the 2nd Amendment - Page 2

the 2nd Amendment

This is a discussion on the 2nd Amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; 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 ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 23 of 23
Like Tree13Likes

Thread: the 2nd Amendment

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array glockman10mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    9,390
    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.
    Ignorance is a long way from stupid, but left unchecked, can get there real fast.


  2. #17
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,241
    It is proper that the fringe should lay next to the sea on both sides.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    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.
    TheConcealer likes this.

  4. #19
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by stanislaskasava View Post

    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.
    "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."

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array BugDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Under a Volkswagen somewhere in Florida
    Posts
    9,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    It is proper that the fringe should lay next to the sea on both sides.
    Quote Originally Posted by Doghandler View Post
    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?
    Know Guns, Know Safety, Know Peace.
    No Guns, No Safety, No Peace.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    Quote Originally Posted by Crowman View Post
    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.
    TheConcealer likes this.

  7. #22
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,974
    Quote Originally Posted by glockman10mm View Post
    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.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array Doghandler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    West Branch
    Posts
    2,241

    Re: the 2nd Amendment

    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.
    Last edited by Doghandler; February 3rd, 2013 at 02:13 PM.
    There is a solution but we are not Jedi... not yet.
    Doghandler

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

second amendment

Click on a term to search for related topics.