Second Amendment

Originally posted by TheFlash

"Revoked their right", eh? That would seem to imply an act of volition and involuntary mental illness would not seem to fit, would you agree?

This could be revoke or suspend based on the nature of the event. Guns aside, when a person is found guilty of a crime or deemed dangerous due to mental issues they can lose their freedom and many rights that go with that. I think you know what I mean, I'm just not sure your point.

I'm sure you are trying to create a line of reasoning in if to bear arms was a right then everyone no matter what should have that right, and if not then it is not a right but a privilege, and if it was a privilege then it can be regulated, banned, limited etc....

reply to post by TheFlash


I think many people here are giving up on this thread because your original post has been thoroughly addressed in many posts by many different people. You keep arguing the minutia of some posts that have little bearing to your original thread opener. It's coming off as more than a little weird from my standpoint.

here's a quick breakdown of where the law stands on the second amendment. this applies to every state.

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

gonna make a law that requires one to get a permit to CC? sorry, don't have to abide by it.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262, (1969) "If the state converts a Liberty into a Privilege the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”

keep them with you at all times. if you are arrested after showing a police officer these, you can charge them with perjury, false arrest, violation of the right to liberty and property.

when congress attempts to enact something that infringes upon a constitutional liberty, that's when you pull these out and tell them to go to hell.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


And with that, Bob, I think I can, with confidence, hold your gloved hand in the air, get on the mic, and declare you the winner with a TKO.

reply to post by Galvatron


Bear in mind although I do most deeply respect J Cooper it is not a medical term.Just an observed description.I do believe they equate talent with need to do. That is: because you have done these things you would do so here in CONUS.
Civilians do have some screwed up ideas about warfare and we all know the deal but I very much avoid showing someone who I don't know any weapon having seen others behave as described.I chalk it up to just being polite.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Yeah. I made the terrible assumption that since my wife is interested in shooting and shooting sports, that her friend would automatically be too. Combine that assumption with the interested looks she was giving me as I was packing up, I misread her ethos. The looks of interest was more out of fear and concern than interest or enthusiasm. Definitely a lesson learned.

Originally posted by Galvatron
reply to post by TheFlash

 

I think many people here are giving up on this thread because your original post has been thoroughly addressed in many posts by many different people. You keep arguing the minutia of some posts that have little bearing to your original thread opener. It's coming off as more than a little weird from my standpoint.

How ever will I sleep tonight?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by TheFlash

 

Hey, since we're playing the 'statistics' game:

Gun Control Poll: 62 Percent Want Senate to 'Move On'

www.usnews.com...

Americans are more narrowly divided on the issue than in recent months, and backing for a bill has slipped below 50%, the poll finds. By 49%-45%, those surveyed favor Congress passing a new gun-control law. In an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll in early April, 55% had backed a stricter gun law, which was down from 61% in February.

www.usatoday.com... rong/2103419/

Currently, support for stricter gun control laws stands at 47 percent today, down from a high of 57 percent just after the shootings. Thirty-nine percent want those laws kept as they are, and another 11 percent want them made less strict.

www.cbsnews.com...

You know what is funny..
The OP will ignore this, because it doesn't reflect his personal views. Even after all the bemoaning about how statistics are the end all to how the country should be governed.

But, at least he won't loose any sleep tonight.

Originally posted by TheFlash


How ever will I sleep tonight?

Most of your posts in this thread have been laced with petulance. You don't even have anything left to present. I think you need to take open minded out of your title. The only reason you stopped calling people stupid was because a mod came to the thread. I don't think I'm out of line by saying that I think the majority of the people who participated in this thread regret doing so because "discussing" your opening post with you has been like talking to someone who hasn't graduated high school, it's like talking to someone who's dead.

reply to post by Galvatron


I always deal with these people to the bitter end. They DON'T know their history they claim to already know all about the military and weaponry.
Probably airsoft or call of duty.This guy even used Rambo.
Sad really to think they want to make us like them.

Here is yet another summary of the beloved DC vs. Heller decision from the Oyez Project Web site maintained by the College of Law. (bold text is mine)

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate.

From LAWS.COM

The decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court in DC v. Heller ruled did not effectively address the question of whether or not the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution extends beyond federal enclaves to each individual state

From the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation [another liberal organization?] (bold text mine)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves.

Perhaps most eloquently stated, From the CATO Institute

Will the Second Amendment Be “Incorporated”? Imminently, the Court will have to decide whether Second Amendment rights can be enforced against state governments. Washington, D.C. is not a state; it is a federal enclave within which Congress exercises plenary legislative power. Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to states or to municipalities legislating under delegated state authority. But in a series of post-Civil-War cases, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to “incorporate” most of the Bill of Rights in order to hold state governments accountable for violations. Interestingly, the Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment has been incorporated. If gun control regulations are to be challenged in places such as Chicago and San Francisco, that question must be answered.

This pretty clearly shows that the ruling does NOT in fact extend to states. If you believe otherwise then present evidence to support your contention.

You didn't answer my question about legally defined mental illness,as expected.
Funny how predictable you and most progs are.
This isn't a paralegal forum and we are not impressed by semantic banter when it comes down to brass tacks.
If someone is trying to kill you and they are find semi auto rifles more prevalently now,I will maintain my ability to respond.
Lawyers have fouled up this nation something fierce.We hire someone who uses a foreign language to speak that language in a room the decides how that language can be used and the one who best talks wins.It has nothing to do with right or wrong it just has to do with the system of foreign language that is used to decide our structure and even our fates.I couldn't care less about proving to you in YOUR language that I'm right.I have been fine for a great many years until YOU people showed up to screw things up.
I won'y show you a damn thing that counteracts common sense which evidently now is a super power WE vets have from having to make split second life or death decisions all the time.

Awaiting rational replies worth responding to...

Originally posted by TheFlash
Here is yet another summary of the beloved DC vs. Heller decision from the Oyez Project Web site maintained by the College of Law. (bold text is mine)

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be "unreasonable or inappropriate" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate.

From LAWS.COM

The decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court in DC v. Heller ruled did not effectively address the question of whether or not the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution extends beyond federal enclaves to each individual state

From the U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation [another liberal organization?] (bold text mine)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves.

Perhaps most eloquently stated, From the CATO Institute

Will the Second Amendment Be “Incorporated”? Imminently, the Court will have to decide whether Second Amendment rights can be enforced against state governments. Washington, D.C. is not a state; it is a federal enclave within which Congress exercises plenary legislative power. Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, not to states or to municipalities legislating under delegated state authority. But in a series of post-Civil-War cases, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to “incorporate” most of the Bill of Rights in order to hold state governments accountable for violations. Interestingly, the Court has never ruled that the Second Amendment has been incorporated. If gun control regulations are to be challenged in places such as Chicago and San Francisco, that question must be answered.

This pretty clearly shows that the ruling does NOT in fact extend to states. If you believe otherwise then present evidence to support your contention.

Right here...

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.

Yuo bolded the dissenting opinion, but you brushed aside the final decision of the court. I reprint it again for emphasis.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment.

In summary, the SCOTUS has ruled that the RKBA is indeed an individual right and that one does not need to be actively serving in the state militia for it to apply and that the Second Amendment is indeed incorporated and the States cannot violate it just as the states cannot violate the rest of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

reply to post by TheFlash


Same. You're arguing something that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread which incidentally, you created. You suggested that firearms aren't defined, but arms in general. With that supposition, you drew the conclusion that as long as citizens weren't deprived of sticks and stones, then the 2nd amendment held. Contrastly, you then suggested that if all arms were protected, then a citizen could potentially have the right to purchase nuclear weapons. I posted the legally recognized definitions of arms, ordnance, machine guns, destructive devices, and any other weapons. The first two have had a long standing recognized difference since well before this nation was created.

Please tell me how a reply to your thread opener on page 1 regarding the Heller case by someone who ditched this thread pages ago has anything to do with the discussion in its current form, or your original post. It's becoming clear you've missed or ignored the vast majority of points by various posters that more than adequately counter and disprove your initial assumptions that lead you to create this thread. It's also becoming clear you are reaching the limit of your intelligence in this argument, not only because of the former, but also because you are myopically focused on the legitimacy of semantics rather than the legitimacy of the overall theme and facts in the replies that counter yours. This is my last post. This is a truly strange thread. Very seldom does an OP contribute so little.

reply to post by NavyDoc


I don't see your source referenced.

Originally posted by Galvatron
reply to post by TheFlash

 

This is my last post.

bu-bye

reply to post by TheFlash

In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

from the first sentence of the ruling, you know, the actual ruling, not the "dissenting opinion" that you put in bold as if it were the actual ruling.

you realize the constitution acknowledges that there are rights that individuals possess that it doesn't specify, right? it says "among these" not "only these".

constitutional rights are inalienable unless removed through due process of law (felons). a court could rule that the 2nd amendment is unconstitutional and no one would have to follow it. the courts are not above the constitution, they were established by the constitution.

Originally posted by TheFlash
The second amendment give the "right to bear arms" to US citizens. It does not say anything about "guns". Spears are arms. Swords are arms. Clubs are arms. As long as citizens have the right to bear those items then they have the right to "bear arms", right? After all, the Amendment does NOT say that they can bear "any and all" arms. If that was the case, people would be allowed to carry flame throwers, RPGs and tactical nukes, right?

Sensible responses only please.

This premise is illogical as, by the same token, Freedom of Speech would only apply to the spoken word.

Read the Militia Act of 1792, written by Madison, who was also the author of the second amendment. It defines "the militia" as everyone--every abled bodied male that is--and it required everyone to supply themselves with the arms and equipment of the average infantry soldier. Right there in black and white, the intent of the FF was to permit every citizen to arm and equip themselves just like the soldiers around them. Go down to Fort Benning, see what the average 11B carries around, and there you will see the types of arms the writers of the Constitution wanted the average citizen to have.

Originally posted by TheFlash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

I don't see your source referenced.

www.csmonitor.com...

1.^ "In McDonald v. Chicago another Supreme Court landmark ruling on guns?". The Christian Science Monitor. 2010-03-01.
2.^ National Rifle Ass'n of Amer., Inc. v. City of Chicago, 567 F.3d 856, 857 (7th Cir. 2009)
3.^ Taff, Mark. "SAF Files Lawsuit Challenging Chicago’s Handgun Ban". www.chicagoguncase.com. Retrieved July 6, 2009.
4.^ Miller, Erin (March 2, 2010). "Podcasts: McDonald v. City of Chicago". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved March 2, 2010.
5.^ Liptak, Adam (March 2, 2010). "Supreme Court Still Divided on Guns". The New York Times.
6.^ Mears, Bill (June 28, 2009). "Court rules for gun rights, strikes down Chicago handgun ban". CNN.
7.^ a b c Tanaka, Jennifer (January, 2010). "On Otis McDonald and his lawsuit challenging Chicago’s 1982 handgun ban". Chicago Magazine. Retrieved 10 October 2012.
8.^ "A new Second Amendment case". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved July 4, 2009.[dead link]
9.^ "ChicagoGunCase.com » FAQs". www.chicagoguncase.com. Retrieved July 6, 2009.
10.^ "[T]he words 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' seems to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States." Erwin Chemerinsky et al., Constitutional Law § 6.3.2 (3d ed. 2006) (quoting Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 166 (1968) (Black, dissenting))
11.^ More precisely, the Privileges or Immunities Clause would incorporate the first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights; since the 9th and 10th Amendments refer to the unenumerated rights of individuals and reserved powers of the states respectively, their incorporation, at least for the 10th Amendment, would be paradoxical or meaningless.
12.^ "Liberals Use Supreme Court Gun Case to Bolster Other Rights". www.law.com. Retrieved July 4, 2009.
13.^ "Constitutional Accountability Center filed brief in NRA v. Chicago". www.theusconstitution.org. Retrieved July 4, 2009.
14.^ "Brief for Constitutional Law Professors as Amici Curiae". Retrieved June 29, 2010.
15.^ slip op., at 52-54 (Thomas, J., concurring)
16.^ slip op., at 1 (Thomas, J., concurring)
17.^ "Merit Briefs for February Supreme Court Cases, Term 2009-2010". American Bar Association. Retrieved June 29, 2010.
18.^ "Brief for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson et al. as Amici Curiae". Retrieved June 28, 2010.
19.^ Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson press release, November 23, 2009
20.^ www.chicagoguncase.com...
21.^ McDonald, at ___-___ (slip op., at 44)
22.^ SCOTUS blog
23.^ a b McDonald, at ___-___ (slip op., at 39-40)
24.^ "OK, Let's Debate Gun Control!". The Wall Street Journal. 2012-07-23.
25.^ "Statement by Wayne LaPierre Executive Vice President, NRA and Chris W. Cox Executive Director, NRA-ILA Regarding U.S. Supreme Court Decision McDonald v. City of Chicago". Retrieved June 25, 2010.
26.^ "Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: Media". Retrieved June 25, 2010.
27.^ "Brief for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence et al. as Amici Curiae". Retrieved June 28, 2010.
28.^ Interviewer: Gwen Ifill (June 28, 2010). "After Supreme Court Ruling, Cities Face Restructuring of Gun Laws". NewsHour. PBS.
29.^ "NRA Eyes More Targets After D.C. Gun-Ban Win". www.npr.org (NPR). Retrieved July 6, 2009.
30.^ Moore v. Madigan, key points
31.^ Appeals court won’t reconsider concealed carry ruling, Chicago Sun Times, 22 Feb 2013.


It's not hard to find.

Here's a few more:
en.wikipedia.org...

www.oyez.org...

The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights that are "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court recognized in Heller that the right to self-defense was one such "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. The Court reasoned that because of its holding in Heller, the Second Amendment applied to the states. Here, the Court remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether Chicago's handgun ban violated an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Justice Alito, writing in the plurality, specified that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. He rejected Justice Clarence Thomas's separate claim that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment more appropriately incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Alito stated that the Court's decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases -- rejecting the use of the Privileges or Immunities Clause for the purpose of incorporation -- was long since decided and the appropriate avenue for incorporating rights was through the Due Process Clause.

Justice Antonin Scalia concurred. He agreed with the Court's opinion, but wrote separately to disagree with Justice John Paul Stevens' dissent. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred and concurred in the judgment. He agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states, but disagreed that the Due Process Clause was the appropriate mechanism. Instead, Justice Thomas advocated that the Privileges or Immunities Clause was the more appropriate avenue for rights incorporation. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented. He disagreed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. He argued that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, also dissented. He argued that there is nothing in the Second Amendment's "text, history, or underlying rationale" that characterizes it as a "fundamental right" warranting incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment.