Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[Open Bolt]

Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.

It is possible that they could rule that the right to be armed outside your home is not as extensive as the right to be armed in your home, but I think they will rule that the right to be armed outside your home does exist at some level.

Just as important, they are likely to require Strict Scrutiny for the Second Amendment.

 

[Open Bolt]

But it didn't ban any firearm.

"Banning guns" versus "preventing people from being able to acquire guns" is what they call a distinction without a difference.

we've added 14 amendment since the formation of this country and we've only had one repealed

Not only that, but there has also been only one time that the Constitution was amended to remove a freedom.

That only amendment to remove a freedom is also the only amendment to later be repealed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Banning guns" versus "preventing people from being able to acquire guns" is what they call a distinction without a difference.



Not only that, but there has also been only one time that the Constitution was amended to remove a freedom.

That only amendment to remove a freedom is also the only amendment to later be repealed.

it wasn't a ban though it was an attempt to prevent criminals from accessing saw off shotguns

 

[Abatis]

I count Hobbes on the gun rights side. If my memory is correct, Leviathan allowed people self defense whenever an agent of the government was not around to protect them.

No doubt Hobbes is enthusiastically for individual self defense but his conception of rights is without any moral component. His is a doctrine of --might makes right -- and says that rights are possessed but neither owed to, or respected in, other people. There is no sense of "equal" rights to be found . . .

With his authoritarian (monarchical) governmental philosophy, Hobbes is grouped with Bodin and Filmer, in opposition to Locke, Sidney, Montesquieu and Rousseau.

I see the statement that the militia is necessary as being a legal requirement that the government always have a militia in good working order.

But the declaratory clause has no legal operation to mandate or compel anything.

In the cases where disputes and conflicts over militia powers were settled, the origin and extent of militia powers was examined, and the 2nd Amendment is simply not examined for direction or held to have any action pertaining to militia, especially directing federal, state or citizen action.

The only constitutional authority comes from the militia clauses in the body of the Constitution (Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16) and from that authority the Militia Act of 1792 was enacted, giving direction for militia.

SCOTUS's first "militia" case decided which government, federal or state could prosecute a militia member for refusing to serve when called into actual service.

In a statement that speaks to federal supremacy over militia powers, it also speaks to this question about where militia powers come from and to what extent they have been exercised, SCOTUS referred to §8 and the Militia Act of 1792 and said;

"Upon the subject of the militia. Congress has exercised the powers conferred on that body by the constitution, as fully as was thought right, and has thus excluded the power of legislation by the States on these subjects, except so far as it has been permitted by Congress . . . ."​

​

Houston v. Moore 18 U.S. (5 Wheaton) 1, 24 (1820)​

​

The 2nd Amendment was mentioned in that case, in Justice Story's separate opinion and only to say the the 2nd Amendment did not have any important bearing in deciding militia issues.

Ever since 1820 SCOTUS has been consistent in other "militia" cases, -- even in modern times when the "state's right" and "militia right" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment held sway -- the 2nd Amendment is absolutely ignored.

In Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the constitutionality of Congress' repeal of its own provision which had previously allowed governors to decline to send National Guard units outside the United States on training missions, was challenged.

The conflict in Perpich was between federal legislative and state executive powers and was resolved decisively in favor of the federal government and the Supreme Court did not cite the Second Amendment for any instruction or operation of law.

I get that the 2ndA says "militia" but everything in foundational philosophy and constitutional law tells us, it is as the framers described the clauses contained in the proposed amendments when they were were transmitted to the states . . . The first half of what became the 2nd Amendment is a "declaratory clause", merely a statement of principle that does not, in itself, direct any action.

If one really needs it to "mean" something" one could say that the declaratory clause states a reason why the 2nd Amendment exists, why the pre-existing, fully retained right to arms is being forever excepted out of the powers of government and held inviolate.

Of course the second half of the 2ndA is a "restrictive clause" that binds action . . .

The Preamble of the Bill of Rights says (emphasis added):

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.​

​

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum. The spelling and punctuation reflects the original. On September 25, 1789, the...

www.archives.gov

​

.

 

[toobfreak]

Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute​

So, Joe Biddum, the guy who can't pass out millions of full auto rifles fast enough to the Ukraines and gave 28 billion in war weapons to the terrorist Taliban is here to tell you now that your own constitutional guarantees for self defense here are in murky waters as far as HE is concerned, and he is supposed to be the top guy PROTECTING them.

 

[Abatis]

Chances are the Supreme Court will say packing heat in public is up to the individual states. In other words, it will cop out.

It is possible that they could rule that the right to be armed outside your home is not as extensive as the right to be armed in your home, but I think they will rule that the right to be armed outside your home does exist at some level.

Just as important, they are likely to require Strict Scrutiny for the Second Amendment.

I missed Batcat's post the first time around, I've included it here to reply to both posts.

It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense.

The arguments in the briefs of the NY AG admitted that the 2ndA secures that right o carry outside the home (but also argued that NY City was allowed to be more restrictive, limiting and qualifying the right on heightened need).

I also believe SCOTUS is going to outright reject applying all tiers of scrutiny for the RKBA; it just leaves too much wiggle-room for anti-2ndA judges to craft rulings that avoid enforcing the 2ndA.

The NYSRPA oral arguments and moves made by the federal appeals courts since then, tells me the Court is going to just demand the lower court abandon their "two-tier inquiry" for contested gun laws.

After Heller, the Circuit courts developed a self-created, SCOTUS ignoring two-step test . . . Under this process, those lower federal courts first decide if the challenged law burdens / implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment. If they conclude the law does infringe on the RKBA, they proceed to the second step, deciding how severe the infringement is and whether that infringement it is really worth worrying about.

No surprise, that question is always answered the same; NO PROBLEM! and the court declares the gun control law is absolutely needed for public safety. They then proceed to invent creative ways to explain why the violation of the right must be allowed and they never fail saying the RKBA just doesn't matter -- the tally is 50-0!

At oral argument on Nov. 3, 2021, both lawyers defending the NY law were queried by the Justices about the "two step" process used to decide the constitutionality of challenged gun control laws (including NYSRPA).

Understandably, the two lawyers could not defend the "two-step inquiry" and in fact, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" (as articulated years ago by Justice Thomas and explained by Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II) is the only proper process to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged laws.

We see the 9th Circuit reading the tea leaves and seeing what is coming.

The losing (gun rights) party in a recent large capacity magazine (LCM) case in the 9th Circuit (Duncan, decided using the "two-step" on December 22nd) made a motion immediately after the Duncan was decided, moving to stay the enforcement of the ban on possession of hi-cap mags until they can appeal to SCOTUS; it was uncontested by California and was granted. The 9th has also suspended (held in abeyance) two pending assault weapon (AW) ban cases until NYSRPA is decided and the 3rd Circuit has also held a NJ LCM ban case until after the NYSRPA decision.

What we can draw from all this? Well, the lower federal courts realize the "two-step inquiry" is dead, and all the cases decided using the "two-step inquiry" are at best, infirm.

It is hard to comprehend this ground-shift . . . NYSRPA will result in a deluge of motions for rehearings in the Circuits that have used the "two step" and those rehearings will be granted and the reversals of those decisions that sustained gun laws will be handed down in short order . . .

Note, these rehearings and reversals / invalidations of these bans will not require any appeals or granting of cert and hearing by SCOTUS; it all happens in the Circuits that screwed the pooch originally.

These courts will forced to abandon the interest balancing / intermediate scrutiny two step and reconsider those laws ONLY applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" of the 2ndA, and decide those cases like they should have been done ever since Heller and McDonald, declaring those AW and LCM bans invalid / unconstitutional.

 

[Abatis]

Nobody wants to take your peashooter. It's the type of peashooter that is the problem.

What does that mean? Is that some reference to the gun contol advocate's position that if a gun is a "weapon of war", you want to restrict it's ownership by regular ciizens?

 

[2aguy]

I missed Batcat's post the first time around, I've included it here to reply to both posts.

It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense.

The arguments in the briefs of the NY AG admitted that the 2ndA secures that right o carry outside the home (but also argued that NY City was allowed to be more restrictive, limiting and qualifying the right on heightened need).

I also believe SCOTUS is going to outright reject applying all tiers of scrutiny for the RKBA; it just leaves too much wiggle-room for anti-2ndA judges to craft rulings that avoid enforcing the 2ndA.

The NYSRPA oral arguments and moves made by the federal appeals courts since then, tells me the Court is going to just demand the lower court abandon their "two-tier inquiry" for contested gun laws.

After Heller, the Circuit courts developed a self-created, SCOTUS ignoring two-step test . . . Under this process, those lower federal courts first decide if the challenged law burdens / implicates conduct protected by the Second Amendment. If they conclude the law does infringe on the RKBA, they proceed to the second step, deciding how severe the infringement is and whether that infringement it is really worth worrying about.

No surprise, that question is always answered the same; NO PROBLEM! and the court declares the gun control law is absolutely needed for public safety. They then proceed to invent creative ways to explain why the violation of the right must be allowed and they never fail saying the RKBA just doesn't matter -- the tally is 50-0!

At oral argument on Nov. 3, 2021, both lawyers defending the NY law were queried by the Justices about the "two step" process used to decide the constitutionality of challenged gun control laws (including NYSRPA).

Understandably, the two lawyers could not defend the "two-step inquiry" and in fact, the Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the USA, Brian Fletcher (representing the Biden Administration, who requested oral argument time) conceded that applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" (as articulated years ago by Justice Thomas and explained by Kavanaugh in his dissent in Heller II) is the only proper process to apply the 2nd Amendment to challenged laws.

We see the 9th Circuit reading the tea leaves and seeing what is coming.

The losing (gun rights) party in a recent large capacity magazine (LCM) case in the 9th Circuit (Duncan, decided using the "two-step" on December 22nd) made a motion immediately after the Duncan was decided, moving to stay the enforcement of the ban on possession of hi-cap mags until they can appeal to SCOTUS; it was uncontested by California and was granted. The 9th has also suspended (held in abeyance) two pending assault weapon (AW) ban cases until NYSRPA is decided and the 3rd Circuit has also held a NJ LCM ban case until after the NYSRPA decision.

What we can draw from all this? Well, the lower federal courts realize the "two-step inquiry" is dead, and all the cases decided using the "two-step inquiry" are at best, infirm.

It is hard to comprehend this ground-shift . . . NYSRPA will result in a deluge of motions for rehearings in the Circuits that have used the "two step" and those rehearings will be granted and the reversals of those decisions that sustained gun laws will be handed down in short order . . .

Note, these rehearings and reversals / invalidations of these bans will not require any appeals or granting of cert and hearing by SCOTUS; it all happens in the Circuits that screwed the pooch originally.

These courts will forced to abandon the interest balancing / intermediate scrutiny two step and reconsider those laws ONLY applying the "text, informed by history and tradition" of the 2ndA, and decide those cases like they should have been done ever since Heller and McDonald, declaring those AW and LCM bans invalid / unconstitutional.

It is a foregone conclusion that SCOTUS will hold for that the 2ndA secures a right to bear arms outside the home for self defense.

The arguments in the briefs of the NY AG admitted that the 2ndA secures that right o carry outside the home (but also argued that NY City was allowed to be more restrictive, limiting and qualifying the right on heightened need).

I also believe SCOTUS is going to outright reject applying all tiers of scrutiny for the RKBA; it just leaves too much wiggle-room for anti-2ndA judges to craft rulings that avoid enforcing the 2ndA.

We can only hope..........soon we will find out...

 

[Dr Grump]

And yet it hasn't. Are you arguing humanity has evolved past government always sliding to authoritarianism and brutality, and humans have abandoned the opposing force, the desire of people to live free?



That is the most compelling reason for an armed citizenry.



Well, the history lesson I gave you was only in rebuttal to your ignroance of the concept of an armed citizenry throughout thousands of years of history.



Yes, I do.



What was the mark of a Slave? Being disarmed and rendered harmless to those in authority.

Rep. George A. Yeaman (Unionist, Kentucky) clearly stated this fact during the ratification debates of the 14th Amendment:

"Let proclamations be withdrawn, let statutes be repealed, let our armies be defeated, let the South achieve its independence, yet come out of the war with an army of slaves made freemen for their service, who have been contracted with, been armed and drilled, and have seen the force of combination. Their personal status is enhanced . . . They will not be returned to slavery."​

.

And yet the peoples of western Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ disagree with you. And no, you can't lump Europe together. They are a group of disparate people with different languages, cultures, ideals and mores. Yet, when it comes to guns, they are on the same page.

 

[Dr Grump]

Jim Jeffries? An unfunny comedian is your go to source?

Americans own and carry guns for self defense, sport, hunting, collecting…….and to prevent our fascist democrats from implementing their dreams of concentration camps for their enemies….

The source isn't the point. What he said is.

 

[2aguy]

The source isn't the point. What he said is.

And his point is dumb too.....

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, from rape, robbery, murder, stabbings, and beatings...according to the CDC..1.5 million times a year according to Department of Justice research......

At the same time....again, explain this...or maybe ask your comedian to explain it....of course, I have asked you guys over and over to explain it...and you never can......

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Abatis]

And yet the peoples of western Europe, Canada, Australia and NZ disagree with you. And no, you can't lump Europe together. They are a group of disparate people with different languages, cultures, ideals and mores. Yet, when it comes to guns, they are on the same page.

In many of those nations with long histories of strict gun control, those laws were not enacted and enforced out of any interest in controlling criminals to protect regular citizens. Those laws were created for strict political control of regular citizens.

Even Blackstone, writing of the reformations of William and Mary admitted that the law forbidding commoners from owning "an engine for killing game" had a political motivation . . .

"the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws ."​

​

The thought that European political gun control could be introduced and enacted here is ludicrous; that's pretty much what the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution and Bill of Rights was rejecting, especially the British model.

.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't see any problem.



The victims would be just as dead if they were killed with bombs.



Our rights do exist. But this is the primary reason why people need to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump).

Progressives mean to abolish our freedom, and they even say that our freedom doesn't exist.

Republicans protect America from progressives.



The notion that "freedom and civil liberties only belong in the past and have no place in modern society" is wrong.

It is again why people need to keep voting for Republicans.

Progressives mean to abolish our freedom and civil liberties, and Republicans will protect America from progressives.



That is more than enough reason for someone to own guns.



It isn't.

The points of the Second Amendment are:

a) To require the government to always have a highly effective militia, and

b) to forbid the government from infringing the preexisting right to keep and bear arms.



Because they wanted to require the government to always have a highly effective militia.



The right to keep and bear arms includes at the very least people using guns to privately defend their homes.



Yes it is. These denials of our civil liberties is why it is important to keep voting for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump).

Republicans will prevent progressives from abolishing America's freedom.



There is reason to believe that the right predates that. However, that is when the Germanic tribes first started writing stuff down.



The Germanic tribes appear to have originated around 600 BC in the pre-Roman Iron Age, so if you want to penpoint the origin of the right, that is probably when it originated.



If a right actually exists, there will be a legal history of it having existed.



There are facts to back up that opinion. Like the fact that the right to keep and bear arms predates the Second Amendment. And the fact that the Second Amendment does not attempt to define the right. It merely says that the right shall not be infringed.



I don't think you can find any Supreme Court rulings that back up your opinion.

Although if you presented a compelling argument that the Supreme Court is wrong, I would be happy to listen to that argument.



If you are referring to pistol grips and flash suppressors, they are not any sort of problem at all.

You and I will just have to disagree on having guns as being a civil right. Nothing civil about it IMO.

 

[Dr Grump]

​

The thought that European political gun control could be introduced and enacted here is ludicrous; that's pretty much what the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Constitution and Bill of Rights was rejecting, especially the British model.

.

On that we agree. Ours is more of a philosophical debate as opposed to a real world situation....

 

[2aguy]

You and I will just have to disagree on having guns as being a civil right. Nothing civil about it IMO.

Yes.....you are the guys who support, rape, robbery, murder rather than allowing citizens to use guns to save themselves and their families...

 

[2aguy]

On that we agree. Ours is more of a philosophical debate as opposed to a real world situation....

And you didn't address the question...

How do you explain this?

Funny how you leftists never make the attempt....

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Dr Grump]

And his point is dumb too.....

Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to save lives, from rape, robbery, murder, stabbings, and beatings...according to the CDC..1.5 million times a year according to Department of Justice research......

At the same time....again, explain this...or maybe ask your comedian to explain it....of course, I have asked you guys over and over to explain it...and you never can......

Over 27 years, from 1993 to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

I look at that and think, "just how violent is the US?"

 

[Dr Grump]

Yes.....you are the guys who support, rape, robbery, murder rather than allowing citizens to use guns to save themselves and their families...

I used to be a cop...so you are wrong. I have never been raped, robbed or murdered. I was burgled once. In 1989 when I was in the police. That is it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lots of progressives use the phrase that it isn't absolute as cover for their efforts to violate the Second Amendment.

That’s a lie.

No firearm regulatory measure proposed by ‘progressives’ violates the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of assault weapon bans.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of UBCs.

With regard to assault weapon bans and magazine capacity restrictions, you may accuse ‘progressives’ of advocating for bad and ineffective laws, but you may not accuse them of advocating for ‘violating’ the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I'm an American conservative, and I remain delighted with the Heller decision.

Then you’re in the minority.

This thread is proof of the right’s contempt for Heller – conservatives propagating the lie that the Second Amendment is ‘absolute’ exhibits their contempt for settled, accepted Second Amendment jurisprudence.