National Gun Ban "Reasonable"

[nutz4utwo]

Well, duuuuuhh! So maching guns are 'arms'? Is that why soldiers carry them? And we have the right to keep and bear these 'arms'? Ohhhhh noooooo!

...our legal system has failed since the National Firearms Act of 1934:

1939 Miller SCOTUS case said 2nd amendment protects "bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time" and machine guns are obviously in common use...

seems pretty obvious to me.

by the way, the 1939 Miller Decision is a great read too:

FindLaw for Legal Professionals - Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Bob The Great]

The main problem I had with the brief was its insistance that "furthering government interests" was a sufficient reason to ignore or severely restrict an individual right. This essentially boils down to saying that we have rights, but we can only excercise them when it suits "government interests" to do so.

I also have to take issue with these statements:

Given the unquestionable threat to public safety that unrestricted private firearm possession would entail, various categories of firearm-related regulation are permitted by the Second Amendment under that constitutional understanding, as illustrated by the existing federal laws regulating firearms

There is nothing offered to back that up, especially in the face of certain CDC studies showing exactly the opposite.

The federal prohibitions on the possession of particular types of firearms, such as machineguns, readily pass such scrutiny. Those prohibitions are carefully targeted to firearms that have little or no legitimate private purpose, they permit possession for lawful purposes of a broad class of firearms other than those regulated, and the government’s interest in regulating firearms like the machinegun to protect the public safety is paramount.

Again, nothing to back this up. "Legitimate private purpose" is a very nebulous term that leaves the door gaping wide open for pretty much any sort of regulation you could imagine.

I think they're scared and are trying to "head it off at the pass". The NFA/FOPA combination is almost exactly analogous to the DC laws in question, except that they deal with machine guns instead of pistols. If one falls, the other won't be far behind.

[ronwill]

While "over-all" the brief may say the Second Amendment is an individual right, the following excerpts are what bothers me:

"In 2001, the Attorney General adopted the position
that the Second Amendment protects an individual
right to possess firearms for a lawful private purpose
unrelated to service in a militia, and that such right—
like other constitutional rights—is subject to reasonable
restrictions."

"Although the court of appeals correctly held that
the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it
did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s
Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions
of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the
Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights
does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically
invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment,
properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation
of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context
and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such
as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms
because those persons have never been understood to be
within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the
Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly
no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation
of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms."

Let the government get "reasonable" and "important exceptions" allowed by the SCOTUS and see what happens.

[ken45]

The 2nd Amendment- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

FREE state is the issue. Governments do NOT want a FREE state, they want their own kingdom. Of course governments will fight against the people being able to maintain a free state. It's contrary to the power of politicians and bureaucrats. The Founding Fathers knew that and that's why we have the Bill of Rights.

Asset seizures, gun restrictions, limits on political talk, monitoring citizens without warrants, Homeland Security, The "Patriot Act", it's all part of the politicians and bureaucrats wanting to take this country away from the people and destroy it's foundations.

Geesh, when you step back and look at the overall picture, not just the 2A, it really looks scary, very scary..

Ken

[nutz4utwo]

I am glad to see a healthy discussion going with quoting things and such...

I think the 2 central questions to this discussion are:

Should there be any limits on firearms owned by citizens?

and if you answered yes, Who gets to decide what those limits are?

...

[Pro2A]

I dont believe that most folks today care one bit about other peoples rights. I have even heard elected officials say the people get their rights from the constitution. The news people never even questioned it.
Most government folks that I have talked to believe that protecting the country means to protect the government. They believe they are the same thing.

Michael

I think most Americans believe this. I don't trust our government more then I could throw it. My boss seems to misconstrue what I'm saying as saying I don't like this country.

[ronwill]

I have stated in the past, and still believe now, no right is unlimited. When it comes to firearms, laws should be made in a "shall issue" mode. Given a background investigation (for violent crimes and mental stability only), once issued a permit you should be able to carry freely anywhere with a "no carry under the influence" exception.

[rljohns]

I have stated in the past, and still believe now, no right is unlimited. When it comes to firearms, laws should be made in a "shall issue" mode. Given a background investigation (for violent crimes and mental stability only), once issued a permit you should be able to carry freely anywhere with a "no carry under the influence" exception.

+1 and without exception on the "no carry under the influence" EVEN IF YOU ARE a LEO, CEO, or any type of VIP (Bloomberg, DeNiro, etc). I don't know if Bloomberg drinks, but I'm tired of two classes of Americans.

[64zebra]

I have stated in the past, and still believe now, no right is unlimited. When it comes to firearms, laws should be made in a "shall issue" mode. Given a background investigation (for violent crimes and mental stability only), once issued a permit you should be able to carry freely anywhere with a "no carry under the influence" exception.

the problem I have with this is that I shouldn't be forced to get a permit for something that is my right
even with background checks, mental history checks, etc....a scumbag is still a scumbag and they won't care about a law like this or any others, yet the good guys are forced to get checks and get a permit, just my $.02

this is going to be a VERY BIG SCOTUS case for all of us and our futures, if our sacred 2nd amendment continues to get chisled away bit by bit the other amendments and our way of life and freedoms won't be far behind

[ronwill]

+1 and without exception on the "no carry under the influence" EVEN IF YOU ARE a LEO, CEO, or any type of VIP (Bloomberg, DeNiro, etc). I don't know if Bloomberg drinks, but I'm tired of two classes of Americans.

I enjoy a few beers with friends now and then but believe that carrying a gun under the influence is just as dangerous as driving under the influence. I know a few people that, after a couple of drinks, tend to become a little more aggressive and shouldn't have a gun at the time. As long as your not drinking, carrying in an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises should be no problem.

[Gun Bunny]

Reasonable restrictions?! Who decides what is reasonable? The government! The second Amendment is to protect us from government!!!
I was and still afraid of this, the court could say the same thing, and things could get worse for America.

[rljohns]

I enjoy a few beers with friends now and then but believe that carrying a gun under the influence is just as dangerous as driving under the influence. I know a few people that, after a couple of drinks, tend to become a little more aggressive and shouldn't have a gun at the time. As long as your not drinking, carrying in an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises should be no problem.

Here in Colorado we can certainly carry in bars and resturants as long as we are not under the influence. I do carry in resturants, etc but I.m the desiganted driver. I don't even have a drink while carring.

[Rotorflyr]

I do wonder about LEO's given the order to disarm the populace, will they disobey or simply say 'I've got my job to protect'?

You'll get some from Column A and some from Column B

And the same would hold true for those in the military, though I would be willing to bet that more in the military would blindly follow orders as it's one of the things that get ingrained into them.

I'm not speaking for- or about all military personal, just saying the percentage of those in the military that would follow that kind of order would be higher then that of civilian law enforcement.

Personally, I doubt we will have to worry about it in our life time though (regardless of who wins the next election)

[LongRider]

If they ban guns, I'd see riots in the streets over night.

There was not a peep when freedom of speech, association, assembly, due process, prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure were all abolished.

[glock27mark]

I think most Americans believe this. I don't trust our government more then I could throw it. My boss seems to misconstrue what I'm saying as saying I don't like this country.

amen,i love my country,but fear my goverment.