Constitutional limits to gun control

[The Rabbi]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

 

[eflatminor]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

 

[dblack]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

They do??

 

[martybegan]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

I don't trust the courts as far as I can throw them. Once courts decided they can create law instead of interpreting it, everything went out the window.

Now 5/9 people can decide we have all new rights, or take ones away that are explicit in the constitution.

 

[PratchettFan]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

 

[Truthmatters]

the scotus has already said gun laws are perfectly constitutional.

the OPs auther is not on the scotus

 

[ZimothyTahn]

how come none of you acknowledge heller vs. dc? your ass friend scalia has made it clear that no one is coming for your guns. so how come you guys hate reality so much?

 

[The Rabbi]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

Actually not a single one has.

 

[OriginalShroom]

If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.

And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.

 

[PratchettFan]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

Actually not a single one has.

You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

 

[PratchettFan]

If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.

And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.

Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

Actually not a single one has.

You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.

No, the big issue is requiring the private individual to perform a background check. Dealers are already required to perform background checks.

It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.

 

[jillian]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

that's funny.....

but for liberals, the right to intermarriage wouldn't be protected
married couple's right to purchase contraception wouldn't be protected
segregation would still be in effect


all things 'conservaties' hate. isn't that funny?

 

[OriginalShroom]

If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.

And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.

Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.

Perhaps you can direct me to where the NRA has ever taken any approach to either one...

 

[martybegan]

If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.

And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.

Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.

Lets look at the standard comparison used when looking at the 1st and the 2nd amendment. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

Now, that is not covered under freedom of speech, and like shooting someone, it is very dangerous. However lets look at how one would prevent somone from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, considering first that both shooting someone without cause (self defense) and yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre without cause (no fire) are both illegal.

Applying current gun control.

In order to enter a theatre run by a federally liscenced theatre owner, you have to wait outside while the usher checked your background for any felonies. In some states you would need to be registered prior to entering the theatre. In other states if the show was outside in public, you would need a Outside speaker permit (OSP). Some states only issue these to police officers and retired police officers. One state doesnt require it at all.

People could run thier own theatre, but if they let in someone who is not allowed to watch the movies, they could be found liable. Furthermore, fast talking people (auctioneers) need to have a special permit to enter the theatre, and can only do so with the permission of the local theatre security guard. They also have to pay a tax for being able to talk so fast. This all depends on the state the theatre is in.

Now in some states as well, to prevent people from talking, gags have to be worn, with the gag only removed in case of emergency.

Currently there are movements to restrict even more fast talkers from entering the theatre. People allowed would only be those known to speak less than one word per 5 seconds, and are only allowed 10 words (or 7) at a time, before having to breathe in again"

People with funny accents would also be banned from the theatre.

 

[DiamondDave]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

that's funny.....

but for liberals, the right to intermarriage wouldn't be protected
married couple's right to purchase contraception wouldn't be protected
segregation would still be in effect


all things 'conservaties' hate. isn't that funny?

Yeah... uh huh.. because no REP or Conservative fought for or supports things like starting a family with who you want, equality in treatment for every race, or buying contraception

That is probably the most idiotic crap you have posted in a while, Jill.. and frankly it is very disappointing

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

You can't trust the federal courts to defy congress or obozo. States need to assert their constitutional right to nullify federal laws.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The constitution says "shall not be infringed" and that means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Gun laws are a state issue and states need to assert that.