Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
In this thread I only seek help for myself and others here who might need it. I wish to learn more as I study further the constitution, Bill of Rights and the supreme court. My hope is both those here at D.C. who find it hard to ask questions will find it easier and those here who know the answers can help without judging and just share your knowledge. No question or answer on topic is stupid or mean. At the end of this thread perhaps we will all have a far greater understanding. If this thread does not get shut down for obvious uncontrollable reasons maybe the admins may consider relabeling it the official 2nd amendment, Supreme court and infringement thread ........ It will honor everyone who contributed, if the thread is found worthy.

The supreme court has been given this virtuous task as keeper of the Constitution, the bill of rights & constitutionality there of. The supreme court makes new rulings on purposed senate bills which through its interpretation with the help of all case law they deem pertinent. Lawyers and judges also use hundreds of documents which date from now going all the way back to original writings of Madison which may carry purpose.


Not to confuse but an interesting fact. The NRA was founded in 1871 by two Union Soldiers who wanted to promote the sport of hunting, rifle & shotgun shooting. NRA was not intended to be a political lobby.

In 1822, Bliss v. Commonwealth Brings ‘Individual Right’ Into Question. Decided he was allowed as an American citizen the right to bear arms in defense of himself & the state. Originally he was indicted for carrying a sword which he hid inside his cane.

Then in 1856,: Dred Scott v. Sandford Upholds Individual Right. This allowed slaves who were American citizens the right to keep & bear arms wherever they went

1934, The National Firearms act. Brought on by the Saint Valentines Massacre & a rise in gangster gun violence. Targeted mostly fully Auto guns with a $200 excise tax on each gun.

1938, Federal Firearms Act Requires License for Dealers- required anyone selling or shipping firearms to be licensed through the U.S. Department of Commerce. The Federal Firearms License (FFL) stipulated that guns could not be sold to persons convicted of certain crimes and required sellers to log the names and addresses of anyone they sold guns to.

1968, Brings in new regulations under "The Gun control act." - After the assassination of President Kennedy congress brought sweeping gun control acts. Prohibiting mail order sales of rifles and shotguns, increased license requirements for sellers and broadened the list of persons prohibited from owning a firearm to include convicted felons, drug users and the mentally incompetent

1994, Brady Act and Assault Weapons Ban- The first, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, required a five-day waiting period and background check for the sale of handguns, while also requiring a National Instant Criminal Background Check System to be created. The second, the Assault Weapons Ban (officially entitled the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) banned a number of rifles defined as “assault weapons,” including many semi-automatic, military-style rifles such as the AK-47 and SKS. A democratic controlled congress and signed by President Clinton.

2004, Assault Weapons Ban Sunsets- A Republican-controlled Congress refused to pass a reauthorization of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, allowing the ban to expire. President George W. Bush.

2008, D.C. v. Heller - Gun rights proponents were thrilled in 2008 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment extends gun ownership rights to individuals. The decision affirmed an earlier decision by a lower appeals court and struck down handgun bans in Washington D.C. as unconstitutional.

The case was the first Supreme Court case to affirm the right of an individual to keep and bear arms in accordance with the Second Amendment. However, the ruling applied only to federal enclaves, such as the District of Columbia. Justices did not declare on the Second Amendment’s application to the states. The second Amendment uses the states not as individual states but as these united States, as in the original 13 colony's. A "federal enclave" is a parcel of federal property within a state that is under the "Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States."

2010: McDonald v. Chicago - Gun rights supporters scored their second major Supreme Court victory in 2010, when the high court affirmed the individual right to own guns in McDonald v. Chicago. The ruling, which was an inevitable follow-up to D.C. v. Heller, marked the first time that the Supreme Court ruled the provisions of the Second Amendment extend to the states. The ruling overturned an earlier decision by a lower court in a legal challenge to Chicago’s ordinance banning the possession of handguns by its citizens.

2016 - Peruta v City of San Diego. The U S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Americans DO NOT have a right to carry concealed guns outside of their home. This decision, unless taken to the Supreme Court, is the law in California and the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.

The above is quick reference for all of us. I my have left something of importance out, date wise etc. If so let me know and I will fix it. Also if I am wrong about anything above.

It is my understanding that the second amendment, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", is constantly under attack by those who want stricter laws or even wanting the 2nd amendment done away with completely. "Shall not be infringed?" Those four words are easy enough for me to understand so why is it still under attack, still being debated and interpreted and still being changed? Infringed means- to actively break the terms of a law or agreement.

Let the great discussion & learning begin.

The Supreme Court, has ruled plainly on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Yet it is still being interpreted over and over again by the supreme court. Until it suits who? Now it is being interpreted by a sitting Judge who has broken his oath of office by saying publicly he wants to do away with the constitution while his duty, his solemn oath for his seat on the supreme court, is to protect and preserve the constitution.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,144 Posts
The first, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, required a five-day waiting period and background check for the sale of handguns, while also requiring a National Instant Criminal Background Check System to be created. T
That 5 day waiting period was only enacted in the communist states. Most of the south refused to do it. Here in Arkansas we had no waiting period and Brady Bill did not change that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
2016 - Peruta v City of San Diego. The U S Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that Americans DO NOT have a right to carry concealed guns outside of their home. This decision, unless taken to the Supreme Court, is the law in California and the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
17,991 Posts
A minor correction on the GCA 1968, President Kennedy was killed Nov 22, 1963 with a rifle sold by mail-order. There were discussions of banning mail-order but nothing was passed at that time. Subsequent to the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy there were further calls for banning mail-order sales and further regulations but it was hung up in the House Judiciary Committee due to a tie vote. Nine days it was passed out of committee and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,518 Posts
The NRA estimates there are over 30,000 infringements to 2A of one kind or another across this country and it's doubtful even a fraction will ever get overturned. Even Hillary has said she no longer wants to repeal 2A or Heller because she does not see them as an impediment to what she wants to do with gun control and I think unfortunately, she is right. I think 2A is great and I support it and vote for candidates who support it, of course. But its effectiveness has faded away. It is an ideal no longer lived up to and not likely to ever be lived up to again. Federalism = socialism and I don't think that is going to change.

But IMHO, 2A is not the be all and end all for the RTKABA. The constitutions and laws that most affect people who keep and bear arms for defense on a day to day basis lie with the states. The feds run the NICS checks, but the states can decide to use the check for a CC permit as an alternative until that check is up to 5 years old. The states can decide not to enforce federal gun laws and that is perfectly legal. Eight states have some version of that. Some go so far as to nullify federal gun laws, which is not technically legal, but states that have nullified federal marijuana and immigration laws have gotten away with it.

The feds do not have the manpower or budget to consistently enforce laws without state and local help. States almost exclusively control and enforce concealed carry laws, except on federal property. I bring this up, not to hijack the thread, but because to the point of the OP, the point is to see the whole picture and I think only looking at the federal situation is not the whole picture.

I think we are mostly losing at the federal level and will continue to. I think are gaining in most of the states and we can continue to if we work at it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
A minor correction on the GCA 1968, President Kennedy was killed Nov 22, 1963 with a rifle sold by mail-order. There were discussions of banning mail-order but nothing was passed at that time. Subsequent to the murders of Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy there were further calls for banning mail-order sales and further regulations but it was hung up in the House Judiciary Committee due to a tie vote. Nine days it was passed out of committee and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968
Very ironic since it is now known that LBJ was in on, if not party to, the actual crime.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,144 Posts
Some go so far as to nullify federal gun laws, which is not technically legal, but states that have nullified federal marijuana and immigration laws have gotten away with it.
Nullification is the only real check and balance that we as citizens have.
I have had several lawyers tell me that it is illegal and several tell me that it is legal. Its the only real thing that both Judges and Lawyers fear.

Nullification does not mean that a law has to be declared null and void.

It just means that no one will enforce it. Like a jury in a trial. Not only is the person in question being charged, but the law itself is being tried in court and if the jury decided that the law is bogus, then they can refuse to convict.

Unfortunately your average person has no idea of Nullification because it hasn't been taught for years.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
A minor correction on the GCA 1968, President Kennedy was killed Nov 22, 1963 with a rifle sold by mail-order. Nine days it was passed out of committee and signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on October 22, 1968
During a discussion here about felons and gun control, you (MSGT/RET), Gaitorbait and Ghost, that drew my attention to the 1968 gun control act. The change it made to the Bill of Rights. This got me very interested in learning more about and changed my understanding and focus today.

In 1963 when Senator Thomas J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, championed legislation geared specifically at tightening restrictions on the sale of mail-order handguns. After President Kennedy was murdered with a military-style rifle obtained through the mail, Senator Dodd extended the reach of the legislation to include "long guns," including rifles and shotguns.

Lyndon B. Johnson, "Some of you may be interested in knowing-really-what this bill does:
--It stops murder by mail order. It bars the interstate sale of all guns and the bullets that load them.
--It stops the sale of lethal weapons to those too young to bear their terrible responsibility.
--It puts up a big "off-limits" sign, to stop gunrunners from dumping cheap foreign "$10 specials" on the shores of our country."
Was executed by executive order
 
  • Like
Reactions: msgt/ret

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,841 Posts
My personal take on the 2A and the rest of the BOR is that they set forth rights granted by our creator or that are inherent depending on your point of view. These rights are absolute, provided that they do not infringe on the rights of other citizens. This is why you cannot yell fire in a theater - you infringe on the rights of others. These rights can be taken away if a person violates the rights of others (the reason someone in prison cannot have a gun); one can forfeit their rights by violating the rules set forth by a society.

How the courts interpret these right is the real question and the reason that elections are so important. Some feel that the COTUS and the BOR are always up for interpretation - that the meaning can change over time. Personally, I feel that this is how despotism starts - allowing anyone to take away an inherent right is simply wrong and leads to abuse and ultimately the loss of rights for all of us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
it's sad that many people that consider themselves true American citizens won't verse themselves in one of the most important amendments of the declaration of independence, it's sad how stubborn people can be.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Nullification is the only real check and balance that we as citizens have.
I have had several lawyers tell me that it is illegal and several tell me that it is legal. Its the only real thing that both Judges and Lawyers fear.

Nullification does not mean that a law has to be declared null and void.

It just means that no one will enforce it. Like a jury in a trial. Not only is the person in question being charged, but the law itself is being tried in court and if the jury decided that the law is bogus, then they can refuse to convict.

Unfortunately your average person has no idea of Nullification because it hasn't been taught for years.
If every American just does what is right then we have nothing to fear.

Nullification-the failure or refusal of a U.S. State to aid in enforcement of federal laws within its limits, especially on Constitutional grounds.
It is my understanding by definition that nullification is unconstitutional. To put it another simpler way, Nullification is not an end all, be all answer to fight laws which one deems unconstitutional. Nullification is not the answer by a State that deems Federal laws unconstitutional.

In November 1832 the Nullification Convention met. The convention declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were unconstitutional and unenforceable within the state of South Carolina after February 1, 1833. They said that attempts to use force to collect the taxes would lead to the state's secession.

It is almost akin to a filibuster. It is an argument. Nullification, In order to challenge the federal government’s believed unconstitutional actions, states are looking for options to reassert their legitimate role in the constitutional structure of federalism. Unfortunately, even when argued for the right reasons, some still consider nullification as an answer—the claim that an individual state legislature has the authority to veto federal laws. For example, Obama's restrooms order to states that public schools make restrooms available for Transgender people also explains if they do not then Obama will withhold government state funding. (I realize it is not a law.) But It can be said the federal witholding of money is a tactic to thwart any state not deciding to comply or consider nullification as the best answer. It seems nullification is not an answer only a rebuttal leading to further actions by either party until terms are made that each party can agree to. Be it blackmail, filibuster, etc.

My fear; The supreme court is not the say all be all. The heart of our legal system is the Constitution & Bill of rights. The supreme court is to interpret but not make law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land—not the Supreme Court, the federal government, or an individual state legislature, for that matter. What happens if we allow the supreme court to liquidate the constitution? Where are we when there is no longer a constitution?

The reason I asked, How many times does "Will not be infringed", need to be interpreted? Better yet, How many times must we allow, Shall not be infringed to be interpreted by the supreme court?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,518 Posts
I think the thread has gotten two definitions confused. The linked article sorts it out. "Nullification" is a state declaring a federal law invalid and/or passing legislation that contravenes federal law. A current example is where states have legalized marijuana. This is a clear attempt to nullify federal law. Yet, those states are getting away with it, because the feds don't want a fight over it that they might lose. Some Constitutional scholars believe nullification was provided for in the Constitution, but it has never been upheld by federal courts...when it has gone to federal courts.

Non-enforcement is different. It is clear that states can refuse to enforce federal laws, but they can't keep federal authorities from enforcing federal law within their state boundaries. From the article:

"In the 1997 case, Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government could not command state law enforcement authorities to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers.

In the 1992 case, New York v. United States, the Court ruled that Congress couldn’t require states to enact specified waste disposal regulations.
"

One thing to consider is that while the feds have ramped up the number of federal agents and even quasi-militarized some of them, most federal agents are desk-jockeys and the feds just don't have the numbers to do day-to-day enforcement out in the states without local help. The feds could bust every state-authorized marijuana grower in CA, but they have not lifted a finger to do so.

Yes, States Can Nullify Some Federal Laws, Not All | Cato Institute
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
5 of 9 on the Supreme court tell you what it says and what it means No one else has a word to say about it period.
You bring up a great point - two points, actually: 1) the decision was 5-4; and 2) was a dissenting opinion ever published by the remaining 4 dissenting justices?

A 5-4 decision is always concerning and to my way of thinking too easily reversed by a new court. But what is the reasoning of the 4 dissenters in Heller? I haven't seen it nor read it but I think it's important that we do. While I read Scalia's opinion, written for the majority, and found it quite compelling and brilliantly reasoned along with an in-depth parsing of the words employed and their meaning at the time, I am troubled in that certainly the 4 dissenters are of equal intellect and guile as is Scalia and the majority. So if Scalia's ruling is so logical, so compelling, how can the other group disagree and on what basis is their disagreement founded upon? We should know this, no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,518 Posts
You bring up a great point - two points, actually: 1) the decision was 5-4; and 2) was a dissenting opinion ever published by the remaining 4 dissenting justices?

A 5-4 decision is always concerning and to my way of thinking too easily reversed by a new court. But what is the reasoning of the 4 dissenters in Heller? I haven't seen it nor read it but I think it's important that we do. While I read Scalia's opinion, written for the majority, and found it quite compelling and brilliantly reasoned along with an in-depth parsing of the words employed and their meaning at the time, I am troubled in that certainly the 4 dissenters are of equal intellect and guile as is Scalia and the majority. So if Scalia's ruling is so logical, so compelling, how can the other group disagree and on what basis is their disagreement founded upon? We should know this, no?
Simple web search "Heller dissent" will give the you whole dissent, synopses, etc. Search engines are a wonderful thing. Stevens' and Breyers' dissent, concurred by Ginsburg, was basically that 2A only protects the RTKABA in the context of a "well regulated militia." It's more complicated than that, but that's the core of it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
I should've known that is always a liberal's fallback position: the militia thing. Although Scalia does explain it well, and in within the historical context of which it was written, I so wish our founding fathers left that prefatory sentence out of the 2a.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,494 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
I should've known that is always a liberal's fallback position: the militia thing. Although Scalia does explain it well, and in within the historical context of which it was written, I so wish our founding fathers left that prefatory sentence out of the 2a.
Which sentence are you speaking of. (I tried to wait for a response.) If it was not this sentence, let me know.

2A - "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." (wish they had Left off you say?)

I interpret what they wrote as this.
2A- "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why is this not a definite interpretation?
 
  • Like
Reactions: PFranklin

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,518 Posts
Which sentence are you speaking of. (I tried to wait for a response.) If it was not this sentence, let me know.

2A - "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." (wish they had Left off you say?)

I interpret what they wrote as this.
2A- "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State shall not be infringed, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why is this not a definite interpretation?
Your preaching to the choir. But with 30,000+ infringements out there and more on the way, apparently it's not the only interpretation.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top