Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control & 2nd Amendment
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3 of 218 (550244)
03-13-2010 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Hyroglyphx
03-13-2010 6:51 PM


From the US perspective, at one time it was essential. On the edge of an untamed continent personal arms were necessary for personal protection and to form a citizens' militia in times of strife. The founding fathers also knew, having just rebelled, the power of an armed populous in the cause of freedom and keeping a government, even one of, by and for the people, honest.
Today personal protection is arguable either way.
A citizens' militia is no longer necessary since there are considerable police forces available to keep the equivalent of "them injuns and redcoats" away.
If this government becomes (more?) abusive there are plenty of state-level forces (National Guard, Police, etc.) to form a considerable force of resistance. And having been in the Officer Corps of the standing national armed forces I can attest to the profound seriousness of an officer's oath to the Constitution instead of to the President, the Nation or even the People.
But there is the Second Amendment. Repeal of this is not a political feasibility at this time nor in the forseable future.
Whether it is "fundamentally better" or not is a subjective political issue that has already been decided by this society. Subject to change in the far future, maybe.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Clearity? Maybe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 6:51 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 8:07 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 03-26-2010 2:00 PM AZPaul3 has replied
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 9:41 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 9 of 218 (550262)
03-13-2010 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
03-13-2010 8:07 PM


Along the same lines is the necessity to shirk off the tyranny of an own oppressive government. After what the government did in Waco and Ruby Ridge, killing innocent people for no good reason, there seems good reason to always be neither trustful or mistrustful of the government, but always alert.
I thought I said that. Anyway, I can agree.
A police force is little consolation for most people. I agree that there needs to be a police force, but I feel sorry for anyone reliant on them.
I take it you've never been somewhere where the police are the enemy of the people. Some time ago, after a minor accident, I told my Bulgarian visitor we where waiting for the police. He became ashen and apoplectic. Later he was shocked to find we had not been arrested and beaten.
But I agree with the further point you made:
You have the inalienable right to defend yourself from harm. If a firearm best facilitates that need, then so be it. It should be the individual's right to decide that themselves. If others feel that it is more dangerous to possess a firearm in their home, they should be afforded the right to abstain.
And so they may.
The issue is people legislating for me that I take exception to.
Isn't that what Constitutional Republics do? Yours does it every day of the week. That's what it's supposed to do.
To paraphrase Churchill, our government is the worst form of government except for all the rest. If you find something better let me know.
Who's to say they would side with either the citizenry or the government? You should never really rely on other people, IMO. No one cares more about your personal rights than you.
Who knows? But trying to go it alone, me against the go'ment, all by myself, is rather stupid don't you think? Besides, in my view, in this country, before things got to that point, other "organs of society" would have effectively intervened. No details available, thank you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 03-13-2010 8:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 116 of 218 (551401)
03-22-2010 4:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
03-21-2010 5:11 AM


Re: Guns
The constitution doesn't say anything about your right to own a gun, it gives you the right to bear arms.
...
You have the right to weapons not guns.
Sorry Oni,
Guns are weapons just are Abrams tanks, F-16s and nuclear bombs.
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.
See specifically Parker v District of Columbia, which SCOTUS affirmed in Heller, and United States v Miller a SCOTUS opinion.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Clarification on citations.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 03-21-2010 5:11 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by onifre, posted 03-22-2010 5:53 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 118 of 218 (551407)
03-22-2010 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ICANT
03-22-2010 1:48 PM


Re: Guns
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.
United States v Miller, District of Columbia v Heller
Plenty of restrictions on the Second Amendment.
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
... nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 1:48 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 5:33 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 120 of 218 (551411)
03-22-2010 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by New Cat's Eye
03-22-2010 4:53 PM


Re: Guns
Specifically in Heller:
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family, would fail constitutional muster.
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-22-2010 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


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 replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


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 replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


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 replied

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

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 136 of 218 (551482)
03-22-2010 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by ICANT
03-22-2010 9:16 PM


Re: Guns
Why would the court consider a case that was not filed or argued?
In the case of Haynes the court held its question to the narrow focus of the Fifth Amendment. They ruled the registration requirement to violate the Fifth. If, as in the case of Freed, they had found no violation of the Fifth for Haynes SCOTUS could have invalidated the entire act as a violation of the Second. They did not in either case.
This does leave open a possible challenge to the NFA strictly on the grounds of the Second Amendment, but, since SCOTUS passed up such scrutiny in Freed, and now with the opinion in Heller and the rights of Congress in Article I there isn't much point. The lower courts would dismiss and SCOTUS would most probably refuse certiorary.
Also,
ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat.
(The burden of proof rests on who asserts, not on who denies.)
All acts of the Congress are proper until the court rules otherwise.
You may not like it, but this is our system of rule by law.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clearification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by ICANT, posted 03-22-2010 9:16 PM ICANT has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 150 of 218 (551693)
03-23-2010 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by ICANT
03-23-2010 7:34 PM


Re: Guns
That means they could fire the entire bunch if they so desired or they can limit everything that they can do.
So true.
And good luck with that.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by ICANT, posted 03-23-2010 7:34 PM ICANT has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 165 of 218 (551810)
03-24-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 155 by petrophysics1
03-24-2010 12:45 AM


Re: Guns
I really wouldn't want to show up in court someday telling a judge I did/or did not do something I thought was OK because some fool like Rahvin on the internet gave me legal advice. In court you would probably look like an idiot.
If you are stupid enough to go into court armed only with advice from an Internet contact then jail is not the place for you. A sanitarium maybe. You can check in voluntarily, you know.
Modern psychoactive pharmaceuticals can work wonders for you. While they cannot cure your stupid they can at least hide it to the point you may be able to function in a limited capacity in society without hurting yourself or others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by petrophysics1, posted 03-24-2010 12:45 AM petrophysics1 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 181 of 218 (552154)
03-26-2010 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Jon
03-26-2010 2:00 PM


Look 'em up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Jon, posted 03-26-2010 2:00 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Jon, posted 03-27-2010 1:28 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 182 of 218 (552157)
03-26-2010 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
03-26-2010 9:41 PM


Re: what is a militia?
On the other side of the sidewalk this may not be the case, but in Arizona and Texas (the only two of which I'm sure) any law enforcement personnel at any level within the state can be called upon by the Governor in times of "civil strife." Kinda like the Federal government nationalizing a state National Guard.
I understand your point, but I think this would constitute a militia.
Edited by AZPaul3, : Added thought.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 9:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 10:51 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 184 of 218 (552162)
03-26-2010 11:36 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by RAZD
03-26-2010 10:51 PM


Re: what is a militia?
he constitution does not give people the authority to take the law into their own hands, even within their own house.
This is specific to the "within their own house" part.
The Constitution doesn't have to give such an authority. All depending upon the circumstances of course, but if the local DA doesn't then most probably the jury would.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2010 10:51 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 9:12 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 188 of 218 (552202)
03-27-2010 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Theodoric
03-27-2010 9:12 AM


Re: Depending
There are many permutations of the "castle" law. Most in the US are complete perversions of the original english common law. Every state has a different take on it and some do not have a "castle" law at all. So the dependency is not on the DA or jury, but on the law.
So true. I was thinking more of jury nullification in cases of weak or no castle law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 03-27-2010 9:12 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024