the 2nd Amendment

[glockman10mm]

The one thing that must be looked at, is neither the Heller v DC, or McDonald v Chicago, actually settles the matter, and leaves alot of openings where military style rifles are concerned. Even mag limits and requirements for carry permits are left up to the states to regulate, from what I understand by reading the SC rulings.

And while these rulings were significant to affirming the individual right to keep shotguns, rifles, and handguns in the home for protection, they do not elaborate on mag limits.

I believe the challenge to the NY ban on capacity and rifles will be the one to watch, as it will define once and for all what limits on the 2A are going to fly.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Doghandler]

It is proper that the fringe should lay next to the sea on both sides.

[stanislaskasava]

The Second Amendment is self-explanatory. It restricts government from infringing a certain right. It is not necessary that an arm be 'in common use', nor that it be 'military equipment' or any other other stipulation. Government shall not infringe upon The People's right to keep and bear arms. That is all.

It's not calculus. You shall not tax them, or license them, or restrict them, or ban them, or confiscate them, or any other type of infringement. If I want to keep it and bear it, then I can.

The Constitution means what it means. Erroneous Supreme Court opinions cannot change its meaning.

[Crowman]

Erroneous Supreme Court opinions cannot change its meaning.

Yet they do.......... Sadly whatever the Supreme Court rules on any of the amendments becomes gospel..... There rulings can not be appealed.

[BugDude]

It is proper that the fringe should lay next to the sea on both sides.

Warriors will win the battle. Philosophers and poets will win the debate.

Artists will direct the culture.

Deep thoughts from Doghandler...he's an armchair philosopher!

That's actually some pretty good stuff. Have you been listening to a lot of Hendrix lately?

[stanislaskasava]

Yet they do.......... Sadly whatever the Supreme Court rules on any of the amendments becomes gospel..... There rulings can not be appealed.

No court can change the truth. It is the duty of The People to know the truth and call for impeachment of justices who steal the meaning of the Constitution.

Proper replacements should be made who can, in turn, accept new cases which will overturn old precedent.

[ksholder]

The problem, and possibly crux of the debate in the courts is what constitutes and infringement vs balancing the need for public safety?

Take for instance the 1930's law prohibiting machine guns from sale to the general public. By this definition, that was a definite infringement even back then. But still yet, it was legally passed and unchallenged even today.

Then the question may be, does it place an unusual or burden that is prohibiting in nature on the individuals rights under the 2A? I am trying to think like the courts would, in order to formulate my own arguement against banning anything.

Glockman - if you want to think like the court, you have to start with the following:

- we are 1/3 of the US federal government
- we must do whatever it takes to preserve the US federal government
- if the US federal government falls, we fall with it
- if we fall, there is a high likelihood we will be tried for treason because we did whatever it took to preserve the US federal government, even knowing it was unconstitutional
- because of all of the above we must do whatever it takes to preserve the US federal government.

SCOTUS is not some independent check on the government, it is part of the government. It, like all government entities, has a self-preservation orientation. If that requires a clearly unconstitutional ruling, so be it in their mind.

[Doghandler]

Independence of the Courts

Lawmakers are, by puposeful design, driven by the will of the people, by selfish and altruistic desire, by whatever social, cultural and emotional influnces may arrise out of current events. They are not bound by "constitution as axiom" to legitimize their agendas.

The Supreme Court and the lesser constitutional courts, however, are bound by "constitution as axiom" to set the boundaries of how their agenda will be legitimized. Yes, the individual Justices are not immune from the same social influnces as everyone else but their argument will be.