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

[danielpalos]

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.

we could just end our useless drug war; only the right wing likes to spend the Other Peoples' money but blame the Poor.

 

[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?

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

According to liberal liars.

 

[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.

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

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

 

[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.

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?

why not try reading my original post.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

That's different because Obama cares. And because he cares and offered hope and change, well its just not fair to hold him accountable for being a stupid moron.

 

[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.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

 

[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.

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

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[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.

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.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the statement; indeed, there’s nothing in the statement indicating that the next Democratic president would seek to declare an emergency pursuant to some sort of ‘gun control’ or ‘regulation’ – that’s pure inference on your part.

And it’s quite possible the statement is a rightwing lie – the lie that a Democratic president would seek to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Again, from whom exactly have you heard this statement?

If you’re referring to a comment made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then you might want to read her actual statement – nowhere does she advocate a restriction to owning firearms, or anything remotely in violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[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.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it takes real arguments not simply right wing bigotry.

 

[B. Kidd]

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

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it takes real arguments not simply right wing bigotry.

 

[danielpalos]

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it takes real arguments not simply right wing bigotry.

not bright enough to come up with valid arguments, right wingers?

why should we take You seriously?

 

[B. Kidd]

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

it takes real arguments not simply right wing bigotry.

not bright enough to come up with valid arguments, right wingers?

why should we take You seriously?

Please continue not to.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the statement; indeed, there’s nothing in the statement indicating that the next Democratic president would seek to declare an emergency pursuant to some sort of ‘gun control’ or ‘regulation’ – that’s pure inference on your part.

And it’s quite possible the statement is a rightwing lie – the lie that a Democratic president would seek to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Again, from whom exactly have you heard this statement?

If you’re referring to a comment made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then you might want to read her actual statement – nowhere does she advocate a restriction to owning firearms, or anything remotely in violation of the Second Amendment.

I assure you, I am not merely inferring or stirring the pot, as many here seem to get off on doing. I've read and heard it from many main stream media sources that can hardly be considered "rightwing." Here are a couple I found with a very brief google search:

Vox: Pelosi says Trump’s national emergency sets a new precedent for Democrats (suggesting the possibility of the use of executive power such "that a Democratic president would push through policies on everything from health care to gun control through the White House instead of Congress, should Trump lose the presidency in 2020")

MSN News: Pelosi threat: Democrats could declare national emergency to enact gun control (characterizing Democrats' comments on border wall national emergency as something that "could [be] use[d] later to enact their own priorities, such as increasing gun control")

CNBC: Pelosi warns GOP that a Democratic president could declare gun violence a national emergency

 

[justoffal]

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.

It's doesn't matter what Trump does or doesn't do. The left will use any and all means at their disposal for any and all goals they deem necessary. Holding back in good manners and expecting them to do the same is outlandish.....as if!

Jo

 

[SandSquid]

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.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is scary that same Constitution it says the right to bear arms is given to the people is the one that says the right to spend money is given to the US Congress.

It will be interesting if this case goes to the Supreme Court and if they set the precedent that in a national emergency the President can override those rights.

I hope they don't agree with that.

 

[B. Kidd]

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.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is scary that same Constitution it says the right to bear arms is given to the people is the one that says the right to spend money is given to the US Congress.

It will be interesting if this case goes to the Supreme Court and if they set the precedent that in a national emergency the President can override those rights.

I hope they don't agree with that.

They will.
Because Congress gave the right to the President to declare a National Emergency.
If you need anything else cleared up for you, just dial 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

 

[SandSquid]

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

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is scary that same Constitution it says the right to bear arms is given to the people is the one that says the right to spend money is given to the US Congress.

It will be interesting if this case goes to the Supreme Court and if they set the precedent that in a national emergency the President can override those rights.

I hope they don't agree with that.

They will.
Because Congress gave the right to the President to declare a National Emergency.
If you need anything else cleared up for you, just call 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

And now that that can of worms is opened, I guess we will see if the Supreme Court will agree that it can be used in direct opposition of Constitutional rights or not.

 

[B. Kidd]

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is scary that same Constitution it says the right to bear arms is given to the people is the one that says the right to spend money is given to the US Congress.

It will be interesting if this case goes to the Supreme Court and if they set the precedent that in a national emergency the President can override those rights.

I hope they don't agree with that.

They will.
Because Congress gave the right to the President to declare a National Emergency.
If you need anything else cleared up for you, just call 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

And now that that can of worms is opened, I guess we will see if the Supreme Court will agree that it can be used in direct opposition of Constitutional rights or not.

Great point! Democracy is messy.

 

[TrueTT]

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.

In other words the answer is no: you did not read the post.