New knee-jerk legislation resulting from the AZ shooting (MERGED)

[AutoFan]

The 2nd Amendment was actually intended to be an absolute right, as it represents the right to self defense, be it from animals, men or governments. That right exists outside of the laws of any government (or rulings of any court). The Bill of Rights was placed in the Constitution to protect the individual from the Federal government. Indeed, the Constitution would never have been passed without the Bill of Rights inclusion.

The only restrictions on the enumerated (numbered) rights are where they interfere with those self same rights of others. So my mere possession of an item, so long as it does not cause harm by it's mere existence, is protected by the Constitution. To whit, if I possess a book outlining an insane homicidal philosophy, that cannot be a crime under the Constitution, no matter how many of my fellow citizens believe so, or how many of their US Congressmen they elect, or how many laws they pass. Now if I act upon the insane homicidal philosophy in that book, THAT is then a crime.

The same argument applies to arms or the ammunition for arms or their components (all of which the British attempted to confiscate prior to, and during, the American Revolution).

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[hamlet]

The 2nd Amendment was actually intended to be an absolute right, as it represents the right to self defense, be it from animals, men or governments. That right exists outside of the laws of any government (or rulings of any court). The Bill of Rights was placed in the Constitution to protect the individual from the Federal government. Indeed, the Constitution would never have been passed without the Bill of Rights inclusion.

The only restrictions on the enumerated (numbered) rights are where they interfere with those self same rights of others. So my mere possession of an item, so long as it does not cause harm by it's mere existence, is protected by the Constitution.

That's the point.
The community does not want you to own nuclear weapons for self-defense because their use - (and any weapon's possession for self-defense is for "use": for self-defense) - is considered unsafe to more than just the attacker. This is constitutional. So is the community's law constitutional if it considers machine guns a danger to others - which it does - and makes it illegal to posses them; and it is. And if it wants to do the same with magazines that hold 40 rounds, it can pass a law making them illegal. In each of these others can disagree, but the law is there because more don't. And none of these laws would preclude your being able to use a gun for self-defense, so the Right that allows self-defense with a gun continues to exist. But if it goes as far as DC - which did not allow a functioning gun to be owned at all - you no longer have the Right to Bear Arms for self-defense or any purpose - so that one is unconstitutional. Certain Rights are basic, but how they play out in the everyday world are evaluated in conjunction with particular situations, particular weapons in the case of the 2nd, or particular jury rules for another, always the interplay of the principle with the situation - and this not only allows but also needs: evaluation, judgment, allowance or dis-allowance or partial-allowance, by the people in that generation affected by that situation.

[Hopyard]

In this case, the applicant wouldn't be admitting to anything. Someone else is claiming that for you.

On this part you are right. A drug test can be wrong. The accusation would be false.
And yes, denying a license based on a drug test which revealed MJ at minor misdemeanor levels would, without further investigation and analysis by the CHL issuing authority be unconstitutional.

However, if someone freely admitted their use, as did the guy in AZ (he didn't fail a drug test if I have the news stories straight), why shouldn't that info be used against him?

The big downside to the proposal is that it will encourage perjury in the military application process.

[zacii]

So is the community's law constitutional if it considers machine guns a danger to others - which it does - and makes it illegal to posses them; and it is.

This is not true. Fully automatic weapons can be possessed by citizens, if they've got the money.

[Guantes]

That is, if there are no state statutes against them.

[livewire]

On this part you are right. A drug test can be wrong. The accusation would be false.
And yes, denying a license based on a drug test which revealed MJ at minor misdemeanor levels would, without further investigation and analysis by the CHL issuing authority be unconstitutional.

However, if someone freely admitted their use, as did the guy in AZ (he didn't fail a drug test if I have the news stories straight), why shouldn't that info be used against him?

The big downside to the proposal is that it will encourage perjury in the military application process.

The report I saw said he was denied because he blew the test, but the reports on any of this have been rather inconsistent. Even so, if he admitted to the recruiter's office that he had used drugs, should they have the purview to enter that into someone's permanent record?

This is not true. Fully automatic weapons can be possessed by citizens, if they've got the money.

I further contest that the current ban on newly manufactured select fire weapons violates the Original Intent of the 2A.

[zacii]

I further contest that the current ban on newly manufactured select fire weapons violates the Original Intent of the 2A.

Yes, I agree, and we had a rather lengthy thread on that subject just a few months ago: Here's one, there was another one, but I cannot dig it up right now.

Any restrictions on magazine capacity equals limits on ammo capacity, which in turn infringes on the use of guns. We cannot use them without ammunition.

Restrictions on magazines and ammunition is an end-around play that leads to disarmament.


I stand corrected on the legality of machine guns. I forgot that hamlet was a citizen of New York...

[Hopyard]

Even so, if he admitted to the recruiter's office that he had used drugs, should they have the purview to enter that into someone's permanent record?

I really don't see why not. Just like everything you post here is "on the record" for eternity.

The downside to the proposed law isn't that it violates the constitution, it is that it will encourage perjury among the applicants.

And yes, news reports have put it both ways and we don't know which one it was, voluntary, tested, or both, or neither really, since we have no access to the records.

[hamlet]

Yes, I agree, and we had a rather lengthy thread on that subject just a few months ago: Here's one, there was another one, but I cannot dig it up right now.

Any restrictions on magazine capacity equals limits on ammo capacity, which in turn infringes on the use of guns. We cannot use them without ammunition.

Restrictions on magazines and ammunition is an end-around play that leads to disarmament.


I stand corrected on the legality of machine guns. I forgot that hamlet was a citizen of New York...

And this is what the Supreme Court states (Heller Decision).

According to the Cornell School of law summary,[43] and the syllabus prepared by the US Supreme Court Recorder of Decisions,[44] in this decision the Supreme Court held:[43][44]

"2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "

[livewire]

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "

'In common use' has been used to define military small arms in other legal arenas, in the US and internationally. Accepting that, then select fire weapons qualify.

[razor02097]

We are getting a little off topic here...

owning and using a high capacity magazine may not be a right per say but it is difficult for me to figure out why people would support a restriction that would outright ban magazines that hold more than X number of rounds. Maybe because I live in a state that has a hard cap on magazine capacity already... I dunno... If ya'll don't want high capacity magazines then don't buy them.... regardless if this went through or not, criminals aren't going to follow the ban or restriction.

Yes there is really little need for high capacity 30+ round magazines in the CCW world but that doesn't mean there is no use for them. Recreational sporting events such as target shooting is made much more fun if you can engage more targets before having to reload. Pistol caliber carbines are still popular most of the times it is such a firearm that prompts manufacturers to make the super large capacity magazines.

For example if you have a 9mm AR15 or a keltec sub2000 that takes the Glock 9mm magazines you have the option to step up to a 30 round mag that allows you to carry as much ammo capacity as a standard AR15 in 223.
Even pistols have high capacity right out from the factory... Like the XDM 9 that holds 19+1 rounds. How about the keltec PMR-30? 30 rounds of .22 magnum in a standard magazine, It is the ultimate plinker... I guess we need to toss them in the bonfire. How about a the KRISS 45 Carbine... It takes extended Glock 21 mags.... even if you don't extend them it would still be 13 rounds... what do you do then?


My point is there is use for high capacity magazines in the civilian life. Even if it isn't in the conceal carry world.

[Hopyard]

'In common use' has been used to define military small arms in other legal arenas, in the US and internationally. Accepting that, then select fire weapons qualify.

Unless 2A is amended so that the stupid wording of it is made more clear, we are stuck with its meaning being whatever the courts happen to decide at any particular time, place; state or Federal. We are also stuck with whatever our legislatures decide it means subject to judicial review.

I'm not convinced that decisions made in "other legal arenas," especially internationally (as suggested in post 175), have much meaning or impact on what our justices decide.

If you want to see some lively dialog, find rebroadcasts of some taped C-Span shows in which Justice Bryer and Justice Scalia
not all that gently square off on the issue of examining the actions of courts in other countries as a means of deciding what our constitution means.

Basically, Scalia says, approximately, no way am I going to give consideration to the acts of courts elsewhere.

I think he may be wrong about being absolute on this, but you can be sure that whatever the other "legal arena....internationally" you speak of happen to be, Justice Scalia will not be interested in their opinions.

[hamlet]

Unless 2A is amended so that the stupid wording of it is made more clear, we are stuck with its meaning being whatever the courts happen to decide at any particular time, place; state or Federal. We are also stuck with whatever our legislatures decide it means subject to judicial review.

I'm not convinced that decisions made in "other legal arenas," especially internationally (as suggested in post 175), have much meaning or impact on what our justices decide.

If you want to see some lively dialog, find rebroadcasts of some taped C-Span shows in which Justice Bryer and Justice Scalia
not all that gently square off on the issue of examining the actions of courts in other countries as a means of deciding what our constitution means.

Basically, Scalia says, approximately, no way am I going to give consideration to the acts of courts elsewhere.

I think he may be wrong about being absolute on this, but you can be sure that whatever the other "legal arena....internationally" you speak of happen to be, Justice Scalia will not be interested in their opinions.

The law as present is not thrown out by the Supreme C. - except DC's. The rest aren't undecided Constitutionally - they are Constitutional. We have a very definite "hint", though, what would need to be shown for a future case to be considered a Constitutional issue to begin with: because the Decision states that restrictions are not inherently against the 2nd Amendment just because they are a restriction: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited".

I can't prove it because it's theoretical, but what Razorback just pointed to is very likely true of Mag capacity, it's a possible Legislative issue, not at all likely a Constitutional one - (unless the limit was at 1 or 2 rounds). At present Arizona's law which, I take it, doesn't restrict mag-capacity is Constitutional, and so is New York's and other areas' present limit to 10. Changes if any will be by the legislature through community pressure by the majority. This thread has lately been concentrating on the Constitution, because some have claimed limit violates the 2nd and that's the end of it.

[rljohns]

I thought "can not be infringed" means they can infringe. It is the only right that uses this wording.

[Stetson]

The manic had 33 round magazines (2) . Events like this have taught me under no uncertain terms do Ileave my house without a sidearm on my side.Over the last 10 years I was lax
I always said you have your pistol in the car glove box.Well that won't due if someone is in the store shooting away. I predict within the next 12 months one of the good guys, us ,a legally
licensed concealed carrying citizen will put down one of these sick human beings before he starts or as he's in the process of shooting. When this happens maybe this will put a different light
on us.