The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[M14 Shooter]

Okay. You are saying that individuals in NYC cannot have a CCW unless it is a requirement of their employer, correct?

or they are a retired police officer, or they know someone in the Department (the celebrity exception) or they can define a set risk.

If i go to NYPD and apply for a CCW, and give the reason "because it is my constitutional right under the 2nd amendment) they will deny it in a heartbeat.

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

If it were any other right, liberals would scream bloody murder.

 

[martybegan]

So you think a person can just walk up to the NYPD and ask for a CCW? there is no form because they DONT ALLOW IT.

Okay. You are saying that individuals in NYC cannot have a CCW unless it is a requirement of their employer, correct?

or they are a retired police officer, or they know someone in the Department (the celebrity exception) or they can define a set risk.

If i go to NYPD and apply for a CCW, and give the reason "because it is my constitutional right under the 2nd amendment) they will deny it in a heartbeat.

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

Okay, I did some googling and it appears that you are correct. People like Donald Trump can get their CCW in NYC but people like you cannot without a compelling reason.

I don't agree with that, personally.

Have you tried waltzing in in a mini-skirt and said you were afraid of rapists?

One topic at a time there skippy.

 

[Ernie S.]

Can you link to that?

Getting A NYC Handgun Permit | New York City Guns

According to the application that is only if you are getting the permit so you can use your gun as part of your employment.

That is actually a reason that lets you bypass the 'only if we say so" part of the permit, and then you can only carry when on the job.

My question is, doesn't this seem like "infringement" to you?

I looked at the application. If you are not being required by your employer to carry a gun on the job then it appears that you do not need to submit "a reason" for your CCW.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf

They don't issue a CCW unless you meet the requirements of the form, its not that the form is only needed for business purposes.

If I went to NYPD and said I wanted a CCW "because it is my right" they would deny me.

Until Alabama changed it's law a bit about 5 years ago, the application asked for a reason to carry. "Because it is my right" was a valid reason.
Now, you walk in, fill out a half page application, hand it to the clerk, she punched in your information and when you come back clean, you move to the next window for a photo. You hand her $30 (20 if over 65) and she hands you a permit. Total time? Under 5 minutes.

 

[Ernie S.]

or they are a retired police officer, or they know someone in the Department (the celebrity exception) or they can define a set risk.

If i go to NYPD and apply for a CCW, and give the reason "because it is my constitutional right under the 2nd amendment) they will deny it in a heartbeat.

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

If it were any other right, liberals would scream bloody murder.

How about a background check, mandatory training, finger prints and a competency test at the polls each time you vote?

You good with that, my Liberal friends?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

If it were any other right, liberals would scream bloody murder.

How about a background check, mandatory training, finger prints and a competency test at the polls each time you vote?
You good with that, my Liberal friends?

This would reduce the number of dem voters at the polls, so no.

 

[bendog]

Okay. You are saying that individuals in NYC cannot have a CCW unless it is a requirement of their employer, correct?

or they are a retired police officer, or they know someone in the Department (the celebrity exception) or they can define a set risk.

If i go to NYPD and apply for a CCW, and give the reason "because it is my constitutional right under the 2nd amendment) they will deny it in a heartbeat.

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.

 

[bendog]

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

If it were any other right, liberals would scream bloody murder.

How about a background check, mandatory training, finger prints and a competency test at the polls each time you vote?

You good with that, my Liberal friends?

I admit voting for shrub was a killer, but your analogy is factually .... absurd.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

If it were any other right, liberals would scream bloody murder.

How about a background check, mandatory training, finger prints and a competency test at the polls each time you vote?

You good with that, my Liberal friends?

I admit voting for shrub was a killer, but your analogy is factually .... absurd.

You take issue with needing background check, mandatory training, finger prints and a competency test before exercising one of your rights?

 

[martybegan]

or they are a retired police officer, or they know someone in the Department (the celebrity exception) or they can define a set risk.

If i go to NYPD and apply for a CCW, and give the reason "because it is my constitutional right under the 2nd amendment) they will deny it in a heartbeat.

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.

because all the local judges agree with the law, and to fight it would take a shit load of time.

 

[bendog]

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.

because all the local judges agree with the law, and to fight it would take a shit load of time.

Yeah but it's not like the NRA and gun manufacturers don't have time and money on their hands. I don't see how NYC's law can possibly be consistent with Heller or the Chicago strikedowns.

 

[martybegan]

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.

because all the local judges agree with the law, and to fight it would take a shit load of time.

Yeah but it's not like the NRA and gun manufacturers don't have time and money on their hands. I don't see how NYC's law can possibly be consistent with Heller or the Chicago strikedowns.

The NRA has given up on NY for a while, going after more profitable locations. Hopefully we are next on the list.

DC and Chicago were outright bans, NY is a de facto ban, and harder to fight.

 

[Contumacious]

Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.

As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew

Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.

In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional

Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

 

[bendog]

Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.

As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew

Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.

In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional

Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

Large type does not make your assertions less patently false.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The process for obtaining a handgun license in New York City is long (between 3 – 6 months, and waits up to 8 months are not uncommon),

that right there is too much of an infringement

It also coats $500.
Imagine the screams from the left if you needed a $500 permit for an abortion.

exactly

or for birthright citizenship

 

[Contumacious]

Why? Because crimes were delt with instantly back then so criminals never had a chance to own guns once captured.

As an excon i have 0 problems with the law. You reap what you sew

Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.

In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional

Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

Large type does not make your assertions less patently false.

YOU ARE FREE TO USE THE SMALLEST FONT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.


.

 

[Londoner]

This reading doesn't preclude inmates from having their guns confiscated either. Also, the framers probably wanted sex offenders to keep their guns, making it easier for them to coerce their victims and protect themselves from the parents of raped children.

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities. The Constitution doesn't say anything about the internet either, but there are provisions for empowering legislators to determine commerce laws just as there are provisions for the state to protect the rights of individuals from being shot by gun owning felons with a violent history.

Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)

(God help us)

 

[bendog]

Prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms is rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, representing a compelling governmental interest, pursuant to a legitimate legislative end.

TRANSLATION: I can't argue against the solution offered by the OP, so I'll pretend he never said it. I'll then pretend the Framers intended government to have some power to restrict guns even though the laws they wrote obviously allow for none.

In addition to saying that felons my not possess firearms, the Second Amendment also says that undocumented immigrants are prohibited persons, where their prosecution for possessing firearms or ammunition is Constitutional

Like that.

Well, now that you put it that way...

You're just as wrong as you were before. Hazlnut gave you Justice Scalia's take on whether or not Amendment II was written in stone and inviolate in his decision in DC v. Heller. Here is the first line Hazlnut cited in his Post #150, to refresh you memory:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited." In other words, your "TRANSLATION" is bloody WRONG!

In my own Post #140, I cited a series of gun control laws passed by Congress in the last 85 years in a reply to you:
"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

Given all that gun control legislation noted above, it looks like your assertion that such legislation is unconstitutional doesn't hold water in that bullet ridden bucket you're carrying for the NRA."

There is no doubt you're assertions are in gross error. You have the intent of Congress and the interpretation of SCOTUS against you. Will you still insist everyone else is wrong as a stubborn child would?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER FIREARMS. NONE.

THE FEDERAL "JUDICIARY" IS A USELESS BRANCH , A FACT WHICH THOMAS JEFFERSON DISCOVERED IN THE 1820's.

NO ONE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MEANS THAT "WE THE PEOPLE" CAN USE TO DEFEND OURSELVES.

DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASK JAPAN OR THE UN WHETHER THEY COULD USE THE ATOMIC BOMB?

NO YOU SAID? SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.


.

Large type does not make your assertions less patently false.

YOU ARE FREE TO USE THE SMALLEST FONT AVAILABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT MY ALLEGATIONS ARE PATENTLY FALSE.


.

Look, it's not deniable that prior to the revolution colonies, and later states and towns, had regulations on storing firearms and where firearms could NOT be discharged. In the mid 19th century, municipalities had restrictions on where firearms could be carried. There was never a contention that those regulations were unconstitutional. You can yell as much as you want, or type as big as you can, but facts exist despite your apparent wishes.

But that does not mean a govt can take all the guns, or that we cannot use them to legitimately defend ourselves. That is, there are limits on govt power, and the Courts will give those laws that intentionally impact individual freedom the closest scrutiny possible, and that principal goes back the first scotus chief, Marshall.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

 

[bendog]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

But that is not really the question. Of course you at least seem rational and not a danger. People perhaps say the same about me, but maybe they're wrong.

But the fact is that unbalanced people are obtaining firearms. People who shouldn't be able to pass background checks. So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit of not having a nut with a gun. I really don't know the answer to that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The OP is suggesting that because no limits to gun ownership were directly stated, than no such limits are possible, even when such rights clearly interfere with other rights. The whole purpose of constitutions and laws is to adjudicate precisely these complexities.
Your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins (unless your holding a gun)
(God help us)

How does my simple ownership / possession of a firearm harm you?
How does it place you in a condition of clear, present and immediate danger?

But that is not really the question.

It is when you start talking about "when such rights clearly interfere with other rights" and "your right to swing your arm stops where my face begins".
Do you have a response?