The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

 

[Lakhota]

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

The NRA is a facilitator of gunrunning.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.

You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.

What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.

{...
Incorporation Doctrine
A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the dueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
...}

Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.

Here is the summary from MCD V Chi.

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

 

[Rigby5]

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.

Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

The NRA is a facilitator of gunrunning.

It's all about business. If you don't have a market for all your old guns you won't buy new ones. Yes, Capitalism at it's Best (or worst)

 

[Rigby5]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.

You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.

What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.

{...
Incorporation Doctrine
A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the dueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
...}

Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.

Here is the summary from MCD V Chi.

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wrong. Crossing state lines can make it difficult for states to deal with, and give an opportunity for federal help, but there is absolutely nothing about weapons that needs to cross state lines or requires federal help.
So then there is still absolutely ZERO federal jurisdiction.

There is no problem with firearms.
The causes of crime are well known, and include things like poverty, lack of education, lack of jobs, injustice, lack of other opportunities, etc.
There is no interstate aspect to weapons, and no way for the feds to be involved at all.

What you said was that one use of the militia against an insurrection shows that the militia is only to put down insurrections, and that is silly.
Sometimes insurrections may be bad and need being put down, but other times insurrections may be good and need to be supported.
One case does not determine all cases. And clearly the MAIN point of the militia is local defense, not to be called up federally. And yes, the MAIN point of the original militia in the 13 colonial states was for the American Revolution, an insurrection.

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.

Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.

Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018. The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check. That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal gun running laws. Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.

You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.

What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.

{...
Incorporation Doctrine
A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the dueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
...}

Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.

Here is the summary from MCD V Chi.

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.

About the only place it's banned is under the 1934 Firearms act and that was under interstate Public Safety. I agree, it might have been considered overboard in the Brady Act but if it was done under the 1934 Firearms Act,, it wouldn't have been. Instead, they passed it on it's own. But they put a time limit on the law which ran out. It has been upheld in courts that it's perfectly legal for local and state to outright ban the ARs as long as they specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones by direct name. Just calling it an assault rifle with a generic description was found unconstitutional as it also described a lot of other semi auto rifles including the Model 60 22LR Semi Auto which is the most sold rifle in the history of firearms. Sorry, AR fans, you come in as #2.

Case in point. Trump just issued an Executive Order banning Bump Stocks. If he tried to do as a stand alone, he would need to have Congress amend the Constitution and we all know that just ain't gonna happen. Instead, he put it under the 1934 Firearms Act which is under Interstate Public Safety.

 

[Rigby5]

I am going to use a real world example on this one. And it just might become reality.

Texas has almost NO gun laws for gun sales. As in anyone can purchase a gun out of the trunk off a Buick parked in a Denny's parking lot and they don't even need to show ID to do so. The Handguns are cheap, real cheap since they are below a Texan's standards. The buyer buys the whole trunkload for an average of 40 bucks a gun. He loads the guns into his panel van and drives to another Denny's to make more purchases. He keeps doing this until his 1 ton Van is loaded to it's limits. The Van is a rental. He drives his load to Chicago to a warehouse where it's distributed into smaller amounts and sent out onto the streets to be sold out of the trunks of Ford Focuses or Toyota Camrys. The guns are sold for an average of 300 bucks a piece. The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

Ill requires all gun sales to have a background check. Chicago requires all gun sales to have to have permits as well as background checks. In order to get past those laws, the guns are taken from one state with lax laws and interstate transported to another state. In this case, under the Interstate Laws, the Federals can intercede with their own laws and force Texas to require all gun sales to require background checks but not registrations. You may want to look for this at a later time. It's going to happen with Texas, Arizona and Kansas. It can be done by one of three methods. US Congress, Executive Order or Supreme Court Ruling.

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.

Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.

Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018. The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check. That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal gun running laws. Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.

I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free. It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The question comes up, exactly where did those guns become illegal?

That is easy, when a felon buys one knowing that as a felon they can't legally buy, own or carry a gun.

You catch the felon with the gun in his possession and he can immediately be arrested....then the democrat judge will promptly grant him bail.....and the democrat judge hearing his case will sentence him to probation or under 3 years in jail....

And considering that felons can't go through any background check, they already can't buy, own or carry a gun even under existing federal background checks, a universal background check is just as useless....

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.

Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.

Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018. The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check. That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal gun running laws. Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.

I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free. It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

The FFL just types the information in and temporarily stores the form. No Database is created at any level. He's paid 7 bucks for his time. You want him to work for nothing? You saying that you support Indentured Servitude? Be just a little bit fair on this one. And the courts agree with me. The State can require all gun sales to receive background checks. Nothing illegal about it.

 

[Rigby5]

No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.

You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.

What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.

{...
Incorporation Doctrine
A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the dueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
...}

Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.

Here is the summary from MCD V Chi.

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.

About the only place it's banned is under the 1934 Firearms act and that was under interstate Public Safety. I agree, it might have been considered overboard in the Brady Act but if it was done under the 1934 Firearms Act,, it wouldn't have been. Instead, they passed it on it's own. But they put a time limit on the law which ran out. It has been upheld in courts that it's perfectly legal for local and state to outright ban the ARs as long as they specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones by direct name. Just calling it an assault rifle with a generic description was found unconstitutional as it also described a lot of other semi auto rifles including the Model 60 22LR Semi Auto which is the most sold rifle in the history of firearms. Sorry, AR fans, you come in as #2.

Case in point. Trump just issued an Executive Order banning Bump Stocks. If he tried to do as a stand alone, he would need to have Congress amend the Constitution and we all know that just ain't gonna happen. Instead, he put it under the 1934 Firearms Act which is under Interstate Public Safety.

Oh come on, there is no ability to make firearms laws under the interstate commerce clause, because the 10th amendment says only areas specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are under federal jurisdiction.
These is nothing related to legal federal jurisdiction like interstate commerce in the 1934 Firearms Act, and it is completely illegal, in my opinion.

{...
The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacreof 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.[2][3]:824[4][5] Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,746 in 2018). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.[4][5]

Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.[6]

Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not.[6] Regarding the definition of "firearm," the language of the statute as originally enacted was as follows:

The term "firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.[7]
Under the original Act, NFA weapons were machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOW or concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers), and silencers for any type of NFA or non-NFA. Minimum barrel length was soon amended to 16 inches for rimfire rifles and by 1960 had been amended to 16 inches for centerfire rifles as well.
...}

In particular, the law was totally and completely wrong to bar short barreled rifles and shotguns.
They are traditional for defensive coach guns and snake protection. Clearly exceeding any government authority.

 

[Rigby5]

Credible proof? Links?

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.

Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.

Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018. The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check. That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal gun running laws. Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.

I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free. It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

The FFL just types the information in and temporarily stores the form. No Database is created at any level. He's paid 7 bucks for his time. You want him to work for nothing? You saying that you support Indentured Servitude? Be just a little bit fair on this one. And the courts agree with me. The State can require all gun sales to receive background checks. Nothing illegal about it.

It is the feds who should pay the FFL, or allow everyone to make the call instead.
The last time they charged me $30, not $7.
I have never heard of anyone only paying $7.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Nonsense.

Second Amendment jurisprudence concerns Federal, state, and local regulations; the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states in 2010.

All firearm regulatory measures – Federal, state, and local – are subject to court challenges.

You misunderstand what the meaning of "incorporated" means.
It does not mean the current SCOTUS ruling changes the original meaning or intend of the 2nd amendment at all.
And the original intent was clearly just to block any federal jurisdiction on weapons.

What "incorporated" means is that as the SCOTUS tries to implement the 14th amendment to protect individual rights from state or local abuse, documents like the Bill of Rights can be used in order to deduce the penumbra that individual rights may have cast on or in them.
So then the original intent and meaning of the 2nd amendment is not altered in any way.
It is just used as evidence for the opinion of the currect SCOTUS as to what individual rights may be.

{...
Incorporation Doctrine
A constitutional doctrine whereby selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the dueprocess clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The doctrine of selective incorporation, or simply the incorporation doctrine, makes the first ten amendments to theConstitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states. Through incorporation, state governments largely are heldto the same standards as the federal government with regard to many constitutional rights, including the First Amendmentfreedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, and the separation of church and state; the Fourth Amendment freedoms fromunwarranted arrest and unreasonable searches and seizures; the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination; and theSixth Amendment right to a speedy, fair, and public trial. Some provisions of the Bill of Rights—including the requirement ofindictment by a Grand Jury (Sixth Amendment) and the right to a jury trial in civil cases (Seventh Amendment)—have notbeen applied to the states through the incorporation doctrine.

Until the early twentieth century, the Bill of Rights was interpreted as applying only to the federal government. In the 1833case Barron ex rel. Tiernon v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243, 8 L. Ed. 672, the Supreme Court expressly limitedapplication of the Bill of Rights to the federal government. By the mid-nineteenth century, this view was being challenged. Forexample, Republicans who were opposed to southern state laws that made it a crime to speak and publish against Slaveryalleged that such laws violated First Amendment rights regarding Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press.

For a brief time following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, it appeared that the Supreme Court mightuse the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in theSlaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873), the first significant Supreme Court ruling on theFourteenth Amendment, the Court handed down an extremely limiting interpretation of that clause. The Court held that theclause created a distinction between rights associated with state citizenship and rights associated with U.S., or federal,citizenship. It concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited states from passing laws abridging the rights of U.S.citizen-ship (which, it implied, were few in number) but had no authority over laws abridging the rights of state citizenship.The effect of this ruling was to put much state legislation beyond the review of the Supreme Court.

Instead of applying the Bill of Rights as a whole to the states, as it might have done through the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause, the Supreme Court has gradually applied selected elements of the first ten amendments to the states through theDue Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This process, known as selective incorporation, began in earnest in the1920s. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 45 S. Ct. 625, 69 L. Ed. 1138 (1925), one of the earliest examples of the use ofthe incorporation doctrine, the Court held that the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech applied to the statesthrough the Due Process Clause. By the late 1940s, many civil freedoms, including freedom of the press (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 [1931]), had been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, ashad many of the rights that applied to defendants in criminal cases, including the right to representation by counsel in capitalcases (Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 [1931]). In 1937, the Court decided that some of theprivileges and immunities of the Bill of Rights were so fundamental that states were required to abide by them through theDue Process Clause (Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 58 S. Ct. 149, 82 L. Ed. 288).
...}

Incorporation (Bill of Rights)

So I agree that in 2010 the SCOTUS ruling of McDonald vs Chicago started the process of gun rights being individual and not collective.
But that is not the same as saying the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent any state or local regulations, as it clearly was saying all federal weapons legislation was barred.

Here is the summary from MCD V Chi.

The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the gun ban, deciding instead to reverse and remand the case for additional proceedings. However, the courts decision on the 2nd Amendment makes it clear that such bans are unconstitutional. But, as it held in Heller, the Court reiterated in McDonald that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self-defense. It stressed that some firearm regulation is constitutionally permissible and the 2nd Amendment right to possess firearms is not unlimited. It does not guarantee a right to possess any firearm, anywhere, and for any purpose.

I agree that the right to possess a firearm is not unlimited and that some regulation can be acceptable.
But clearly the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ban all federal weapons jurisdiction, and the SCOTUS has incorrectly failed to recognize that obvious fact.

About the only place it's banned is under the 1934 Firearms act and that was under interstate Public Safety. I agree, it might have been considered overboard in the Brady Act but if it was done under the 1934 Firearms Act,, it wouldn't have been. Instead, they passed it on it's own. But they put a time limit on the law which ran out. It has been upheld in courts that it's perfectly legal for local and state to outright ban the ARs as long as they specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones by direct name. Just calling it an assault rifle with a generic description was found unconstitutional as it also described a lot of other semi auto rifles including the Model 60 22LR Semi Auto which is the most sold rifle in the history of firearms. Sorry, AR fans, you come in as #2.

Case in point. Trump just issued an Executive Order banning Bump Stocks. If he tried to do as a stand alone, he would need to have Congress amend the Constitution and we all know that just ain't gonna happen. Instead, he put it under the 1934 Firearms Act which is under Interstate Public Safety.

Oh come on, there is no ability to make firearms laws under the interstate commerce clause, because the 10th amendment says only areas specifically granted to the federal government in the Constitution are under federal jurisdiction.
These is nothing related to legal federal jurisdiction like interstate commerce in the 1934 Firearms Act, and it is completely illegal, in my opinion.

{...
The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacreof 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.[2][3]:824[4][5] Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,746 in 2018). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.[4][5]

Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.[6]

Conventional pistols and revolvers were ultimately excluded from the Act before passage, but other concealable weapons were not.[6] Regarding the definition of "firearm," the language of the statute as originally enacted was as follows:

The term "firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.[7]
Under the original Act, NFA weapons were machine guns, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons (AOW or concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers), and silencers for any type of NFA or non-NFA. Minimum barrel length was soon amended to 16 inches for rimfire rifles and by 1960 had been amended to 16 inches for centerfire rifles as well.
...}

In particular, the law was totally and completely wrong to bar short barreled rifles and shotguns.
They are traditional for defensive coach guns and snake protection. Clearly exceeding any government authority.

All the weapons had military uses except for the sawed off shotgun which had NO military uses. And that was a Supreme Court decision on the sawed off shotgun. Even today, the only ones that use a sawed off shotgun are criminals. I really can't think of any other uses other than maiming. They rarely kill but seriously maim the target badly. As for snake protection, I can see you never shot a Rattler before. I have. It's hard to miss. I won't tell you why. I'll let you wonder about it. I can kill a snake just as easy with an subsonic bullet no matter what the caliber.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Yah, but you won't like it or accept any of them. But here goes. Please read them.

Most Guns in Chicago Crimes Come From Out of State: Report

Gun Laws Stop At State Lines, But Guns Don’t

And let's look at the frustration involved by the law enforcement.
Why (Almost) No One Is Charged With Gun Trafficking in Illinois — ProPublica

over 60% of the illegal guns recovered from felons in Chicago came from illegal transporting of guns from out of state. Until last year, over half of those came from Illinois. Illinois closed their own laws. Before 2013, Colorado was on the illegal gun export list until it tightened up it's background checks. Now, all the illegal guns coming in from out of state to Chicago come from the Red States with the laxest gun laws with the background check requirements you can run a fully loaded 1 ton van through and often do.

Except you are forgetting that those IL gun laws are now illegal, and they were always inherently in violation of individual rights, so never should have been legal, and there was never any use for any federal laws.

Guns never are the cause of crime, and any gun law likely is either incredibly stupid or criminal in intent itself.

Illinois became one more state that requires all guns sales to go through a background check in 2018. The Gun Runners won't go to any state with a universal background check. That would give the feds and the state of Illinois the proof they need to enact their illegal gun running laws. Yes, Martha,, it''s illegal to run guns like this but with no paper trail it's hard to prove and convict.

I clearly is illegal to attempt to make all sales of anything go through a background check and then not conduct background checks for everyone at a reasonable free. It creates an illegal monopoly for FFLs.
It violates the ability of people to give or loan weapons for immediate protection.
It makes what was once legal, no longer legal, without any valid need.
It is one more reason for validating insurrection, not a reason for allowing federal firearms laws.
There can be none, since the 2nd amendment is firmly part of the Bill of Rights and prohibits any and all federal weapons jurisdiction.

The FFL just types the information in and temporarily stores the form. No Database is created at any level. He's paid 7 bucks for his time. You want him to work for nothing? You saying that you support Indentured Servitude? Be just a little bit fair on this one. And the courts agree with me. The State can require all gun sales to receive background checks. Nothing illegal about it.

It is the feds who should pay the FFL, or allow everyone to make the call instead.
The last time they charged me $30, not $7.
I have never heard of anyone only paying $7.

In the state I am in, it's 7 bucks. I suggest you take it up with your State Legislature and Governor. It's not the Feds that have the requirement. That would be against the law. It's the States that have that option. And 30 bucks in more than a bit high for 5 minutes of typing on a keyboard and printing out a form.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

God....DAMMIT, I love being a member of the gun cult.

Machine guns, motherfuckers!

 

[Lesh]

And here you are pointing out that in every decision prior to Heller...the SC has ruled on the Constitutional protection of guns in relation to their use in a militia

 

[emilynghiem]

NRA RUNNING LOW ON AMMO?

2018 Was A Bad Year For The NRA, And The Worst Could Be Yet To Come

Fuck the NRA. It was once a good outfit until hijacked by radicals in 1977.

Dear Lakhota
I guess the Craziness of the Fundies taking over
runs Proportional to the same going on with the Democrats using
the gun issue for political hype as well.
The Crazier one group gets, the Crazier the other.

At some point, people might realize the Hype cancels out on both sides.
What is left are just the real problems and solutions:
1. How to deal with mental illness where PTSD or criminally abusive
sick people get help in time instead of getting hold of weapons first.
2. Where citizens learn the difference between accepting equal
responsibility for knowledge and enforcement of laws INSTEAD
of relying on police and govt to handle all of that power "for us."

We address these two issues, then we take back control of gun policy and responsibility,
NOT THE OTHER WAY. We don't let the Hype in politics and media control our sense of security.

Some day soon we'll figure this out.
Not to rely on political hype and "external" focus or third parties.
But we the people take back control ourselves, then we can no longer be
manipulated by fears. Stoked either by Democratic party hype or NRA hype.

 

[emilynghiem]

God....DAMMIT, I love being a member of the gun cult.

Machine guns, motherfuckers!

Maybe it's cruel or unfair to laugh at other people's fears
(when these are as real as the fear of illegal immigrants committing
crimes that the left doesn't think is a real threat either and love to mock that as well).

Bootney Lee Farnsworth
You remind me of my old Eddie Murphy comedy tape where
he is reenacting kids poking a stick at a "dead bird" and using
that to scare the girls. "Dead bird! Gonna put it on youuuuu!, put in on youuuuu"
"STOOOOOOOPPP!!!!!!!"

And he says, it doesn't even have to be the actual dead bird.
Just a stick or piece of cloth that has TOUCHED the bird and....
"ARRHHH! STOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!"

Well just mentioning or showing pictures of a gun, just
students making a gun signal with their hands, anything
that like and the "fear" of gun violence is stoked.

We may think this is funny, but when the shoe is on the other
foot, it causes outrage. For the left to make fun of photos of an
aborted fetus on a protest, and mock the prolife issue that is murder to
people who believe in life that deeply.

When will get that this is mutual, and just because we don't
get it what the fear and upset is about, doesn't mean the rights
and beliefs of the other people don't count as real?

 

[Polishprince]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And here you are pointing out that in every decision prior to Heller...the SC has ruled on the Constitutional protection of guns in relation to their use in a militia

According to the 2nd amendment, they have no choice as long as it's an Organized Militia. Unorganized Militia is just a made up term.