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

[danielpalos]

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.

you don't know what you are talking about. i quoted a State Constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

Well, go for it. The only people who would object to that would be congress because those fucking crooks will not get to funnel moneys to their cronies and further rip off the average tax payer.



.

 

[B. Kidd]

A gun grab paves the path to full socialism and worse!

 

[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?

I thought you were an attorney.

Don't take offense, it seems there may be a language barrier. I simply don't understand the point you're trying to make. Indulge me, if you will, and spell it out for me.

 

[danielpalos]

A gun grab paves the path to full socialism and worse!

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.

 

[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.

you don't know what you are talking about. i quoted a State Constitution.

I wasn't talking to you. Work on your reading comprehension the lack thereof is disturbing.

 

[miketx]

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.

Why didn't black jesus do it?

 

[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.

Don't take offense, it seems there may be a language barrier. I simply don't understand the point you're trying to make. Indulge me, if you will, and spell it out for me.

Where are you an attorney? I quoted a State Constitution. Read it.

 

[BluesLegend]

A gun grab paves the path to full socialism and worse!

It paves the path of the left becoming new residents at GITMO.

 

[theHawk]

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 2nd Amendment doesn’t require any budget from Congress.

 

[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.

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.

That is not the way I have heard it stated aloud and in writing. Assume my post refers to those advocating for the possibility of a national emergency declaration that would serve to restrict gun ownership. If that is not your understanding/position, then this does not apply to you.

 

[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.

Why didn't black jesus do it?

according to some accounts, he did. we need an upgrade every two years.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

And none of that means anything any more because we have now decided precedent means nothing.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left want to make private ownership of guns illegal like some other countries have. They just don't have the cuts to admit it. Instead they scheme and sneak around like unwashed traitors.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Already multiple threads on this.
In other words it's old news.

 

[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.

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.

"Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat [sic] president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Who exactly has said that?

Trump declared an ‘emergency’ to misappropriate funds to build his ‘wall.’

For the comparison to be valid it would need to speculate that the next Democratic president would likewise declare an emergency to justify spending in an effort to address gun crime and violence, spending Congressional Republicans would otherwise oppose.

 

[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.

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 2nd Amendment doesn’t require any budget from Congress.

Only the House can appropriate tax revenue.

 

[whitehall]

Guns? If democrats were concerned about the proliferation of guns in Mexico they would indict the former president who was the most notorious illegal gun exporter and the most notorious illegal alien importer.

 

[B. Kidd]

A gun grab paves the path to full socialism and worse!

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.

Try to sell it that way when the unhinged left goes to confiscate Americans guns.

 

[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?

I thought you were an attorney.

Don't take offense, it seems there may be a language barrier. I simply don't understand the point you're trying to make. Indulge me, if you will, and spell it out for me.

Where are you an attorney? I quoted a State Constitution. Read it.

You're quoting from the New York State Constitution, Article XII, Section 1. So, what is your point? I'm not being difficult here, I truly don't get the point you're trying to make? Are your posts meant to agree with the premise of the OP? If not, what specifically are you disagreeing with?