantic definition, and with case law as the only evidence, we "should" believe that in terms of constitutional law, that that states "are" the people.
Would it then fall upon the interpretation of state constitutions?

Any further debate without definition of these terms, or at least a baseline agreement is redundant.

I don't believe the Supremacy clause overrides the 2nd. Partly because the 2nd comes before it. I believe the Founding Fathers listed our rights in order of importance to a free society. First and foremost of those is the right of a man to say what he believes is true. Second only to that is the right of a man to defend himself from any and all threats.

But aside from my instinctive preference for chronological order, if the Supremacy clause can be used to override our rights, then we really have no rights at all, and we are not a free society. If Federal and State governments are willing to formally state that the American people really have no rights, only privileges, and we are essentially a society ruled by goons with guns, I will accept that. Somehow, I don't expect that level of honesty from government while so many people still have guns.

I partially agree with your perspective here though i dont think i stated that the supremacy clause takes precedent, but it does carry weight. While the framers of the constitution did so with great care and intent, i feel that the whole of the bill of rights are equally important.

Read the 2nd and 10th, and show me where Federal or State governments have the legal authority to infringe on the right of the People to bear arms.

I suppose here the semantic terms of "infringe" needs to be defined
it could be argued that because you still have the right to bear arms, none of the current laws in place infringe on that right, which is why we are here, right?

Bonus points if they can show me where Federal or State governments have the right to bear arms, and should be exempt from the laws they write.

ummm, doesn't this go back to the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
"A well regulated militia"
law.justia.com...
Article 1 S.8 cl.15
www.law.cornell.edu...
Article IV S.4

but let me guess, you still want a professors "opinion"?

a reply to: PorkChop96

Well, i'm still trying to define a few terms that would definitely provide for treason charges against Newsome for these actions. Its not an easy thing argue legally, regardless of personal beliefs or legal "opinions", including those of the SC

There are still conspiracy charges that could be filed. much like the blanket accusations against trump currently...fun times

a reply to: datguy

You mention in your reply to VictorVonDoom, that ""infringe" needs to be defined".

Infringe; act so as to limit or undermine

I would go as far as to assume that the FF intended this definition of the term in their writings. Therefore, making any laws or amendments unconstitutional.

Either way, as said by myself and others previously, there needs to be stricter enforcement of current gun laws before they even think about writing up new ones. Even though all of the new "laws" they want to write are in place, in most aspects.

a reply to: PorkChop96

and yet we can still bear arms and form well regulate militias, so are these rights actually infringed upon, or is a perceived threat?
There are many case that have gone through the SC and passed scrutiny, and many more that have been defeated.
As corruption has been pointed out it, is it a "perceived threat" of corruption in the government (state or federal).

What then of all the families that fear for their lives from gun violence, is it only a "perceived threat"?

There are examples of each side that can be argued.
which one is right?,
Do we then need to define what right is...maybe there is a professor out there can help...

a reply to: datguy

Can I? Can I go down to the local gun store and buy any gun I want free and clear without restrictions?

There is no "perceived threat" a limit is a limit no matter how you slice it.

Any limit on our 2nd amendment right is an infringement. And yes, the SC and whatnot have passed multiple things in the pat to limit our 2nd and I do not agree with any of it.

Are you one of those that think stricter gun laws will really save those families the "fear" they have? Oh wait, it won't be fear anymore when someone kicks in their door and kills them since they have no way to defend themselves.

There is no right or wrong in this case, there is constitutional and unconstitutional. And if you had any shred of brain you would know which one this is.

When we have one side crying that banning drag shows in public is against their 1st amendment rights, but will not even think twice about taking away my 2nd amendment rights, we know who is in the wrong here. The agenda does nothing to hide itself

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: datguy

Can I? Can I go down to the local gun store and buy any gun I want free and clear without restrictions?

what state do you live in?

There is no "perceived threat" a limit is a limit no matter how you slice it.

Any limit on our 2nd amendment right is an infringement. And yes, the SC and whatnot have passed multiple things in the pat to limit our 2nd and I do not agree with any of it.

again, the limit is on the federal government, which gives the states the power. regardless of how you "feel"

Are you one of those that think stricter gun laws will really save those families the "fear" they have? Oh wait, it won't be fear anymore when someone kicks in their door and kills them since they have no way to defend themselves.

I am not and my post history in several related threads recently will attest to that

There is no right or wrong in this case, there is constitutional and unconstitutional. And if you had any shred of brain you would know which one this is.

so out of anger you ignored that part of my last reply? the part where I said Newsome should be held for treason or conspiracy?
who is the one not using their head here?

When we have one side crying that banning drag shows in public is against their 1st amendment rights, but will not even think twice about taking away my 2nd amendment rights, we know who is in the wrong here. The agenda does nothing to hide itself

again, you can still buy guns.

a reply to: datguy

Doesn't matter where I live, I cannot go to a gun store and buy ANY gun I choose and walk out of there without a federal background check at the very least. Goes even further if I want to buy a suppressor, SBR, SBS, or full auto firearm.

There is no "feel", constitutional rights are across the board.

Then you should know that taking away even one firearm is unconstitutional

If you know then why argue it? Why not admit that any form of restriction on guns is an unconstitutional grab for our guns.

And you can still go to a drag show. But yet the libs still want to bitch and moan that their 1st rights are being restricted? But that's right, it only works the one way. If you are on the right or even right leaning, you are the enemy and we cna do anything and everything to get id of you and your rights/"agendas"/ideology

I was going to use the example that each state is different, they are intended to be that way. its reflective of the differing ideas and ideals that are inherent in any form of democracy. If that is what the majority of the people want, who are you to tell them they cant have it?
your inherent fear of infringement on your rights is not the same as another persons inherent fear of sending their kids to school. can these difference even be reconciled without compromise?
In Georgia 16 is old enough to have consensual sex, in Utah you can have several wives, there are 7 states with no income tax, 29 states used to have bans on same sex marriage. the list goes on.

So, if the majority of people decide to make pineapple pizza the national food, are you going to tell them they cant do that?
that seems unconstitutional to me, and definitely not "right"

a reply to: datguy

None of what you just said is PROTECTED by the constitution. You can't relate creating a "national food" to infringement of rights given to me by the constitution, those are not even close to being the same. And if that is your understanding of the constitution, then I understand why you are having such a hard time with this.

There is no fear of infringement, it is already here and they are pushing it every chance they can.

a reply to: PorkChop96

now your just being pedantic
it was clearly an example that applies to ANY law that "we the people" want to pass

originally posted by: datguy
I was going to use the example that each state is different, they are intended to be that way. its reflective of the differing ideas and ideals that are inherent in any form of democracy. If that is what the majority of the people want, who are you to tell them they cant have it?
your inherent fear of infringement on your rights is not the same as another persons inherent fear of sending their kids to school. can these difference even be reconciled without compromise?
In Georgia 16 is old enough to have consensual sex, in Utah you can have several wives, there are 7 states with no income tax, 29 states used to have bans on same sex marriage. the list goes on.

So, if the majority of people decide to make pineapple pizza the national food, are you going to tell them they cant do that?
that seems unconstitutional to me, and definitely not "right"

What you are describing is a democracy. The US is a republic. There's a difference there you seem to be missing.

a reply to: datguy

You're being obtuse for the sake of your own ridiculous argument

Any other amendment that someone tried to pass a law that even thinks about messing with gets rejected as unconstitutional . Why is the 2nd the only exception to that?

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: PorkChop96

now your just being pedantic
it was clearly an example that applies to ANY law that "we the people" want to pass

ANY law is subject to constitutional muster, no matter if it's federal, state or local. The fact a legislature can pass one doesn't mean it can't be challenged and overturned as unconstitutional.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: datguy

You're being obtuse for the sake of your own ridiculous argument

Any other amendment that someone tried to pass a law that even thinks about messing with gets rejected as unconstitutional . Why is the 2nd the only exception to that?

do you really think the defense of democratic ideals is ridiculous?

No one cried when they limited Free Speech

No one cried when the violated the 3rd amendment

The 4th Amendment is constantly under attack.

Are you saying eminent domain laws don't exist?
6th amendment laws are trampled upon every day

i could go on but i hope you get the point, the idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only law that is being changed is itself a ridiculous argument and a perceived threat.

so Ill ask again, do you think the defense of democratic ideals is ridiculous?

a reply to: datguy

I have never said that the 2nd amendment is the only one under attack, and if you believe I did you are as out of tune as you put yourself out to be, someone is always trying to take something away from us. The fact that you have a problem with me standing up for something I believe in says a lot about your character.

And yes, as I pointed out with the link you provided yesterday, Democratic ideals is what is attacking my amendment so yes they are ridiculous.

a reply to: Moon68

the correct term is "Federal Democratic Republic"

and yes, any law can be challenged but that does not presume it will be overturned

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: datguy

I have never said that the 2nd amendment is the only one under attack, and if you believe I did you are as out of tune as you put yourself out to be, someone is always trying to take something away from us. The fact that you have a problem with me standing up for something I believe in says a lot about your character.

And yes, as I pointed out with the link you provided yesterday, Democratic ideals is what is attacking my amendment so yes they are ridiculous.

wait what? i used your own words as follows...

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: datguy
Why is the 2nd the only exception to that?

I don't have any problem with you standing up for your rights, in fact its you and others that have gotten upset and insulted me for standing up for what I believe. the hypocracy is getting deeep in here