does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules?
This is a discussion on does the 2nd amendment leave room for any rules? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy
OK all you purists out there, do you think that Title 18 US Code, Chapter 44 is unconstitutional because it ...
View Poll Results: Are the limits to the 2nd Amendment Constitutional?
- 156. You may not vote on this poll
I agree that a person under 18 should not own a long gun!
I disagree that a person under 18 can't own a long gun!
I agree that a person under 21 should not own a handgun!
I disagree that a person under 21 can't own a handgun!
I agree some weapons should be restricted from American citizens!
I disagree some weapons should be restricted from American citizens!
I agree that a felon should not be able to own a gun!
I think this is a stupid poll
I think this is a good poll
August 25th, 2012 03:27 AM
Originally Posted by Timmy Jimmy
Originally Posted by AceRider
In order to be a protected, a weapon must be "in common use at the time", and may not be "dangerous and unusual". If a given weapon fails one or both of these qualifications, it is not protected for civilian ownership. So, let's go down the list:
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Pistol: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Automatic rifle: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? No.
Hand grenade: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Grenade launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Rocket launcher: In common use at the time? Yes. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Patriot missile battery: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Nuclear warheads: In common use at the time? No. Is dangerous and unusual? Yes.
Tanks are not weapons. Tanks are vehicles weapons can be mounted on, but anyone with enough money to buy one can own a tank. That does not mean you can have a functioning cannon, 50cal machine gun, 2 saw machine guns, or grenades...it means you can have the tank and the tank only. You can own a black hawk helicopter, also...doesn't mean you can have the twin mini-guns.
August 25th, 2012 03:53 AM
The interpretation by those in the black robes might not be consistent with those that wrote the 2nd amendment. And yes I know whatever they say is the end of the line however it doesn't mean its right.
Originally Posted by ArmyMan
In order for the people to insure their free state we should be allowed to keep the same weaponry as front line military personnel. Meaning at least pistols, rifles, automatic weapons, hand grenades, grenade and rocket launchers as someone mention in another thread.
The dangerous and unusual language is pure BS. First off is states "and" meaning it has to be both. A hand grenade can be considered dangerous if used improperly just a pistol/rifle can be dangerous if used improperly. Are any of the weapons I mentioned unusual the answer is no (and they are only dangerous if used improperly).
"One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
--Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney
Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791
and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."
August 29th, 2012 06:42 AM
Michael, well said. I was responding to tangoseal's statement, "Why should a felon have a permanent loss of the right to legally own a firearm. NO WHERE in our Constitution does it say this right can be taken away." What Roger Clegg says is that the Constitution doesn't give congress the power over state's "disenfranchisement" of felons:
Originally Posted by mlr1m
with Civil Rights Act exceptions.
Article I, section 2, which says that electors for the House of Representatives—and, by extension, for all federal elections—“shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” Thus, it gives authority for determining elector qualifications to the states.
Note, that in the case of felons, states are not negating 2A via the 10th Amendment, as they do honest citizens but by the Necessary and Proper Clause in Article I, section 8, clause 18:
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" for domestic tranquility, if not the above Article I, section 2.
We know that 2A is not a civil right but a natural right that the Constitution protects and that we are a government of the people and for the people - but honest people.
Last edited by Pistology; August 29th, 2012 at 12:43 PM.
Reason: Correct Constitutional Citation
Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
September 2nd, 2012 02:51 AM
Let we the people decide for themselves, If I want a full auto made after may 17,1986 who cares?
Also we cant we own tanks? I mean the Goverment can, Look at Waco,how many average guys have burnt 90 plus people alive over a $200 tax they where not allowed to pay? We cant be trusted? if the commen man cant and the commen man has no power? why should we trust those with power?
By skunkworks in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
Last Post: March 8th, 2012, 10:02 PM
By friesepferd in forum Home (And Away From Home) Defense Discussion
Last Post: April 13th, 2010, 05:13 PM
By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 05:35 PM
By ShawnMoncali in forum Forum News, Feedback, Problems & Comments
Last Post: March 15th, 2010, 12:54 PM
By ExactlyMyPoint in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
Last Post: June 25th, 2008, 06:38 PM
Search tags for this page
2nd amendment crew served weapon
6 days left until the 2nd amendment fate is decided.
can a felon own a cannon in wisconsin
can a felon use a gun in self defense
does the second amendment leave room for interpretation
federal cartridge 5.56mmx45mm
private of matoss definition
views regarding the second amendment
what are the laws regarding felons and guns in the house
where in the constitution does it speak on felons and loss of gun rights
why shouldnt 2nd amendment written
why we should leave the second amendment along
Click on a term to search for related topics.