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

[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.

How is that certain. The Brady Bill?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

 

[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?

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?

NO.

'nuff said

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

State mandated possibly depending on the state constitution. Federal? Nope, that is unconstitutional.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Taking your logic of absolutism re: Amendment II and applying it to Amendment I, Congress committed an unconstitutional action with the passage the Espionage Act of 1917 and all the subsequent amendments to that LAW! For instance, Edward Snowden simply used various means to communicate what he had learned and that communication under this theory of Constitutional absolutism would be a totally protected right and Snowden was fully within his Constitutional rights to share all he learned while working with NSA and CIA classified material because FREE SPEECH IS ABSOLUTE and the 1st Amendment bars Congress from passing laws which would ABRIDGE or otherwise INFRINGE on that right.

Am I understanding you correctly here?

Are you citing Snowden's exposure of criminal activities committed against us by our own government, and efforts on the part of this corrupt government to silence him in order to cover up these crimes, as evidence that government has the authority to suppress free speech?

Do you really believe that this case supports that point? If anything, it very vividly illustrates the importance of free speech,and of holding government on a very, very short leash.

Of course you are NOT understanding what I wrote correctly (Mona Lisa Smile). Well, at least that is your ploy/excuse to avoid confronting your faulty logic with your application of absolutism exclusively to Amendment II. Applying that same paradigm to the 1st Amendment and free speech of ABSOLUTISM with total disregard of the Constitutional principle of Judicial Review runs that vessel aground, EH? Read carefully what I wrote in the first line of what you quoted and don't play the obtuse country bumpkin!!

 

[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?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

Everyone gets an opinion, but Printz didn't say the Brady Bill was unconstitutional in terms of gun sales having to have national background checks. But the feds can't make the states do the checks

 

[martybegan]

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?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 does everyone else.

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

The same way we keep him from walking into Bass Pro and killing someone - we don't.
Like all other laws, we enforce them after they are broken.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

You already have the answer to this.

 

[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.

How is that certain. The Brady Bill?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Of course they do, for the same reason the state cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent any reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, just in case you are an escaped prisoner, and and hold you there until it determines you are not.

 

[bendog]

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 does everyone else.

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

The same way we keep him from walking into Bass Pro and killing someone - we don't.
Like all other laws, we enforce them after they are broken.

Ah, but a felon breaks the law when he attempts to buy a gun at bass pro. The crime occurs when the felon hands over the credit card, not when he takes possession.

What I think you are saying is this: although the second says the right to arms cannot be infringed and does not limit that just to non-felons, you find it can be infringed for them, and while federal background checks would disclose at least some attempted purchases by felons, background checks are unconstitutional because they infringe on your rights ... even though you still get to buy whatever firearm you want.

 

[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?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporation is a fact. Debating it is a bit late and futile.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for.

Nonsense.

Did the Framers mean that the Federal govt couldn't forcibly quarter Federal troops in people's houses during peacetime... but state militias could???

Did the 4th amendment mean that the Fed had to obtain warrants for searches, but state govts didn't have to bother with warrants and could invade and search any place they wanted, no matter how brutally or unreasonably?

Did the 5th mean that the Fed couldn't subject criminals to double jeopardy, and couldn't beat a confession out of a suspect, but the states could???

Did the 6th mean that suspects in Federal court cases had the right to trial by jury, but suspects in state or local trials didn't???

Those are just four examples. There are many more, of course.

OTOH, the 1st amendment DID mean that the Fed could not make laws requiring or forbidding a religion... but, as you point out, most of the states already had official state religions at that time, and the 1st was carefully crafted to not interfere with that. Which is why it restricts itself to only CONGRESS, and carefully doesn't mention states in its bans. (This was later changed by the 14th amendment.)

People in this forum have a strange habit of believing that the Framers were a bunch of bumbling dolts who were clumsy and stupid in how they wrote a document that would govern an entire nation. Most of them however, were lawyers, who were well aware of how the inclusion, or omission, of just a few words could have large ramifications.

Restricting the 1st to only Congress, while making no such restriction in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc., was no accident. The latter amendments were deliberately designed to restrict all governments in the United States. They wouldn't make sense if they weren't.

so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment

More pure baloney. The 2nd (and 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.) never needed "incorporation", since they affected Fed, state, and local govts from the day they were ratified. Unlike the 1st, which was carefully and deliberately written to NOT apply to the state or local govts.

but that would seem to be unlikely

To put it mildly.

but one thing is certain, ANY federal law

Or state or local law...

which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

I can do nothing about the fact that you refuse to understand established law.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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

Of course they do, for the same reason the state cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent any reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, just in case you are an escaped prisoner, and and hold you there until it determines you are not.

And again, the COTUS was not meant to prevent states from doing so, that was NEVER the intent.

 

[martybegan]

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?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporation is not a lie. As a Citizen of the United States, I have the rights granted to me by the amendments. They were incorporated by the 14th amendment. States cannot interfere with rights of US Citizens.

So you are saying if a State wanted to abolish search warrants, it could do it?

 

[martybegan]

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

Of course they do, for the same reason the state cannot constitutionally stop you while walking down the street, absent any reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, just in case you are an escaped prisoner, and and hold you there until it determines you are not.

And again, the COTUS was not meant to prevent states from doing so, that was NEVER the intent.

The 14th amendment changed that.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The BIll of Rights was NEVER intended to limit the power of the states. THAT is what state Constitutions are for.

Nonsense.

Did the Framers mean that the Federal govt couldn't forcibly quarter Federal troops in people's houses... but state militias could???

Did the 4th amendment mean that the Fed had to obtain warrants for searches, but state govts didn't have to bother with warrants and could invade and search any place they wanted, no matter how brutally or unreasonably?

Did the 5th mean that the Fed couldn't subject criminals to double jeopardy, and couldn't beat a confession out of a suspect, but the states could???

Did the 6th mean that suspects in Federal court cases had the right to trial by jury, but suspects in state or local trials didn't???

Those are just four examples. There are many more, of course.

OTOH, the 1st amendment DID mean that the Fed could not make laws requiring or forbidding a religion... but, as you point out, most of the states already had official state religions at that time, and the 1st was carefully crafted to not interfere with that. Which is why it restricts itself to only CONGRESS, but doesn't mention states in its bans. (This was later changed by the 14th amendment.)

People in this forum have a strange habit of believing that the Framers were a bunch of bumbling dolts who were clumsy and stupid in how they wrote a document that would govern an entire nation. Most of them however, were lawyers, who were well aware of how the inclusion, or omission, of just a few words could have large ramifications.

Restricting the 1st to only Congress, while making no such restriction in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc., was no accident. The latter amendments were deliberately designed to restrict all governments in the United States. They wouldn't make sense if they weren't.

so I suppose a case could be made for unincorporating the 2nd Amendment

More pure baloney. The 2nd (and 3rd, 4th, 5th etc.) never needed "incorporation", since they affected Fed, state, and local govts from the day they were ratified. Unlike the 1st, which was carefully and deliberately written to NOT apply to the state or local govts.

but that would seem to be unlikely

To put it mildly.

but one thing is certain, ANY federal law

Or state or local law...

which infringes on the right to own guns is unconstitutional, by ANY reading of the COTUS.

You're wrong, and up until the 1920s SCOTUS agreed with me, as well as the founding fathers.

I get it , you hate the idea of a state being able to outlaw guns. But that's the point , states were SUPPOSED to be free to make those decisions for themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 does everyone else.

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

The same way we keep him from walking into Bass Pro and killing someone - we don't.
Like all other laws, we enforce them after they are broken.

Ah, but a felon breaks the law when he attempts to buy a gun at bass pro. The crime occurs when the felon hands over the credit card, not when he takes possession.

And the state can act on this as soon as the is probable cause to do so; merely buying a gun does not create this.
And, clearly, nothing here changes the fact that the law is enforced -after- it is broken.

What I think you are saying is this: although the second says the right to arms cannot be infringed and does not limit that just to non-felons, you find it can be infringed for them....

Felons do not have the right to arms; as such it is impossible to infringe said right.
Your conclusion, therefor is built on a false premise.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

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?

Unconstitutional and in fact much like sobriety check points SCOTUS had to fudge and say "well okay it IS a violation, but a minor one blah blah blah" to allow it to happen.

Why the fuck ANYONE would have allowed the federal government to usurp so much power is beyond me.
Hell, I'll even relate it to a case the other way around. Gay marriage. The federal government has ZERO authority to define marriage. States, assuming their state constitution allows it, are free to do as they please..

If the people in California want to outlaw private possession of ALL firearms , good for them. If their state constitiona allows it, go for it, if you want to own guns, move somewhere else.

If Texas wants to outlaw abortion. They should be allowed to do so, if you want an abortion, go to a state where it legal.

And on and on and on.

But nope, we have big government authoritarians on the left and the right who want to use the might of the USG to FORCE 360M people to bend to their will, and that is exactly how we end up with a giant , bloated, do nothing federal government.

While I am all for federalism, States cannot deny explicit rights granted to citizens by the amendment process. So no, California CANNOT ban private firearm ownership, or deny jury trials, or revoke 4th amendment protections.

The issue is when the power of the federal government is expanded, not when it is doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

Sure they can.

Once again, this is proven by the facts of the day. Do you know that it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm in the city of Philadelphia the day the COTUS was signed? That is a true fact my friend.

You have fallen victim to the incorporation lie.

The 4th and 5th Amendments were originally meant to ONLY apply to federal courts and then each state would have a state constitutions which would protect said rights in state courts if states agreed.

In fact, until the 1920s SCOTUS ruled OVER AND OVER again that the Bill of Rights ONLY applied to federal government, not state governments.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Incorporation is not a lie. As a Citizen of the United States, I have the rights granted to me by the amendments. They were incorporated by the 14th amendment. States cannot interfere with rights of US Citizens.

So you are saying if a State wanted to abolish search warrants, it could do it?

I'm fairly certain all states have a state constiton that guarantees the right against warrrantless searches, but yes I'm specifically saying the COTUS was NEVER meant to constrain states. It was SPECIFICALLY meant to constrain the FEDERAL government. For the first 150 years of our existence SCOTUS agreed.