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

[Cellblock2429]

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.

/——/ "There is no national forms of emergency. Infrastructure should be upgraded."
There is a cow under the dining room table. The whipped cream is in the pantry.

 

[OldLady]

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.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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.

View attachment 250033

/——/ How much would you charge to make a needlepoint that says: We need the 2nd Amendment to stop liberals from taking away our 1st Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a crap shoot on which way it will go. But remember, Supreme Court decisions aren't just a specific ruling but based on a ruling which tends to make a lot of waves. For example a state tax on a federal bank set precedent that all federal laws override state laws. And that the Federal government has powers not listed in the Constitution.

Their decision of if Trump's national emergency is legal would be based on them determining a National Emergency can override Constitutional powers. (Ie power to give right of spending to Congress or right of guns to citizens)..

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights -- the express purpose of the Bill of Rights is to list the specific fundamental rights that the government cannot threaten or take away. History note: the addition of the Bill of Rights was necessary in order for the states to agree to ratify the Constitution, at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists (those who advocated power remaining with state and local governments, rather than central government) who refused to approve the original draft of the Constitution without it. Those rights cannot be impinged, modified or legislated away by the states or federal government.

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

The People are the Militia and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[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.

/——/ "There is no national forms of emergency. Infrastructure should be upgraded."
There is a cow under the dining room table. The whipped cream is in the pantry.

Your lack of Valid arguments proves You are only frivolous.

 

[SandSquid]

It is a crap shoot on which way it will go. But remember, Supreme Court decisions aren't just a specific ruling but based on a ruling which tends to make a lot of waves. For example a state tax on a federal bank set precedent that all federal laws override state laws. And that the Federal government has powers not listed in the Constitution.

Their decision of if Trump's national emergency is legal would be based on them determining a National Emergency can override Constitutional powers. (Ie power to give right of spending to Congress or right of guns to citizens)..

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights -- the express purpose of the Bill of Rights is to list the specific fundamental rights that the government cannot threaten or take away. History note: the addition of the Bill of Rights was necessary in order for the states to agree to ratify the Constitution, at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists (those who advocated power remaining with state and local governments, rather than central government) who refused to approve the original draft of the Constitution without it. Those rights cannot be impinged, modified or legislated away by the states or federal government.

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

The People are the Militia and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

And the people will vote for Congress members who decide where tax money is spent.

If a national emergency is deemed by the Supreme Court to override those things...

 

[jc456]

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 money was already allocated. where it is now spent is up to the President. fk I hate stupid like yours.

 

[danielpalos]

It is a crap shoot on which way it will go. But remember, Supreme Court decisions aren't just a specific ruling but based on a ruling which tends to make a lot of waves. For example a state tax on a federal bank set precedent that all federal laws override state laws. And that the Federal government has powers not listed in the Constitution.

Their decision of if Trump's national emergency is legal would be based on them determining a National Emergency can override Constitutional powers. (Ie power to give right of spending to Congress or right of guns to citizens)..

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights -- the express purpose of the Bill of Rights is to list the specific fundamental rights that the government cannot threaten or take away. History note: the addition of the Bill of Rights was necessary in order for the states to agree to ratify the Constitution, at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists (those who advocated power remaining with state and local governments, rather than central government) who refused to approve the original draft of the Constitution without it. Those rights cannot be impinged, modified or legislated away by the states or federal government.

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

The People are the Militia and may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

And the people will vote for Congress members who decide where tax money is spent.

If a national emergency is deemed by the Supreme Court to override those things...

Don't grab guns or grab money; grab gun lovers and regulate them well!

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Well regulated doesnt mean what you think it means

 

[Blues Man]

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 ??

Does the DOD fall under the armed forces?

The president is the CIC of the armed forces is he not?

 

[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.

Well regulated doesnt mean what you think it means

It doesn't mean what You think it means.

 

[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 ??

Does the DOD fall under the armed forces?

The president is the CIC of the armed forces is he not?

No real national emergency without real national emergency tax rates to prove it.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Well regulated doesnt mean what you think it means

It doesn't mean what You think it means.

At that time, it meant something should be in proper working order.
In the case of guns, plenty of ammo and cleaned guns ready to shoot a perp!

 

[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.

Well regulated doesnt mean what you think it means

It doesn't mean what You think it means.

At that time, it meant something should be in proper working order.
In the case of guns, plenty of ammo and cleaned guns ready to shoot a perp!

And, you would be Wrong again, even though You are on the Right.

Wellness of regulation must be clearly prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And, you would be Wrong again, even though You are on the Right.

You don't even speak English. How can you call ANY native speaker wrong?

Wellness of regulation must be clearly prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

Where does it say that? Article 1, Section 8 says:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Not a Goddamn word about "wellness of regulation."

But it does say that States reserve the Authority to train the militia, not the federal government (see National Guard).

You lose all day long, Mexican. Go back there and die.

.

 

[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 ??

the money was already allocated. where it is now spent is up to the President. fk I hate stupid like yours.

Allocated for certain projects .

 

[danielpalos]

And, you would be Wrong again, even though You are on the Right.

You don't even speak English. How can you call ANY native speaker wrong?

Wellness of regulation must be clearly prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

Where does it say that? Article 1, Section 8 says:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Not a Goddamn word about "wellness of regulation."

But it does say that States reserve the Authority to train the militia, not the federal government (see National Guard).

You lose all day long, Mexican. Go back there and die.

.

LOL
That is Why we don't take the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

The discipline prescribed by Congress is Wellness of Regulation for the militia of the United States.