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

[Ernie S.]

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.

The first glaring error, which is like fingernails on the chalkboard to me, is your claim that Amendment II is somehow "codified"! The Constitution is a stand alone document and certainly not part of any organized code of law.

The second error is your claim that any gun control legislation is unconstitutional! That is clearly in error based on the legislative record. The several States have hundreds gun control laws on the books right now which are NOT being challenged. WHY? Simply because the are lawful. The National guv'ment has passed a good number of pieces of gun control legislation. Here is a list which may not be all inclusive:

1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

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

Is Dred Scott still in effect?

 

[hazlnut]

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 1st Amendment doesn't say except for kiddie porn, libel, slander, death threats... etc.

But we figured out that's not what the founders meant.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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 1st Amendment doesn't say except for kiddie porn, libel, slander, death threats... etc.
But we figured out that's not what the founders meant.

You do not have the capacity to understand any of the concepts under discussion here.
Please go o back to watching The View and leave the adults to themselves.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

The first glaring error, which is like fingernails on the chalkboard to me, is your claim that Amendment II is somehow "codified"! The Constitution is a stand alone document and certainly not part of any organized code of law.

The second error is your claim that any gun control legislation is unconstitutional! That is clearly in error based on the legislative record. The several States have hundreds gun control laws on the books right now which are NOT being challenged. WHY? Simply because the are lawful. The National guv'ment has passed a good number of pieces of gun control legislation. Here is a list which may not be all inclusive:

1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

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

Is Dred Scott still in effect?

That question is non sequitur!

If your obtuse observation regards constitutionality with respect to every portion of those noted laws above, have all gun control laws been ruled unconstitutional by some force while I slept last night?

 

[Ernie S.]

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.

The first glaring error, which is like fingernails on the chalkboard to me, is your claim that Amendment II is somehow "codified"! The Constitution is a stand alone document and certainly not part of any organized code of law.

The second error is your claim that any gun control legislation is unconstitutional! That is clearly in error based on the legislative record. The several States have hundreds gun control laws on the books right now which are NOT being challenged. WHY? Simply because the are lawful. The National guv'ment has passed a good number of pieces of gun control legislation. Here is a list which may not be all inclusive:

1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

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

Is Dred Scott still in effect?

That question is non sequitur!

If your obtuse observation regards constitutionality with respect to every portion of those noted laws above, have all gun control laws been ruled unconstitutional by some force while I slept last night?

Is it? I intentionally used an example unrelated to the 2nd Amendment to point out that SCOTUS decisions are not permanent.
No, not all gun control laws have been overturned, but considering the last 2 SCOTUS decisions, the trend is that more will be in the future. People have looked on with disgust when anti gun groups use tragedies like Newtown to advance their agenda.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

The first glaring error, which is like fingernails on the chalkboard to me, is your claim that Amendment II is somehow "codified"! The Constitution is a stand alone document and certainly not part of any organized code of law.

The second error is your claim that any gun control legislation is unconstitutional! That is clearly in error based on the legislative record. The several States have hundreds gun control laws on the books right now which are NOT being challenged. WHY? Simply because the are lawful. The National guv'ment has passed a good number of pieces of gun control legislation. Here is a list which may not be all inclusive:

1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994

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

Is Dred Scott still in effect?

That question is non sequitur!

If your obtuse observation regards constitutionality with respect to every portion of those noted laws above, have all gun control laws been ruled unconstitutional by some force while I slept last night?

Is it? I intentionally used an example unrelated to the 2nd Amendment to point out that SCOTUS decisions are not permanent.
No, not all gun control laws have been overturned, but considering the last 2 SCOTUS decisions, the trend is that more will be in the future. People have looked on with disgust when anti gun groups use tragedies like Newtown to advance their agenda.

I'm not looking for a philosophical discussion of what may or may not happen in the future. In any case the last THREE SCOTUS decisions were GLOSSIP, RICHARD E., ET AL. v. GROSS, KEVIN J., ET AL., MICHIGAN, ET AL. v. EPA, ET AL. and AZ STATE LEGISLATURE v. AZ INDEP. REDISTRICTING, ET AL. all decided June 29, 2015. To which of those three are you referring? Specificity is important so both parties are discussing the same points. Without knowing that to which you are referring I cannot comment. But don't get me confused with any anti gun organization in any way!

 

[ChrisL]

If a person has been convicted of a violent felony, I don't have an issue with their second amendment right being restricted. However, some people are classified as "felons" for non-violent crimes, such as writing a bad check over a certain amount. Should this person who wrote a bad check have any of his or her rights restricted by the government?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

At the time that the founding fathers wrote this, it seems they wrote no restrictions and with no exceptions....by the FEDERAL GVT...it's the only thing that makes any sense...they were NOT restricting the States from imposing their own rules on how they wanted their Militia to be armed, because it was the State's own Militia...a Militia formed by the State from the citizens, that could find it necessary to raise up against the federal govt....there was an underlying distrust in a federal gvt, becoming more powerful than the State itself perhaps?

At one point, what was believed by some who took a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units. (which I think I disagree with the previous) Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints.

After all, the Federal government should not be dictating how a State forms their Militia or how citizens protect themselves within that State....the Federal government should not infringe on a State's own security and rules for such...their own Militia and how to set one up etc...this should be solely up to the State itself for what the people should be allowed to own or carry for self defense protection in their State...

The Feds were not responsible for felons or exfelons or crazy rampage murders within the State, the State's own law enforcement and own legislative rules and regs govern that, and the Feds don't govern what ex felon can or can not have a gun...this is all up to the State itself that has tried and convicted the felon....to put any restrictions on gun ownership or Militia preparedness....

And if you look at History, this is pretty much the way the law has been interpreted...?

Now that would mean the Fed should NOT have the right to federally ban anything within the States regarding the State's Militia or the gun ownership of the people within the State....

And in some case the feds HAVE put restrictions like the AK 47 restrictions...so this should be a no no...if the presumption is that the 2nd is a restriction on the Federal Gvt and not the State gvt...but if the State itself wants to restrict such, then so be it...

REMEMBER, there was no Federal Army.... the Feds, according to the constitution, calls up the Army FROM THE STATE Militias, and only for two years at a time...max, till they have to vote again.....

This argument had merit up until the point the fourteenth amendment was ratified.

Then the protection of the right to bear arms was extended against state governments as well. States also had the power to back a religion if they wanted to or limit any other right they felt necessary until we decided that natural rights should be protected from government period rather than just from a single level of government.

 

[FA_Q2]

Were you about to point out where in the 2nd amendment it restricted its effect to only the Federal govt?

I've heard arguments to that effect, based primarily on the premise that the entire Bill of Rights was only intended to constrain the federal government, and not states or local governments. I think it's wrong.

For one thing, the way it was written. Compare to the First Amendment, which starts by saying “Congress shall make no law…”, indicating that it applies to the federal government only. By contrast, the Second Amendment states a right, indicates to whom this right belongs, and prohibits it from being infringed. Nothing in the language indicates that it is only the federal government that is forbidden from infringing this right. Nothing suggests that any authority exists, at any level of government, to infringe this right.

The Tenth Amendment indicates that any power not delegated to the federal government, belongs to the states or to the people. Absent the Second Amendment, and absent any mention anywhere else of the power to restrict the ownership and possession of arms, the Tenth Amendment would indicate that the federal government has no such authority, but that the states might. But the Second Amendment makes it clear. This right belongs not to the federal government, not to the states, but to the people; and it clearly denies any authority to infringe this right.

And a general examination of the other writings of the founders indicates how important they thought this right was. It is certainly not likely that they would have been in favor of allowing any authority to violate this right.

Perhaps not BUT the BoR did not apply to the states at the time of the founding as far as I know and there are no exceptions to this.

There is noting that shows the second restricted states rights to ban guns altogether had they decided that it was the proper course of action.

It is one of the reasons that I find the whole 'natural rights' arguments from the founders perspective very hypocritical. While I am a strong supporter of the idea of natural rights and the need to restrict governmental interference in them, the founders clearly did not IMHO.

We have since repaired that glaring and massive hole in our founding documents by adding the 14th amendment.

 

[hazlnut]

Let's see what the Conservative Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia has to say about all this....


District of Columbia v Heller:


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

- Justice Scalia



There you have it nutters.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's see what the Conservative Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia has to say about all this....
District of Columbia v Heller:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
- Justice Scalia
There you have it nutters.

You do not have the capacity to understand any of the concepts under discussion here.
Please go o back to watching The View and leave the adults to themselves.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 1st Amendment doesn't say except for kiddie porn, libel, slander, death threats... etc.

But we figured out that's not what the founders meant.

Correct.

And it was the Framers' intent that we indeed determine the limits of our civil rights, where government, acting at the behest of the people, seeks to enact restrictions, and citizens place limits on those restrictions through either the political or judicial process.

In order for government to place restrictions on our civil rights that comport with the Constitution and its case law, those restrictions must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, have a compelling governmental interest, and pursue a legitimate legislative end – failing to meet these criteria will result in a given proposed restriction being invalidated by the courts.

 

[ChrisL]

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 1st Amendment doesn't say except for kiddie porn, libel, slander, death threats... etc.

But we figured out that's not what the founders meant.

Correct.

And it was the Framers' intent that we indeed determine the limits of our civil rights, where government, acting at the behest of the people, seeks to enact restrictions, and citizens place limits on those restrictions through either the political or judicial process.

In order for government to place restrictions on our civil rights that comport with the Constitution and its case law, those restrictions must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, have a compelling governmental interest, and pursue a legitimate legislative end – failing to meet these criteria will result in a given proposed restriction being invalidated by the courts.

I think MOST people are against giving the government permission to mess with our rights beyond "reasonable" restrictions like ones that already exist. Even some of those could be considered silly though.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

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

 

[ChrisL]

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

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

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

What about a felon who wrote a bad check? Is the felony itself taken into consideration before abrogating a citizen's rights?

 

[FA_Q2]

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

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

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

What about a felon who wrote a bad check? Is the felony itself taken into consideration before abrogating a citizen's rights?

The idea that the government has the right to keep its boot on your neck after you break the law one time for the rest of your life is fundamentally flawed IMHO. There is a line of course - such makes sense if you murdered or raped someone - but the law does not only make such a distinction for very serious crimes. Even when the law tries such as in the three strikes law, it fails miserably.

For the most part, when you have served your time that should be it except those severe cases. When did we become just fine with a government that can remove your rights permanently for a one time lapse in judgment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

'Congress’s objective in passing § 922(g) was “to keep guns out of the hands of presumptively risky people” and to “suppress[] armed violence.” Yancey, 621 F.3d at 683–84 (citing S. REP. NO. 90-1501, at 22 (1968)); see also Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1169–70 (§ 922(g)’s purposes are to assist law enforcement in combating crime and to keep weapons away from those deemed dangerous or irresponsible). One such group includes aliens “who … [are] illegally or unlawfully in the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). The government argues that the ban on the possession of firearms by this group of people is substantially related to the statute’s general objectives because such persons are able purposefully to evade detection by law enforcement. We agree with this position: unauthorized noncitizens often live “largely outside the formal system of registration, employment, and identification, [and] are harder to trace and more likely to assume a false identity.” Huitron-Guizar, 678 F.3d at 1170. Persons with a strong incentive to use false identification papers will be more difficult to keep tabs on than the general population. (Section 922(g)(5)(B)’s prohibition on firearms possession by most aliens who are lawfully present but who hold only nonimmigrant visas reflects a similar concern.'

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...-20/C:14-3271:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1608386:S:0

 

[Little-Acorn]

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

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

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

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

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

Like that.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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

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

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

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

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

Like that.

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

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

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

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

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