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

[2aguy]

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 Bill of Rights covered that......

 

[Little-Acorn]

The OP asks us to take literalist and originalist view, but he doesn't mention the words "a WELL REGULATED militia".

(sigh)

Should I reprint my reply to this tired, debunked assertion for a 17th time?

No, I didn't think so.

Go get it yourself.

Trouble: Hillary Just Refused To Say Right To Bear Arms Is A Constitutional Right

 

[2aguy]

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

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

It's an inconvenience, that's for sure. Seems a problem easily solved. Of course fee based systems are alway regressive which is why a national data base funded by taxes would satisfy all. Those of us who want to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not legally obtain one, and those who want to own guns and not wait six months and pay an enormous fee.

Right up until that data base was used to ban and confiscate some or all guns....as per Germany, Britain and Australia........this isn't a new tactic....it has been done before and we know it......no matter what we will resist a national data base of gun owners.....

 

[2aguy]

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.

Please point out where the 1st Amendment mentions kiddie porn, libel, slander, inciting a riot etc.

BTW - the 4th has all kinds of exceptions, in plain view, open fields, on and on…

I already explained child pornography....it is not protected by the first Amendment because children cannot give their consent...they are victims of a crime.......the First Amendment is not involved...you can watch as much gun porn as you want......because it is consenting adults....

Libel and Slander and inciting a riot are not protected because they harm another persons rights.......

 

[2aguy]

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

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

 

[Little-Acorn]

The clear language and intent was that the 2nd would apply to the FEDERAL government. I mean the 2nd even says right there "CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW"

Are you on some prescription medicine the rest of us should know about?

Most liberal fanatics who try to lie about what the Constitution says, at least try a LITTLE bit to mask their lies in some veil of plausibility.

The 2nd contains none of the things you claim it does.

I know you people have been losing the debates hand over fist. But can't you at least TRY to include a little truth in your bluster?

 

[2aguy]

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

Selling to a gun to a felon shouldn't be a crime. At least not unless the seller has good reason to know that the buyer is a felon, and intends to use the gun to commit more crimes.

If I go to a hardware store and buy a gas can, and then to a gas station, to fill it with gasoline, is either the hardware store or the gas station obligated to make sure I'm not an arsonist before selling me the respective products?

Or Best Buy in the case of computers and computer crimes.........

 

[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?

Against self incrimination you do....and a background check to exercise a right does just that......

Look at Haynes v. United States...

I don't see the Haynes analogy of registering certain guns to pre-buy checks. In Haynes the issue wasn't whether the sale was legal.

 

[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.

Apply that to voting.......a Poll Tax does not keep you from voting...if you pay the tax....a Literacy Test does not keep you from voting...if you pass the test....democrats are very familiar with how to keep people from exercising their rights....and they are trying to do the same thing with the 2nd Amendment....

I gotta say that's a false analogy, no offense. Poll taxes were to keep the poor (blacks) from voting despite being eligible. Background don't discourage legal purchases, but they do inconvenience them

And Reagan supported the Brady bill

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land.

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that are delegated to the federal government.

The Tenth Amendment clearly states that any power not delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states or to the people.

Any power that the federal government tries to exercise, that is not among its Constitutionally-delegated powers, it does so illegally; it is not doing pursuant to the Constitution; and its doing so is not protected by the Supremacy Clause.

Are you suggesting the Executive needs to order the DOJ to arrest and prosecute the members of the Supreme Court who participate in Judicial Review?

 

[Rustic]

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

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

100% end of freedom = National gun registration

 

[bendog]

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

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

If we had universal checks original ownership would not be relevant.

 

[Rustic]

Yes, they absolutely do. And for no legitimate purpose.

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

If we had universal checks original ownership would not be relevant.

What do you mean by universal background checks?

 

[bendog]

I don't see an instant background check as an infringement. However, under the principle of give an inch lose a mile, NYC takes 3-6 months and around $1000 to approve a permit for a handgun home permit.

THAT is infringement.

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

If we had universal checks original ownership would not be relevant.

What do you mean by universal background checks?

If all sales had to have checks.

 

[Rustic]

The purpose of background checks is to enable government, to illegally discriminate against some of “the people” by denying them their rights under the Second Amendment. And it requires any who seek to exercise this right, as a condition of doing so, to prove that they are not among those against whom government intends to illegally discriminate. It requires us to first seek government's permission to exercise a right. By definition, a right does not require permission to exercise.

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

If we had universal checks original ownership would not be relevant.

What do you mean by universal background checks?

If all sales had to have checks.

They are already that way...

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 1st Amendment doesn't say 'except for human sacrifice rituals'.

 

[bendog]

If it is done as part of the transaction, with no waiting period, I don't see the issue, constitutional or otherwise.

But lets look at it from another perspective. If selling a gun to a felon is a crime, without instant background checks to show good faith effort by the seller, how would the sellers verify they are selling to a non-felon?

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

If we had universal checks original ownership would not be relevant.

What do you mean by universal background checks?

If all sales had to have checks.

They are already that way...

Nyet. Guns are sold privately all the time without the necessity of background checks.

 

[Rustic]

And the anti gunners know this.....and that leads directly to universal gun registration........because you can't know who was the original owner of the gun without it....and anyone can say...hey, it belonged to me the whole time....I didn't buy it....I own it...without universal registration you can't track guns for the background checks....

If we had universal checks original ownership would not be relevant.

What do you mean by universal background checks?

If all sales had to have checks.

They are already that way...

Nyet. Guns are sold privately all the time without the necessity of background checks.

How do you propose background checks on private sales? most law abiding can afford that, or is that your intent?

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

it is the thread.....forcing someone to prove they are not a criminal before they exercise a right is Unconstitutional...even when it applies to the 2nd Amendment.......

Well, that's an honest answer. I appreciate that.

And regardless of courts saying background checks are const, I think it's at least debatable.

I just don't see the distinction of it being legal for the cops to stop everyone on a road to check to see if they have licenses and stop to check on all gun sales. The first infringes on the Fourth, the latter on the Second.

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

 

[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.

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?

it is the thread.....forcing someone to prove they are not a criminal before they exercise a right is Unconstitutional...even when it applies to the 2nd Amendment.......

Well, that's an honest answer. I appreciate that.

And regardless of courts saying background checks are const, I think it's at least debatable.

I just don't see the distinction of it being legal for the cops to stop everyone on a road to check to see if they have licenses and stop to check on all gun sales. The first infringes on the Fourth, the latter on the Second.

As usual threads on the 2nd A. end up being debates on opinions, not the body of law.

This is true, but why fix something that ain't broken?