The Right To Bear Arms

[emilynghiem]

Warren Burger is the world's biggest con artists. There is no evidence that the founder's added the Second Amendment to maintain state armies. Why would they need the 2nd amendment for that? Every country n the world already had a government military,

Some states that approved the adding of the Second Amendment did not even have any "state militias" at the time, so they couldn't be referring to that or the states would not be equally protected. It had to mean the people being the source of any armed militia to check govt. Then you can have all three recognized: the people, the state govt and the national govt. The whole point of adding the Bill of Rights was to delineate the "rights of individuals" that protestors objected to the Constitution as not adequately protecting. Am I studying the same history as other people? Where are we not getting that the only reason the Constitution got ratified is the concession and agreement to add the Bill of Rights to define individual liberties and protections from federal govt abuses that the opposing groups feared most in forming a Central govt. The founders and we the people today all know where that would lead, why is this news?

 

[DukeU]

I don’t know the true number either, but I know better than to exaggerate the number.

Nothing more needs to be said.

No laws would have prevented the latest shootings. That doesn’t somehow mean we be defeatist pussies and don’t even try to curb gun violence. Of course, civilians being prevented from owning pointless AR-15 rifles would go a long way. I mean clearly that is the weapon of choice for mass shooters. That has been the case over and over and over again. So while outlawing such rifles probably wouldn’t have prevented the COS shooter from carrying out his plan, it’s possible a lesser weapon would minimize casualties.

Wait, are you saying that no new law would prevent the shootings, but a new law would prevent what the shooter uses? LOL

Why go after the AR-15? The vast majority of gun incidents involve handguns, and it's not even close. So, that is not great logic there, if you want to stop gun violence, wouldn't it make sense to ban handguns?

Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.

Of course, altogether, banning certain guns shouldn’t be the focus. The focus should be on laws that aim to keep guns out the possession of those mentally unstable. It should be laws that make it more difficult to obtain guns. If all that helps, then sure, we can keep those semi automatic rifles on the market. I doubt that’s the case though.

Again, what new law do you propose?

Doesn’t it bother you that other politically stable first world nations do not have mass shootings like we do? Have you ever wondered why? Take Israel. You have to be at least 27 to own a gun. It requires a psychiatric evaluation and background check. Guess what? That government is stable isn’t? The citizens don’t feel threatened by their government. The country exists peacefully. It’s the only democracy in the Middle East. I guess strict gun laws is not the road to fascism is it?

Israelis Rush for Gun Licenses After a Series of Fatal Shootings - BNN

 

[flack]

Some states that approved the adding of the Second Amendment did not even have any "state militias" at the time, so they couldn't be referring to that or the states would not be equally protected. It had to mean the people being the source of any armed militia to check govt. Then you can have all three recognized: the people, the state govt and the national govt. The whole point of adding the Bill of Rights was to delineate the "rights of individuals" that protestors objected to the Constitution as not adequately protecting. Am I studying the same history as other people? Where are we not getting that the only reason the Constitution got ratified is the concession and agreement to add the Bill of Rights to define individual liberties and protections from federal govt abuses that the opposing groups feared most in forming a Central govt. The founders and we the people today all know where that would lead, why is this news?

we do not have a national government, we have a federal government. A very big difference.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Am I studying the same history as other people?

No idea what ‘history’ you’re studying.

Here’s the history you should be studying:

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

The Presser Court held that private armed citizens could not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – that only a state government or the Federal government could establish and recognize a militia.

The Court further held that laws prohibiting private armed citizens from forming ‘militias’ absent government authorization were Constitutional.

There is nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that endorses insurrectionist dogma, it is lawless treason for private armed citizens to attempt to ‘overthrow’ a government they perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No idea what ‘history’ you’re studying.

Here’s the history you should be studying:

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

The Presser Court held that private armed citizens could not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – that only a state government or the Federal government could establish and recognize a militia.

The Court further held that laws prohibiting private armed citizens from forming ‘militias’ absent government authorization were Constitutional.

There is nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that endorses insurrectionist dogma, it is lawless treason for private armed citizens to attempt to ‘overthrow’ a government they perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’

And the Colonies committed treason when they rebelled against the Crown. So, what is your point? The 2nd protects personal rights not State rights. Thus, the reason it says the right of the people not the right of the State.

 

[Uncensored2008]

View attachment 730133

Warren Burger "conservative?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

Lol so true.

Yeah, i mean when you call a guy to the left of Mao "conservative" anything is possible...

You fucking Nazis....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Burger was an idiot to say that. Just like you are an idiot to think posting that garbage means anything.

The Supremes after him set it right.

Burger was a leftist pile of shit. The AOC of SCOTUS.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Chief Justice Burger wasn't "conservative" in any sense of the word, if you'll remember his vote in the Far Left Roe v Wade decision of 1973.

In any event, I'm not a lawyer. But I do know an armed society is a polite society, and nothing is worse than not allowing Law Abiders to defend themselves.

Burger was just as "conservative" as Bernie Sanders...

 

[emilynghiem]

Nothing more needs to be said.



Wait, are you saying that no new law would prevent the shootings, but a new law would prevent what the shooter uses? LOL

Why go after the AR-15? The vast majority of gun incidents involve handguns, and it's not even close. So, that is not great logic there, if you want to stop gun violence, wouldn't it make sense to ban handguns?

Your arguments make no sense whatsoever.




Again, what new law do you propose?






Israelis Rush for Gun Licenses After a Series of Fatal Shootings - BNN

How about letting districts and states pass ordinances where residents can require their community members to take the same screening, training and oath to uphold laws and due process as any other police or military veterans if they want to use arms to enforce laws. And make sure everyone is screened and trained NOT to abuse force for committing crimes or violations of rights and laws.

www.isocracytx.net/hp-org/hpdmissn.gif

 

[emilynghiem]

No idea what ‘history’ you’re studying.

Here’s the history you should be studying:

Presser v. Illinois (1886)

The Presser Court held that private armed citizens could not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ – that only a state government or the Federal government could establish and recognize a militia.

The Court further held that laws prohibiting private armed citizens from forming ‘militias’ absent government authorization were Constitutional.

There is nothing in the history, text, or caselaw of the Second Amendment that endorses insurrectionist dogma, it is lawless treason for private armed citizens to attempt to ‘overthrow’ a government they perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’

1886 is after the founders agreed to add the Bill of Rights as a condition for agreeing to adopt the Constitution.

The historic split between "Liberals who believe Govt is the authority for establishing collective will of the people" and "Conservatives who believe people are the core authority from which secular govt derives its authority based on CONSENT of the people" already existed, passed down from Rousseau and Locke.

This split historically explains the conflicts in policy that lean toward one or the other.

To interpret Pressler in an equally Conservative as Liberal vein, the state or federal govts would still need to make decisions on militia by consent of the people. Then that ruling would equally accommodate both liberal and conservative standards.

Taken out of context with the right of the people to democratic representation and protections within a republican form of govt, it becomes unconstitutional to impose govt regulations on "militia or right to armed defense" WITHOUT consent of the people affected.

You can still enforce Pressler but within the Constitutional rights and protections that all other citizens believe in as well.

If you create a 'Statist' bias and abuse govt to enforce that discriminating against other creeds, instead of forming a consensus that protects all people equally, then abusing Party to do so constitutes "conspiracy to violate civil rights" which I argue is a felony, similar to criminal trafficking and RICO racketeering.

I strongly urge consensus instead of any further abuse of Party, Media or Govt to violate the equal civil rights of others not to be penalized and deprived of representation due to differences in creed, to prevent civil rights violations of equal protections of the laws from such discrimination.

www.ethics-commission.net

 

[DukeU]

How about letting districts and states pass ordinances where residents can require their community members to take the same screening, training and oath to uphold laws and due process as any other police or military veterans if they want to use arms to enforce laws. And make sure everyone is screened and trained NOT to abuse force for committing crimes or violations of rights and laws.

Before any new laws are passed, we have to adhere to our current laws. Why make new laws when the ones we already have are not being enforced? It makes no sense.

Our border is not secure, we are releasing violent criminals from prison, and not enforcing current gun laws. But, some think new laws would work??? SMH


#35: One week after being released on felony gun charge, …

California men accused of committing rapes, murder after being …​

Texas Congressman: "The border is not secure" | CNN …

 

[watchingfromafar]

I do not understand why there are so many here who are against the American democratic way of life.

The historical truth about guns!!!!​

Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West
Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business
The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery, but broadly, the term is used to evoke life among the crusty prospectors, threadbare gold panners, madams of brothels, and six-shooter-packing cowboys in small frontier towns – such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns, or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)
It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona
The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

Dodge City, Kansas, formed a municipal government in 1878. According to Stephen Aron, a professor of history at UCLA, the first law passed was one prohibiting the carry of guns in town, likely by civic leaders and influential merchants who wanted people to move there, Cultivating a reputation of peace and stability was necessary, even in boisterous towns, if it were to become anything more transient than a one-industry boom town.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination. ” Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

Louisiana, too, upheld an early ban on concealed carry firearms. When a Kentucky court reversed its ban, the state constitution was amended to specify the Kentucky general assembly was within its rights to, in the future, regulate or prohibit concealed carry.

Still, Winkler says, it was an affirmation that regulation was compatible with the Second Amendment. The federal government of the 1800s largely stayed out of gun-law court battles.

“People were allowed to own guns, and everyone did own guns [in the West], for the most part,” says Winkler

“Having a firearm to protect yourself in the lawless wilderness from wild animals, hostile native tribes, and outlaws was a wise idea. But when you came into town, you had to either check your guns if you were a visitor or keep your guns at home if you were a resident.”
Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West

Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

The answer is YES. When you entered a frontier town, you were legally required to leave your guns at the stables on the outskirts of town or drop them off with the sheriff, who would give you a token in exchange. You checked your guns then like you’d check your overcoat today at a Boston restaurant in winter. Visitors were welcome, but their guns were not.
While people were allowed to have guns at home for self-protection, frontier towns usually barred anyone but law enforcement from carrying guns in public.

When Dodge City residents organized their municipal government, do you know what the very first law they passed was? A gun control law. They declared that “any person or persons found carrying concealed weapons in the city of Dodge or violating the laws of the State shall be dealt with according to law.” Many frontier towns, including Tombstone, Arizona—the site of the infamous “Shootout at the OK Corral”—also barred the carrying of guns openly.

Like any law regulating things that are small and easy to conceal, the gun control of the Wild West wasn’t always perfectly enforced. But statistics show that, next to drunk and disorderly conduct, the most common cause of arrest was illegally carrying a firearm. Sheriffs and marshals took gun control seriously.
Did the Wild West Have More Gun Control Than We Do Today?

Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them The town of Deerfield, Ill., has moved to ban assault weapons, including the AR-15 used in the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, claiming the measure will make the town more safe from mass shootings.

The ordinance was passed unanimously Monday by the Deerfield Village Board. It states the move is in the best interest of public health and will spur a culture change toward "the normative value that assault weapons should have no role or purpose in civil society."

It also takes a swing at a popular reading of the Second Amendment, stating the weapons are "not reasonably necessary to protect an individual's right of self-defense" or to preserve a well-regulated militia.
Illinois town bans assault weapons, will fine those who keep them

Chicago suburb bans assault weapons in response to Parkland shooting

With the future of federal gun control legislation uncertain, an affluent Chicago suburb this week took the aggressive step of banning assault weapons within its borders, in what local officials said was a direct response to the mass shooting at a Parkland, Fla., high school earlier this year.

Officials in Deerfield, Ill., unanimously approved the ordinance, which prohibits the possession, manufacture or sale of a range of firearms, as well as large-capacity magazines. Residents of the 19,000-person village have until June 13 to remove the guns from village limits or face up to $1,000 per day in fines.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...hooting/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.95db16134355

Seattle will require gun owners to lock up their firearms, after the City Council voted unanimously Monday to pass legislation proposed by Mayor Jenny Durkan.
Starting 180 days after Durkan signs the legislation, it will be a civil infraction to store a gun without the firearm being secured in a locked container.
The legislation will apply only to guns kept somewhere, rather than those carried by or under the control of their owners.
Also under the legislation, it will be a civil infraction when an owner knows or should know that a minor, “at-risk person” or unauthorized user is likely to access a gun and such a person actually does access the weapon.

The legislation allows fines up to $500 when a gun isn’t locked up,
up to $1,000 when a prohibited person accesses a firearm
and up to $10,000 when a prohibited person uses the weapon to hurt someone or commit a crime.
Gun owners face fines up to $10,000 for not locking up their guns under new Seattle law

What has changed from then to now?
-​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And the Colonies committed treason when they rebelled against the Crown. So, what is your point? The 2nd protects personal rights not State rights. Thus, the reason it says the right of the people not the right of the State.

It’s not ‘my’ point.

It’s a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law and Second Amendment jurisprudence: private citizens cannot just ‘declare’ themselves a ‘militia.’

The Second Amendment does not authorize armed private citizens who subjectively and incorrectly perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully elected government – to do so would be criminal rebellion and treason.

The Second Amendment safeguards the individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, not to check the power of the state or oppose government ‘tyranny.’

No one claims that the Second Amendment protects the rights of the states – whatever that’s supposed to mean; the Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right, having nothing to do with militia service.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Sorry it is a long read but still needed
-

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1886 is after the founders agreed to add the Bill of Rights as a condition for agreeing to adopt the Constitution.

And?

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.

And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.

Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.

Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’

Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.

Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’

 

[DukeU]

I do not understand why there are so many here who are against the American democratic way of life.

The historical truth about guns!!!!​

Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

And criminals didn't comply with those tougher laws, go figure.

 

[emilynghiem]

Before any new laws are passed, we have to adhere to our current laws. Why make new laws when the ones we already have are not being enforced? It makes no sense.

Our border is not secure, we are releasing violent criminals from prison, and not enforcing current gun laws. But, some think new laws would work??? SMH


#35: One week after being released on felony gun charge, …

California men accused of committing rapes, murder after being …​

Texas Congressman: "The border is not secure" | CNN …

I also would rather it be enough just to agree how to interpret the Bill of Rights we already have in writing.

However, given our Statist Liberal friends and their parties have their beliefs in going through democratic process and or courts or govt officials to establish an agreed public policy, I'm trying to accommodate both approaches to forming a consensus.

The closest I can see is using Party and Media to organize a consensus.

So people like you and me who don't require govt before we enforce existing laws can still organize greater agreement and outreach by local districts, statewide and nationally through the various parties and media.

While our liberal cohorts who want something in writing established through govt can figure that out where it doesn't violate the rights and beliefs of others.

Some people need govt or courts to make it official.

I figured we would resolve all that by the time we reach a consensus on the two approaches to govt as independent ideologies that don't need to compete with or impose on each other. Let's organize among parties first, since that doesn't rely on govt. Then once we assess what it takes to support each groups beliefs about the use of govt, we can work out what is necessary either be legal order, legislative or Constitutional policies.

I am guessing that since we agree on very little, that will limit the legislation needed to just those few areas of agreement what is absolutely necessary.

The majority of populations and diversity of interests not being in agreement will invoke the need for local representation and likely require using multiple parties per district to accommodate those differences. Most policies will likely be delegated to local levels because of the diversity that can't be captured in one inform policy. I believe the laws that are that universal are already in the Bill of Rights, but just not getting enforced equally because we haven't agreed how to teach or train people to govern themselves democratically using existing laws already on the books.

The freedom to do that is already there.
But the ability to access the knowledge and training to manage resources is still not equal. The media and parties may be the best way to redistribute the knowledge of the laws and how to manage credit and resources to enforce and exercise rights we already have.

 

[emilynghiem]

And?

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.

And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.

Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.

Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’

Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.

Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’

Sure, we can get the Supreme Court to agree how to settle this and still protect and recognize both rights to both interpretations.

Currently the trend is for the Supreme Court to kick the legislative decisions back to states.

And I would add that States are also responsible for accommodating people of various Party beliefs and creeds without discrimination or bias for or against one or another.

Let's ask for a Council between Parties to iron out both points of Agreement and dissension, and facilitate solutions that accommodate both approaches.

The Liberals put Govt authority above individuals called Statism. And the Conservatives favor Libertarianism, and put individual rights first (WITHIN the bounds of compliance and enforcement of laws, where criminal violations or abuse to break laws is not protected) before secular govt which derives its authority from consent of the people, (including religious beliefs that can neither be prohibited nor established by govt but remain individual rights as long as these do not violate other rights or protections of others).

Once we reach an agreement, those positions in favor of agreed policies and against specific points of objection can be presented to the Council of Governors and the Senate Judiciary Committee to resolve matters before Courts.

We need this anyway due to the issues of due process and beliefs in right to life which Roe V Wade brought up.

And the whole conflict over govt policy on right to health care, LGBT, CRT etc taught in schools or how to fund separate choices of education and health care policies while still guaranteeing equal access to school and medical sites proportional to populations without govt dictating personal choice of policies that belong to the people.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And?

The Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means – including the Second Amendment.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court – and that was the case at the founding of the Republic and ratification of the Constitution; see Article VI of the Constitution.

And according to the Constitution, per the original intent of the Framers, only a state government or the Federal government may authorize and recognize a militia.

Armed private citizens alone do not constitute a militia nor are they part of a lawfully recognized militia.

Armed private citizens cannot by their own accord declare themselves a ‘militia.’

Laws that prohibit armed private citizens from declaring themselves a ‘militia’ are Constitutional.

Citizens have the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, not to belong to a ‘militia,’ not to check the authority of the state, and not to guard against ‘tyranny.’

you are mudding the waters no one is arguing to form non sanctioned militias you are trying to conflate that with an individual right to bear arms which people do argue is not the case no matter how you claim otherwise. Democrats want to ban firearm types that the Supreme Court has ruled are protected. Semi auto rifles with whatever non-lethal additions one wants are protected, no assault weapon ban attempting to outlaw AR-15's is constitutional according to the Supreme Court.