|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control & 2nd Amendment | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2950 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
... 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4715 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8513 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Who granted Congress that power? We the people. [abe] What lyx2no said. Edited by AZPaul3, : He beat me to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4032 Joined: Member Rating: 9.2 |
Who granted Congress that power? That would be the Constitution, ICANT.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.5 |
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 131AZPaul3 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3100 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024