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

[bendog]

He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

 

[2aguy]

In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.

He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

And it is...it is the bedrock or our freedom.

 

[bendog]

He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

And it is...it is the bedrock or our freedom.

Is there a limit on felons's 2nd amendment rights, and where is that spelled out?

 

[martybegan]

In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.

He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

There is a difference between someone being convicted by a jury of their peers being banned from exercising certain rights, vs. me being denied certain rights, be it by de jure or de facto methods, just because some people in government think I don't "need" them.

 

[2aguy]

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

You don't. Even with current, federally mandated background checks...which we already have....felons who want guns use people with clean records to buy the gun for them...or they steal the gun..

Do you realize we already have federally mandated background checks for all sales at licensed gun sellers.....like Bass Pro?

 

[bendog]

Where does the second say felons don't have a right to arms?

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

You don't. Even with current, federally mandated background checks...which we already have....felons who want guns use people with clean records to buy the gun for them...or they steal the gun..

Do you realize we already have federally mandated background checks for all sales at licensed gun sellers.....like Bass Pro?

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

 

[2aguy]

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

You don't. Even with current, federally mandated background checks...which we already have....felons who want guns use people with clean records to buy the gun for them...or they steal the gun..

Do you realize we already have federally mandated background checks for all sales at licensed gun sellers.....like Bass Pro?

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

Yes...I think they do....we didn't use to have them and our gun crime rate was lower....

A background check is a violation of your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination....in order to exercise another right...right? Much like a Poll Tax or a Literacy test was a violation of the Right to vote.....

And did you realize that under the Supreme Court ruliing in Haynes v. United States, convicted felons do not have to register their illegally owned guns due to violations of their 5th Amendment rights?

 

[2aguy]

Any right can be removed thru due process, as in the case of felons and their right to arms.
Why don't you understand this?

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

You don't. Even with current, federally mandated background checks...which we already have....felons who want guns use people with clean records to buy the gun for them...or they steal the gun..

Do you realize we already have federally mandated background checks for all sales at licensed gun sellers.....like Bass Pro?

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

If you have a right to buy a gun..which you do....but to practice that right you have to essentially testify against yourself...in the form of a background check...isn't that a violation of your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination?

 

[bendog]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

 

[Contumacious]

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

You don't. Even with current, federally mandated background checks...which we already have....felons who want guns use people with clean records to buy the gun for them...or they steal the gun..

Do you realize we already have federally mandated background checks for all sales at licensed gun sellers.....like Bass Pro?

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

If you have a right to buy a gun..which you do....but to practice that right you have to essentially testify against yourself...in the form of a background check...isn't that a violation of your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination?

Not to the fascists who believe that you are GUILTY until proven otherwise. Furthermore , fascism does not recognize the Fifth Amendment


.

 

[bendog]

But I thought the 2nd was special to you guys

I'm sorry that you choose to incorrectly understand the argument.

No. no. I think we're getting somewhere. So felons can lose 2nd amendment rights despite the Second saying "shall not be infringed." I guess we agree.

So, how do we keep a felon from walking into Bass Pro and buying a hand gun?

You don't. Even with current, federally mandated background checks...which we already have....felons who want guns use people with clean records to buy the gun for them...or they steal the gun..

Do you realize we already have federally mandated background checks for all sales at licensed gun sellers.....like Bass Pro?

But posters have said background checks violate the 2nd. Do they?

If you have a right to buy a gun..which you do....but to practice that right you have to essentially testify against yourself...in the form of a background check...isn't that a violation of your 5th Amendment right against self incrimination?

It's pretty basic that any individual does not have a 5th amend right to prevent disclosure of public records pertaining to his or her self. But this isn't about the 5th, so let's stay on topic

 

[Contumacious]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

You got it Vern.

Its different in Venezuela . Esther la vista , dude.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

The why not is simple. Well not so simple.

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)

but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

 

[Rustic]

Without the Second Amendment there would be no First Amendment, without firearms and the second Amendment there would be no freedom in this country, socialists have taken most freedoms away... Always an ongoing fight against anti-gun nutters.

 

[2aguy]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

Technically, it isn't an inconvenience...it is a violation of your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination in order to exercise another right......

I myself am alright with current federally mandated background checks for licensed gun dealers...I will compromise that far...but that is it....we have more than enough laws to deal with criminals.

 

[Contumacious]

Without the Second Amendment there would be no First Amendment, without firearms and the second Amendment there would be no freedom in this country, socialists have taken most freedoms away... Always an ongoing fight against anti-gun nutters.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

 

[bendog]

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

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

The why not is simple. Well not so simple.

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for. This is EASILY proven by the fact that the majority of the original colonies had official religions AND most of the colonies and colonial towns had laws restricting carrying guns etc etc. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was ONLY to preclude the FEDERAL government from restricting gun ownership, then each state could do as they wish , meaning each state could have in their constitution (neither the state nor any city within may restrict gun ownership, or what have you)

but of course, we had the whole "incorporation" boondoggle which changed everything, so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment , but that would seem to be unlikely, but one thing is certain, ANY federal law which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

How is that certain. The Brady Bill?

 

[Wry Catcher]

In short, Scalia believed the 2nd can and should be infringed.

He was wrong. The Second Amendment explicitly and absolutely forbids any such infringement.

Never mind the fact that the laws against felons, etc, having guns does not infringe on the right to arms because these people do not have the right to arms.

Where, in “…the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” do you find the authority on the part of government to discriminate against any of “the people” by denying them this right?

5th amendment, due process clause, with specific regard to removing life liberty and property.

Your spin won't turn.

"Shall not be infringed" IS infringed by due process. Your entire argument, going back months, has been based on these four words. Now you choose to parse them rather than admit you've been wrong (or lying) all along.

 

[Rustic]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

Technically, it isn't an inconvenience...it is a violation of your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination in order to exercise another right......

I myself am alright with current federally mandated background checks for licensed gun dealers...I will compromise that far...but that is it....we have more than enough laws to deal with criminals.

instacheck has made things better, but it needs to be improved.
No one should have to wait more than a few seconds to find out if their background qualifies them to buy a firearm...

 

[bendog]

I don't really care about Haynes as this is about the 2nd. So felons can't buy guns but background checks are unconstitutional because ANY inconvenience, no matter how trivial, to your buying firearms is unconstitutional? Is that correct?

Technically, it isn't an inconvenience...it is a violation of your 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination in order to exercise another right......

I myself am alright with current federally mandated background checks for licensed gun dealers...I will compromise that far...but that is it....we have more than enough laws to deal with criminals.

You have no 5th amend right to prevent disclosure of any public record. If I have your name, I can get a background check on you today if I'm willing to pay with my credit card.

Stick with the thread. You're saying your rights to firearms cannot be even infringed with a national or state mandated background check?