Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:39 PM
27 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, Coragyps, DrJones*, edge, jar, Percy (Admin), PsychMJC, Taq (8 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 218 (551412)
03-22-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by ICANT
03-22-2010 4:44 PM


Re: Guns
Catholic Scientist writes:

Not any and all regulation is an infringenment, no?

According to the Constitution any attempted control would be an infrigenment unless the Constitution is amended, with the amendment being ratified by 3/4's of the states.

I don't believe that's true. Can you support your statement? Where does the Consitution say that?

The National Firearms Act was passed without an amendment to the Constitution and it placed controls on firearms.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 4:44 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 122 of 218 (551421)
03-22-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 4:44 PM


Re: Guns
Hi AZ,

Only if the states are willing to accept such restrictions.

Everybody in Washington get their authority from the States.

3/4's of the States can amend the constitution.

God Bless,

Edited by ICANT, : To correct 5/4 to 3/4 as pointed out by lyx2no


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 4:44 PM AZPaul3 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2010 5:55 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 125 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 6:07 PM ICANT has responded

    
onifre
Member (Idle past 1124 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 123 of 218 (551427)
03-22-2010 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 4:33 PM


Re: Guns
The Second Amendment gives you the right to bear arms which SCOTUS interprets to be handguns as well as long guns while allowing reasonable restriction on all arms and outright bans on unusual arms like tanks, fighter jets and H-bombs.

Thanks AZ (and Catholic Sci), I'll research it more but till then I stand corrected.

A question then: does the 2nd amendment protect the manufacturing of guns/firearms? (As in, it would be against the 2nd amendment to discontinue the manufacturing of firearms)

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 4:33 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:17 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2889 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 124 of 218 (551428)
03-22-2010 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
03-22-2010 5:33 PM


Re: Guns
5/4's of the States can amend the constitution.

5/4's of the States can amend reality itself.


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 5:33 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1360 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 125 of 218 (551431)
03-22-2010 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ICANT
03-22-2010 5:33 PM


Re: Guns
The Federal government is already perfectly capable of defining which arms may be borne by the population. Currently fully automatic wepons, armor piercing ammunition, high explosives, and the like are all banned, even though they are "arms." You still don;t have the right to bear a rocket launcher.

A firearms ban is simply a further restriction on what arms may be borne. You could expand the ban on automatic weapons to include all handguns, for instance, and still retain the right to bear hunting rifles, which are arms.

Constitutional Amendments are not fully binary, where "all laws about x are invalidated." Despite your freedom of speech, for isntance, you cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded area unless there is actually a fire; you cannot threaten the life of a public official; you cannot abuse your right to speech to harass others.

Congress retains the right to regulate interstate commerce...which means they can ban the interstate transportation of firearms without actually legislating against private gun ownership. It would have basically the same effect as a ban without stepping afoul of the Constitution.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 5:33 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:32 PM Rahvin has responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 126 of 218 (551432)
03-22-2010 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 4:59 PM


Re: Guns
Hi CS,

Catholic Scientist writes:

I don't believe that's true. Can you support your statement? Where does the Consitution say that?

Here is a copy of article V of the Constitution which explains how the Constitution can be amended. You will notice that 3/4's of the States can amend the Constitution.

quote:
Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

You mentioned the National Firearms act of 1934 which the Constitunationally of has never been determined, that I can find.

Just because Congress has passed certain laws does not mean that they are Constitutional.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 6:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 131 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4140
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 127 of 218 (551434)
03-22-2010 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by onifre
03-22-2010 5:53 PM


Re: Guns
... would be against the 2nd amendment to discontinue the manufacturing of firearms.

I wouldn't think so, but this has never been tested.

Article I, specifically the Commerce and the Necessary and Proper Clauses, give Congress the right to regulate interstate commerce and make any laws "necessary and proper." Government cannot usurp the Second Amendment directly, see Heller, but a prohibition on manufacture for interstate sale and transport of handguns may not be beyond muster.

We might have a difficult time in the courts applying such a ban intrastate unless there were a Constitutional amendment like the 18th Amendment. That didn't work so well as I recall.

Edited by AZPaul3, : fixed oops.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by onifre, posted 03-22-2010 5:53 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 128 of 218 (551437)
03-22-2010 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Rahvin
03-22-2010 6:07 PM


Re: Guns
Hi Rahvin,

Rahvin writes:

Congress retains the right to regulate interstate commerce...

Who granted Congress that power?

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 6:07 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2010 6:35 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 132 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:51 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 133 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 7:16 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 2889 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 129 of 218 (551438)
03-22-2010 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
03-22-2010 6:32 PM


You Did
Who granted Congress that power?

United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3)


You are now a million miles away from where you were in space-time when you started reading this sentence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 218 (551441)
03-22-2010 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
03-22-2010 6:09 PM


Re: Guns
I'm sorry, I meant that part about any attempted control being an infringement, not the part about congress making amendments.

I don't think that every control counts as infringement because there are controls and they have not been an infringement.

But if you're just going to argue that some laws that have been on the books for a long time are actually unconstitutional, then I probably won't want to argue against that.

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4140
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 131 of 218 (551445)
03-22-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ICANT
03-22-2010 6:09 PM


Re: Guns
You mentioned the National Firearms act of 1934 which the Constitunationally of has never been determined, that I can find.

See Haynes v United States then United States v Freed.

These center around the registration requirements versus the Fifth Amendment. However, if the Act (as amended) violated the Second Amendment, the Court would have invalidated the entire act. Since in Freed the amended registration requirements were upheld the court saw no conflict with either the Second or the Fifth Amendments.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:09 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4140
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 132 of 218 (551446)
03-22-2010 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
03-22-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Guns
Who granted Congress that power?

We the people.

[abe] What lyx2no said.

Edited by AZPaul3, : He beat me to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:32 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 9:16 PM AZPaul3 has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1360 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 133 of 218 (551450)
03-22-2010 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by ICANT
03-22-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Guns
Who granted Congress that power?

That would be the Constitution, ICANT.

quote:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3).

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"


I suppose you could alternatively say that the Founding Fathers, and the original States in the Union who ratified the original Constitution, granted Congress that power.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 6:32 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
ICANT
Member (Idle past 1 days)
Posts: 6187
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 134 of 218 (551474)
03-22-2010 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 6:51 PM


Re: Guns
Hi Paul,

ASPaul3 writes:

We the people.

[abe] What lyx2no said.

I know that there are certain rights granted by Article I to the Congress. I personally believe they have oversteped those granted rights many times, in fact enough times they feel they can do anything they desire regardless of the peoples wishes.

The fact remains the States are the ones who make amendments to the Constitution. The Congress can make as many amendments as they desire but they are of none effect unless 3/4's of the States ratify them.

But the States can amendment the Constitution without input from Congress.

So actually we the people delegate authority to the federal government through the States.

In Message 131

AZPaul3 writes:

These center around the registration requirements versus the Fifth Amendment. However, if the Act (as amended) violated the Second Amendment, the Court would have invalidated the entire act. Since in Freed the amended registration requirements were upheld the court saw no conflict with either the Second or the Fifth Amendments.

I had read that one and several others. But none of them claimed the law was unconstitutional only their rights under the 5th amendment.

Why would the court consider a case that was not filed or argued?

I don't know about you guys but I am learning a lot reading all the stuff about our Constitution.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 6:51 PM AZPaul3 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 9:38 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 138 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 03-23-2010 5:54 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 139 by petrophysics1, posted 03-23-2010 2:10 PM ICANT has not yet responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1274 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 135 of 218 (551479)
03-22-2010 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
03-22-2010 1:48 PM


Re: Guns
I take it then there is no amendment to the constitution that invalidates the second amendment.

No. Nor does there need to be one to regulate gun manufacturing, purchasing, or registration.

If there is no amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states no one has any authority to restrict the provisions of the second amendment.

Is there a amendment to the first amendment telling people they cannot sacrifice animals for religious reasons? How about a amendment saying people cannot practice there freedom of speach in federal or state buildings i.e. one cannot give a 30 minute monologue in the rotunda of the US or State Capitol building.

Again regulation of guns is not an infringement of rights.

Definition of regulation: "controlling human or societal behaviour by rules or restrictions."

Definition of infringement: "to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another".

Regulation does not equal infringement of rights. Regulation is applying common sense limitations to these rights.

Just as freedom of speach and freedom of religion does not mean you can do whatever the heck you want without regard to common decency and the rights of others, so to does the freedom to bear arms does not mean you can carry any weapon you desire i.e. bazooka, uzi, samurai sword, lance, throwing knives, flame thrower, crossbow or M1 Abrams tank and use them in any manner you see fit.

To change the provision of the second amendment the Constitution would have to be amended and the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4's of the states.

ICANT, no one is changing any provisions in the second ammendemnt. Gun regulation is placing restrictions on what weapons can be bought, sold, carried or used by the general public. No one is saying you can't have any weapons at all. The 2nd Ammendement says nothing about what weapons you can or cannot have. All it says is that people have the right to "bear arms" and this right cannot be infringed i.e. impeded. Understand the context at the time was to specify that the government could not take away the right for the general public to defend themselves as the British did to the American colonialists by removing there ability to form militias and in some cases raiding there houses and taking away there weapons. That is the context of the reasoining behind this amendment.

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about guns, specifically (though historically they would be referring to the typical flintlock and later the percussion cap guns used at time) .

This amendment left up to federal and state legislatures to decide as to which weapons are or are not acceptable and the manner in which these weapons could be used aka gun control/regulation.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection

"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 1:48 PM ICANT has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
1011
...
15Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019