National Emergency for Border Wall Sets Precedent for National Emergency on Guns?

[Osiris-ODS]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed the federal government or the states.

There is no national forms of emergency. Infrastructure should be upgraded.

 

[Timmy]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

That’s nice .

Now tell me what the constitution says about separation of powers ?? And who controls the money ? And how laws are made ??

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Nothing but judicial forms of activism with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Nothing but judicial forms of activism with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

 

[BluesLegend]

Our right to keep and bare arms is protected by the US Constitution, good luck with that.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Our right to keep and bare arms is protected by the US Constitution, good luck with that.

Did you read the post, or just the title?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Prepared to be disappointed.

.

 

[BluesLegend]

Our right to keep and bare arms is protected by the US Constitution, good luck with that.

Did you read the post, or just the title?

My post was for the many liberal retards who frequent this forum.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

This statement conveniently leaves out the operative part, which protects the right of people (not states or militias) to keep and bear arms.

Take your collectivist arguments to Venezuela, where they belong.

.

 

[22lcidw]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

That’s nice .

Now tell me what the constitution says about separation of powers ?? And who controls the money ? And how laws are made ??

The Federal Reserve controls the money. A privately owned bank and has been in control since 1913. The end of the Republic and the beginning of Democracy was instituted.

 

[danielpalos]

Nothing but judicial forms of activism with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

I thought you were an attorney.

 

[Papageorgio]

Nothing but judicial forms of activism with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

That is a State's sovereign right secured by our Second Amendment.

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you clarify?

Good luck.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Wrong.

The comparison is that an emergency would be declared to allocate funds for research into gun crime and violence, or to allocate funds to the states to facilitate their updating the NICS database.

It wouldn’t have anything to do with placing restrictions on firearms.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

That’s nice .

Now tell me what the constitution says about separation of powers ?? And who controls the money ? And how laws are made ??

This post was solely to address a principle of law in the context of a statement I see/hear often. The point of the post is simply to outline existing Supreme Court precedent that wholly and unambiguously eliminates any such possibility.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I thought you were an attorney.

No attorney can understand what you mean.

That should tell you something.

.

 

[danielpalos]

Only the right wing is willing to have nothing but fallacy and repeal.

 

[BluesLegend]

That is the law of the land folks.

You don't understand Democrats at all. You think they care about the law or the Constitution? For decades they have knowingly passed unconstitutional laws. They know it will take years and gobs of money to challenge them in court.

 

[danielpalos]

I thought you were an attorney.

No attorney can understand what you mean.

That should tell you something.

.

i must need to dumb it down some more.

 

[Ambivalent1]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Wrong.

The comparison is that an emergency would be declared to allocate funds for research into gun crime and violence, or to allocate funds to the states to facilitate their updating the NICS database.

It wouldn’t have anything to do with placing restrictions on firearms.

Show us that that's what Nancy meant.