Question of gun rights........

[MongGrel]

*Popcorn*

I'm not planning on heading to Oregon and joining the clueless fake Patriots, though.

Unless "The People" are buying F-35's to rabbit hunt these days, it's a bit dated.

 

[trenchfoot]

So then, where is it in our laws that prevent me from owning a fully automatic assault rifle, or MG 42, SAW, etc. just as I own my own pistol, revolver, shotgun and hunting rifle when to do so apparently violates my 2A rights?

Why are there definite limits to what's "commonly available" to the average citizen?

Just need some clarification here as I've never looked into why that is.

 

[LegendKiller]

If militia is every single person in the country why didn't authors of the constitution just say "every single person in the country"?

It does. You know, the part after the comma....

 

[shady28]

This little liar omitted the rest of the quote so he could completely change its meaning. Here's what the Cruikshank opinion actually says:



The Constitution does not grant rights, it protects them. The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right to bear arms. In 1875, the Second Amendment--and the rest of the Bill of Rights--only restricted the federal government, but it's since been incorporated against state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

^^ One of the better posts in this thread.

There are many places in the constitution where it explicitly states 'Congress shall not...', a phrase which for the first 150 years or so was understood to mean that it limited Federal power not State power.

That's been borked quite a bit by SCOTUS extending power or restricting it based on political leanings in the last 100 years though. For example, 1st Amendment right to free speech shall not be abridged by Congress, but using the original meaning an individual state could abridge free speech.

ie, from the SCOTUS case you quoted :

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone

Today it is very well accepted that this is federally protected in most contexts, but is the argument for states being able to define and prosecute pornography and 'hate speech'.

Moving power from the states to the federal government has many implications. The SCOTUS has essentially split most of these powers WRT the 2nd amendment, telling states that they can regulate firearms but cannot abridge the right to own or carry them.

Example : In the District of Columbia for example, they had a ban on handguns.

In 2008 SCOTUS vacated that stating that they can regulate firearms, but they can't prevent ownership. A federal district court later ruled some of DC's regulations unconstitutional. The result was, since their law was unconstitutional and they had no other regulation, for a time anyone could carry a weapon in any manner they so chose in DC.

So this is a double edged sword, and SCOTUS isn't very consistent in how it applies this.

IMO it would be better if SCOTUS would just consistently use the original meaning and intent of the constitution (on all amendments) - they are actually very clear - instead of constantly shifting the bar based on their political leanings at the time.

IF that were how they operated, it would mean that states could regulate / restrict firearms in any way they so chose. Or they could do nothing. The Federal Gov't would have zero power to abridge those rights in any way, short of a constitutional amendment.

But there are many federal laws on the books, and an entire Federal department (ATF) that regulates firearms, so that's already failed from the get-go.

 

[fskimospy]

The big problem with what you wrote is that the original intent and meaning of the Constitution isn't clear at all. In fact, it was left deliberately ambiguous. And the intent? Whose intent? The constitution was written by a bunch of people who all had wildly different ideas on rights.

For example, what is an 'unreasonable' search? What is the original meaning and intent for 'searches' by a thermal imaging spy satellite? A government run by John Adams, a very important founding father, passed the Alien and Sedition acts, meaning he believed that the original intent of the first amendment didn't preclude imprisoning people for speaking out against the government.

Saying we should just follow the original intent sounds good but once you actually sit down and try to do it it is impossible. This is why you end up with the tortured logic and selective dictionary mining of someone like Scalia.

 

[shady28]

The big problem with what you wrote is that the original intent and meaning of the Constitution isn't clear at all. In fact, it was left deliberately ambiguous. And the intent? Whose intent? The constitution was written by a bunch of people who all had wildly different ideas on rights.

For example, what is an 'unreasonable' search? What is the original meaning and intent for 'searches' by a thermal imaging spy satellite? A government run by John Adams, a very important founding father, passed the Alien and Sedition acts, meaning he believed that the original intent of the first amendment didn't preclude imprisoning people for speaking out against the government.

Saying we should just follow the original intent sounds good but once you actually sit down and try to do it it is impossible. This is why you end up with the tortured logic and selective dictionary mining of someone like Scalia.

Typical revisionism from the left. The far right will do the same thing.

It's really pretty simple.

"Congress shall not.. " means Federal.

"States shall or shall not.." means states.

Anything that is not mentioned is assumed to be delegated to the states.

If neither are mentioned in an amendment then it means hands-off that right to everyone.

You can gather specifics of intent by reading the statements of those who signed the constitution. This is actually what SCOTUS usually does to determine constitutionality.

 

[LegendKiller]

The big problem with what you wrote is that the original intent and meaning of the Constitution isn't clear at all. In fact, it was left deliberately ambiguous. And the intent? Whose intent? The constitution was written by a bunch of people who all had wildly different ideas on rights.

For example, what is an 'unreasonable' search? What is the original meaning and intent for 'searches' by a thermal imaging spy satellite? A government run by John Adams, a very important founding father, passed the Alien and Sedition acts, meaning he believed that the original intent of the first amendment didn't preclude imprisoning people for speaking out against the government.

Saying we should just follow the original intent sounds good but once you actually sit down and try to do it it is impossible. This is why you end up with the tortured logic and selective dictionary mining of someone like Scalia.

The guy who wrote it made his intent abundantly clear. The text has no ambiguity, doubly so when considered in context to the purpose and wording of the Constitution. Any ambiguity is a farcical creation by those who seek to limit rights.

 

[fskimospy]

The guy who wrote it made his intent abundantly clear. The text has no ambiguity, doubly so when considered in context to the purpose and wording of the Constitution. Any ambiguity is a farcical creation by those who seek to limit rights.

Of course it is ambiguous, in both its wording and its application. The word infringe doesn't just mean to limit something in any way, it means to limit something in an illegal or unreasonable way. What's unreasonable? As for usage, if anything the first amendment is far less ambiguous than the second, yet I'm not aware of any person who thinks we should use it exactly as written.

In a practical sense, the fact that numerous courts throughout the years have come to dramatically different conclusions as to what the second amendment means should pretty much end the debate as to if it's crystal clear and unambiguous.

Edit: also, a 'guy' didn't write it. It was agreed to by a large number of people all of whom probably had a different idea on its exact purpose.

 

[MongGrel]

I take it the Bill of Rights isn't really a thing mentioned much these days.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

 

[LegendKiller]

Of course it is ambiguous, in both its wording and its application. The word infringe doesn't just mean to limit something in any way, it means to limit something in an illegal or unreasonable way. What's unreasonable? As for usage, if anything the first amendment is far less ambiguous than the second, yet I'm not aware of any person who thinks we should use it exactly as written.

In a practical sense, the fact that numerous courts throughout the years have come to dramatically different conclusions as to what the second amendment means should pretty much end the debate as to if it's crystal clear and unambiguous.

Edit: also, a 'guy' didn't write it. It was agreed to by a large number of people all of whom probably had a different idea on its exact purpose.

Madison wrote it. That is not unclear. It has been upheld repeatedly through history.

 

[MongGrel]

Madison wrote it. That is not unclear. It has been upheld repeatedly through history.

Hancock put a really big signature on it.

+1 for the Bling.

Still not sure why you try acting like a professor of Constitutional Law with such a short grasp of it in most instances.

 

[LegendKiller]

Hancock put a really big signature on it.

+1 for the Bling.

Still not sure why you try acting like a professor of Constitutional Law with such a short grasp of it in most instances.

As opposed to?

 

[fskimospy]

Madison wrote it. That is not unclear. It has been upheld repeatedly through history.

No, the original wording of the second amendment was written by him and it was then substantially modified by House and Senate on its way to ratification. So yes, who exactly wrote it is quite unclear, haha. All that aside, if anything it would be the intent of the members of the House and Senate that would matter.

If by 'upheld' you mean it has been affirmed as some sort of right or another repeatedly throughout history, sure. In fact the second amendment is so unclear it has sparked reams of debate and grammatical parsing to try and figure out whether it represented a collective right or an individual one. Federal courts until recently generally fell on the side of it representing a collective right, although that changed with the Heller decision. (further showing how ambiguous it is!)

 

[NesuD]

Who are "the people" in the 2nd amendment?

Would you mind telling the rest of the story?

Cherry picking one line out of the decision is a gross misrepresentation. The part of the decision concerning the 2nd amendment actually said this:

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

The Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people. It prohibits the the government from infringing the rights of the people. Some of those rights are specifically mentioned by the Bill of Rights and those not specifically mentioned are covered by the 10th amendment:

"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."

The 2nd amendment clearly states that right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The decision in respect to the 2nd amendment simply says that the Federal government has no power to infringe the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

 

[NesuD]

If the authors of the Constitution believed there was a right to privacy, why didn't they use the word "privacy"?

You don't get it. The Constitution does not grant rights so it is unnecessary to mention it. It is a natural right that belongs to the people. The 4th amendment grants the Federal Government limited power to infringe that right but only under specific conditions.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[trenchfoot]

Not on solid ground with this, but since the decision in the Heller case was determined by a Supreme Court that was/is conservatively biased with swing vote Kennedy mostly on the conservative side of issues, isn't it plausible to say that the Heller vote could have gone the other way if there was a liberal court majority at the time?

I mention this with the thought that the vote was split along conservative/liberal lines, thus reinforcing the notion that indeed, the language of the 2A is so ambiguous as to cause a 5/4 split in the vote.

 

[LegendKiller]

No, the original wording of the second amendment was written by him and it was then substantially modified by House and Senate on its way to ratification. So yes, who exactly wrote it is quite unclear, haha. All that aside, if anything it would be the intent of the members of the House and Senate that would matter.

If by 'upheld' you mean it has been affirmed as some sort of right or another repeatedly throughout history, sure. In fact the second amendment is so unclear it has sparked reams of debate and grammatical parsing to try and figure out whether it represented a collective right or an individual one. Federal courts until recently generally fell on the side of it representing a collective right, although that changed with the Heller decision. (further showing how ambiguous it is!)

More like there was a period in the last 80 years, since Miller, where it was thought to be collective, but now the courts are going back to the original intent affirmed years before that. Cruickshank and Miller highlight that it wasn't always thought to be collective.

 

[Chiropteran]

If militia is every single person in the country why didn't authors of the constitution just say "every single person in the country"?

Because if they did, some idiots would argue that married folks aren't "single" and therefore can't own guns.

 

[buckshot24]

Because if they did, some idiots would argue that married folks aren't "single" and therefore can't own guns.

Sadly this is true. I think "the people" says enough.

 

[LegendKiller]

Sadly this is true. I think "the people" says enough.

Depends on what the meaning of of is is.

 

[fskimospy]

More like there was a period in the last 80 years, since Miller, where it was thought to be collective, but now the courts are going back to the original intent affirmed years before that. Cruickshank and Miller highlight that it wasn't always thought to be collective.

Yeah, what's eight decades or so between friends. I think that should put to rest the idea that there was no ambiguity in the wording.

 

[chucky2]

Yeah, what's eight decades or so between friends. I think that should put to rest the idea that there was no ambiguity in the wording.

LOL Nick...

 

[Darwin333]

If militia is every single person in the country why didn't authors of the constitution just say "every single person in the country"?

Umm they did.... The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


You see, it says People, not militia and not the states but the right of the People. There is a comma between the entire militia and people part for a reason.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL Nick...

You're right good friend chucky, I'm sure the country just suffered an eight decade long mass delusion where they thought perfectly clear wording meant something else.

Spin, spin, spin!

 

[chucky2]

You're right good friend chucky, I'm sure the country just suffered an eight decade long mass delusion where they thought perfectly clear wording meant something else.

Are you talking about Fed powers making more and more grabs for power and Sheeple going on about Sheeple lives? It's like you think some significant % of the voting demographic actually takes time out of their lives each and every day to be personally up on the goings on of their Gov and holds them accountable. In short: Bombastically absurd. To then further your suggestion, you think that the very Gov powers making those power grabs from the Sheeple are immune from the indoctrination and compulsions they themselves have developed under. Do you actually read what you write? Did you inherit some kind of SJW/Socialist macro from Macro and tweak it for your needs?

Spin, spin, spin!

The absolute pot/kettle analogy here is so strong as to completely break the space/time binds that hold the universe together. Nick Nick'ing about Nick'ing, LOL...