The Gun Control Laws The United States Needs

[Rigby5]

The 2nd Amendment is freely infringed, just look at age restrictions, no sales to felon, no sales of nukes... But the good thing is, you can read, so there's hope for you yet.

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Yes, now that we have McDonald vs Chicago firmly incorporating defense as an individual right, then convicted felons need to be re-examined. They do have the individual right of self defense.

That is a state decision.

Maybe, but it could also be a question the SCOTUS could over rule the states on. Not that that would be likely though.

 

[Taz]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

That's it... OWN your ignorance. Well done.

Even the military uses them for hunting humans.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

The police power must have some effect. States have it and so does the federal government in the federal districts.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Except the courts have already ruled you are wrong.
The Bill of Rights are strict prohibitions on federal jurisdiction.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

I disagree. We do need a 2nd amendment. Just not the way it's worded today. The first part of it has long since become obsolete with the 1916 National Guard Act. But even with that Act, they didn't take away the power for a State to have a Defense Force which is another way of saying Organized Militia. In fact, the Act protected the SDF from the Federal Government. So the first part needs to be reworded a bit to keep it current.

Now, on to the second part, the Bear Arms. That is open to way too many interpretation. It needs to be made more clear. If I were to read that to 10 people that knew nothing about the situation I would get at least 3 different interpretation of it, probably 10 different interpretation. That is NOT a good law.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And, you want to push it even further?

This is the reason we should demand absolutely no infringements. Nukes and all. Felon or not.

Or, people could leave well-enough alone.

.

Pro-gun people are always going on about protecting the 2nd. Yet it's been infringed too many times to count. And it's hypocritical to want to protect the 2nd and be ok with felons not having guns...

I agree. Felons who served their time should have all rights restored.

.

Yes, now that we have McDonald vs Chicago firmly incorporating defense as an individual right, then convicted felons need to be re-examined. They do have the individual right of self defense.

That is a state decision.

Maybe, but it could also be a question the SCOTUS could over rule the states on. Not that that would be likely though.

The Supreme Court has avoided that question like the plague for good reason. it's not the Feds job. They leave it up to the lower courts and the lower governments where it belongs.

 

[Rigby5]

Black people should be disqualified from having guns.

Sorry, but DNA testing has shown that everyone actually is Black.
Whites are a recessive branch of Blacks that developed in Africa less than 100,000 years ago.
You can't really get any evolution in just 100,000 years.
All you can do is bring out old existing recessives, with inbreeding.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

All major Militaries in the world disagree with you. And so does almost every combat veteran that ever lived in the modern day of warfare. But what do they know, they are just the professionals.

 

[Rigby5]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

That's it... OWN your ignorance. Well done.

Even the military uses them for hunting humans.

The military is just out for profiteering, and Colt make millions on the AR series.
Does not mean they are good rifles.
They really suck actually.
It is just that now they are cheap, due to surplus volumes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

Dude you aren't that bright. The bill of rights are part of the Constitution. They aren't separate from the Constitution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Black people should be disqualified from having guns.

Sorry, but DNA testing has shown that everyone actually is Black.
Whites are a recessive branch of Blacks that developed in Africa less than 100,000 years ago.
You can't really get any evolution in just 100,000 years.
All you can do is bring out old existing recessives, with inbreeding.

Are you saying that Hillbilly Dating caused White People? I thought it only caused the loss of teeth and the ability to play the banjo

 

[rjs330]

How can you say that, since the Bill of Right ARE the first 10 amendments?
Are you claiming none of the Amendment count?
What about the 14th amendment?
Are we to claim slavery is legal now?

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights are not part of the Constitution? In other words slavery can still be legal? Or that we have no right to freedom of speech? Or that we have no constitutional right against unlawful search and siezure or right to an attorney or against self incrimination?

OR are you trying to say we shouldn't refer to the amendments as the bill of Rights and should just refer to them as "the Constitution"?

Cause the courts all over the place including SCOTUS has used the amendments as constitutional authority to determine whether or not something like a search and seizure is constitutional.

 

[danielpalos]

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

The police power must have some effect. States have it and so does the federal government in the federal districts.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

I disagree. We do need a 2nd amendment. Just not the way it's worded today. The first part of it has long since become obsolete with the 1916 National Guard Act. But even with that Act, they didn't take away the power for a State to have a Defense Force which is another way of saying Organized Militia. In fact, the Act protected the SDF from the Federal Government. So the first part needs to be reworded a bit to keep it current.

Now, on to the second part, the Bear Arms. That is open to way too many interpretation. It needs to be made more clear. If I were to read that to 10 people that knew nothing about the situation I would get at least 3 different interpretation of it, probably 10 different interpretation. That is NOT a good law.

There is no ambiguity at all in our federal Constitution. That is how most excellent our Founding Fathers were, with our Constitution and supreme law of the land.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States.

The People are the Militia under the common law for the common defense.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

We should have no security problems in our free States.

 

[rjs330]

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

That's not true. Defendants have used the Amendments as a defense against the prosecution violating their rights. The rights specifically outlin d in the Amendments. They have won many of those cases and had charges dropped specifically because the state was found to have violated those rights. If the rights had no legal standing then the defendant would have not been able to use them and the courts would not have used them to determine that the rights were violated.

 

[Taz]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

Nah.
For hunting humans you would much more likely want a pistol bullet.
That would allow you to carry and fire many more rounds.
The .223 of the AR is way too powerful close range, and too high of velocity for long range.
It is a fairly terrible weapon and caliber all in all.
But it is ok for things smaller than humans, like rabbits or coyotes, and that is about all.

I bet you have it all planned out...

 

[progressive hunter]

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

The police power must have some effect. States have it and so does the federal government in the federal districts.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

I disagree. We do need a 2nd amendment. Just not the way it's worded today. The first part of it has long since become obsolete with the 1916 National Guard Act. But even with that Act, they didn't take away the power for a State to have a Defense Force which is another way of saying Organized Militia. In fact, the Act protected the SDF from the Federal Government. So the first part needs to be reworded a bit to keep it current.

Now, on to the second part, the Bear Arms. That is open to way too many interpretation. It needs to be made more clear. If I were to read that to 10 people that knew nothing about the situation I would get at least 3 different interpretation of it, probably 10 different interpretation. That is NOT a good law.

I already know youre to stupid to realize the first part has nothing to do with creating a militia, all it is is a qualifier for what the 2nd half says,,,

and sorry there is no room for interpretation on the 2nd A

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The fact remains, ARs and the like make for great hunting rifles...

Ya, hunting humans.

That's it... OWN your ignorance. Well done.

Even the military uses them for hunting humans.

The military is just out for profiteering, and Colt make millions on the AR series.
Does not mean they are good rifles.
They really suck actually.
It is just that now they are cheap, due to surplus volumes.

Have you ever really look at why the AR looks like it does? It ain't pretty. In fact, there is nothing on it that is cosmetic at all. It's all functional. Every part has a function for one thing and one thing alone. It's a weapon of war. It's designed by Stoner in the 50s for one thing. To be used by an 19 year old kid, scared out of his mind, pumped full of adrenaline, under heavy fire and to be able to pump as many rounds as possible and reload as quickly as possible under those conditions. This is why almost every weapon they propose to replace it in the Military has exactly the same features and looks almost exactly the same. Those that don't never get considered as pretty doesn't have any place. I can have the original AR-15 Model 601 (Malaysia) from 1958 and the parts from the most recent Colt Model 750 (Civilian AR-15) almost all interchange save about 3 or 4 pieces. The only parts that won't interchange are the parts that makes the difference between the full auto and the semi auto. When you make something perfect, it doesn't need changing, just upgrading. Much like the C-130 and the B-52. In the ARs case, about the only upgrading is in the caliber. The 5.56 may get changed to the 6.8spc.

 

[Rigby5]

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

The police power must have some effect. States have it and so does the federal government in the federal districts.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Show us where the Bill of Rights prohibits Federal regulation of firearms.

Has anybody shown that to the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to prevent federal infringement on areas where states should have total sovereignty.
The ways people in the past have interpreted this to still allow federal restriction on firearms is by 2 main approaches.
One is that things like a background check to ensure you are not a convicted felon, is not really infringing upon anything, as long as you are not a convicted felon.
The other is that as long as the states fail to legislate, then federal legislation then is not infringing upon the states at all.
And the commerce clause has also been used to claim that federal gun laws are necessary or else weapons obtained in one state will make enforcement of stricter rules in other states impossible.

Those arguments worked when the 2nd amendment was not yet considered incorporated. But now that it is official that the 2nd Amendment has been incorporated as an individual right, by McDonald vs Chicago, both of those are really out the window. How can convicted felons no longer have the right to defend themselves? There certainly were no laws trying to prevent felons from being armed in the first century of this country. And once weapons rights are incorporated as individual, then lack of state laws does not open the door to federal legislation. It then is not just state jurisdiction the feds have to avoid infringing upon, but individual rights.

states do not have a right to make gun laws,,,
no one does,,,

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that...

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States, not natural rights.

The 2nd amendment just prohibits federal infringement.
It does not have to say why.
It could be state jurisdiction or individual natural rights.
But we don't need the 2nd amendment.
The 4th and 5th amendments prevent federal gun laws based on natural inherent right of individual defense.

I disagree. We do need a 2nd amendment. Just not the way it's worded today. The first part of it has long since become obsolete with the 1916 National Guard Act. But even with that Act, they didn't take away the power for a State to have a Defense Force which is another way of saying Organized Militia. In fact, the Act protected the SDF from the Federal Government. So the first part needs to be reworded a bit to keep it current.

Now, on to the second part, the Bear Arms. That is open to way too many interpretation. It needs to be made more clear. If I were to read that to 10 people that knew nothing about the situation I would get at least 3 different interpretation of it, probably 10 different interpretation. That is NOT a good law.

I disagree the National Guard changes anything.
The National Guard does help in defense of the state, but the militia was needed and intended for municipal and individual home defense as well. An example would be the posse. There were no police back then, and in places like Alaska there still are no police. A local militia is still needed, and will likely always be needed.

I don't see any possible interpretation of the 2nd part except as a prohibition of all federal jurisdiction over weapons.
But since there is so much disagreement, most people must agree with you.
To me any restriction is an infringement, and to the SCOTUS the restriction has to be unwarranted and abusive before it is considered an infringement. So I guess you likely are right on that part.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Constitution was adopted (ratified by 10 states) by 1790 and the last state in early 1791. The bill of rights was a copy of the first 10 amendments which was written in 1791. The Bill of Rights has no legal standing.

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that the Bill of Rights are not part of the Constitution? In other words slavery can still be legal? Or that we have no right to freedom of speech? Or that we have no constitutional right against unlawful search and siezure or right to an attorney or against self incrimination?

OR are you trying to say we shouldn't refer to the amendments as the bill of Rights and should just refer to them as "the Constitution"?

Cause the courts all over the place including SCOTUS has used the amendments as constitutional authority to determine whether or not something like a search and seizure is constitutional.

They don't refer to the Bill of Rights in rulings. They refer to the Constitution. There is no legal standing from the Bill of Rights since it's actually a copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution. You can try and twist this all you want but I have NEVER heard of any court ruling that something was "UnBillofrightable".

 

[Rigby5]

"The Bill of Rights has no legal standing"
WOW, the stupid is thick in this one.

Okay, Brilliant one, show me one court case, arrest or anything else that the Bill of Rights has affected in the History of the United States? Just one.

US v Miller

The ruling was under the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution of the United States ratified 2 years prior to the Bill of Rights. All the bill of rights did was to make a couple of Delegates feel good. It was just a word for word copy of the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, nothing more. So, no, US v Miller used the 2nd amendment of the Constitution as precedence not the bill of rights. The bill of rights has no legal force behind it.

I do not believe that is accurate.
While some states did ratify the Constitution before the Bill of Rights was finished, so that then the Bill of Rights were amendments added to the back of the Constitution instead of being at the very front where they should be, the first 10 amendment are none the less an integral part of the Constitution. These 10 amendment were and will always be known as the Bill of Rights.

{...
Constitutional Convention
Once independence had been declared in 1776, the American states turned immediately to the writing of state constitutions and state bills of rights. In Williamsburg, George Mason was the principal architect of Virginia's Declaration of Rights. That document, which wove Lockean notions of natural rights with concrete protections against specific abuses, was the model for bills of rights in other states and, ultimately, for the federal Bill of Rights. (Mason’s declaration was also influential in the framing, in 1789, of France’s Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen).

In 1787, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Mason remarked that he “wished the plan had been prefaced by a Bill of Rights.” Elbridge Gerry moved for the appointment of a committee to prepare such a bill, but the delegates, without debate, defeated the motion. They did not oppose the principle of a bill of rights; they simply thought it unnecessary, in light of the theory that the new federal government would be one of enumerated powers only. Some of the Framers were also skeptical of the utility of what James Madison called “parchment barriers” against majorities; they looked, for protection, to structural arrangements such as separation of powers and checks and balances.

Constitution after its ratification. Only by making such a pledge were the Constitution’s supporters able to achieve ratification in such closely divided states as New York and Virginia.

Madison Drafts Amendments
In the First Congress, Madison undertook to fulfill his promise. Carefully sifting amendments from proposals made in the state ratifying conventions, Madison steered his project through the shoals of indifference on the part of some members (who thought the House had more important work to do) and outright hostility on the part of others (Antifederalists who hoped for a second convention to hobble the powers of the federal government). In September 1789 the House and Senate accepted a conference report laying out the language of proposed amendments to the Constitution.

Within six months of the time the amendments–the Bill of Rights–had been submitted to the states, nine had ratified them. Two more states were needed; Virginia’s ratification, on December 15, 1791, made the Bill of Rights part of the Constitution. (Ten amendments were ratified; two others, dealing with the number of representatives and with the compensation of senators and representatives, were not.)

On their face, it is obvious that the amendments apply to actions by the federal government, not to actions by the states. In 1833, in Barron v. Baltimore, Chief Justice John Marshall confirmed that understanding. Barron had sued the city for damage to a wharf, resting his claim on the Fifth Amendment’s requirement that private property not be taken for public use “without just compensation.” Marshall ruled that the Fifth Amendment was intended “solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.”
...}
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/bill-of-rights

You make it sound like an after thought, and that is not true.
Many people and many states always wanted a Bill of Rights first, and many states would never have signed onto the Constitution if it had not contained a Bill of Rights. And even those that did sign on before the Bill of Rights were penned, only did so on the verbal guarantee there would be a Bill of Rights.

Again, when something is not right, it's "Unconstitutional" not "UnBillofrightable". The Bill of Rights has no legal standings and cannot be used in any conviction of any kind nor any reference for a defense.

When someone refers to the "Bill of Rights", everyone knows they are referring to the first 10 amendments, which are well known as restrictions on the federal government. That is important because if you just call them amendments, then there is no inherent sense of restriction on federal government. Amendments after the first 10 can be enhancements of the federal jurisdiction, and not restrictions. The Bill of Rights has a very distinct purpose and meaning,. even though it is just a part of the Constitution.