What was the meaning of the word infringed in the 2nd Amendment?

[Koios]

Was the first semi-automatic assault weapons ban challenged in court?

United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

came from:

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither this case nor the NFA34 has anything to do with the 1994 AWB - so, no.

True that. I was merely whether one kit might have fallen within the guidelines of the ban, which they ruled it did not.

At no time was the ban itself even questioned, much less ruled against.

 

[Dubya]

United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

came from:

National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither this case nor the NFA34 has anything to do with the 1994 AWB - so, no.

True that. I was merely whether one kit might have fallen within the guidelines of the ban, which they ruled it did not.

At no time was the ban itself even questioned, much less ruled against.

The statement involved the legality of banning a particular type of weapon, so banning machine guns fits the topic. I've read many of the Supreme Court decisions involving firearms. The general theme is it's illegal to ban something like all pistols or all rifles, but it isn't illegal to set regulations or ban a type of weapon. Based on what I've seen of past decisions, they could ban semi-automatics, if they wanted to and it would be legal.

 

[Koios]

Neither this case nor the NFA34 has anything to do with the 1994 AWB - so, no.

True that. I was merely whether one kit might have fallen within the guidelines of the ban, which they ruled it did not.

At no time was the ban itself even questioned, much less ruled against.

The statement involved the legality of banning a particular type of weapon, so banning machine guns fits the topic. I've read many of the Supreme Court decisions involving firearms. The general theme is it's illegal to ban something like all pistols or all rifles, but it isn't illegal to set regulations or ban a type of weapon. Based on what I've seen of past decisions, they could ban semi-automatics, if they wanted to and it would be legal.

Indeed it seems the case. So folks can imagine "well regulated" or "infringed" can mean whatever they wish. Have a ball, if it makes you happy, or angry, if you prefer that. It's a free country, in that regard.

But how the 2A is in fact being applied is: regulate away, Congress, States, Counties and Cities, short of banning all handguns or rifles, collectively. Certain types of weapons? No prob. Places you can and cannot carry them? No prob. Where they can and cannot be shot off, unless in personal defense? No prob. Well regulated means just that, since WE ARE WELL REGULATED, "shall not be infringed" notwithstanding. None too tough to parse.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope. Once again you miss the obvious, that anyone with an IQ north of goldfish should recognize: He knows exactly what he meant; it's you who cannot parse the patently fucking obvious.

Yawn.

You scumbags believe you have enough power to crush the constitution through force. You can never make a logical or rational argument that will justify revocation of civil liberties, nor do you even make an effort.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Neither this case nor the NFA34 has anything to do with the 1994 AWB - so, no.

True that. I was merely whether one kit might have fallen within the guidelines of the ban, which they ruled it did not.

At no time was the ban itself even questioned, much less ruled against.

The statement involved the legality of banning a particular type of weapon, so banning machine guns fits the topic.

The case you cited doesnt have anything to do with banning of any sort of weapon:

Respondent manufactures the "Contender" pistol and, for a short time, also manufactured a kit that could be used to convert the Contender into a rifle with either a 21 inch or a 10 inch barrel. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms advised respondent that when the kit was possessed or distributed with the Contender, the unit constituted a "firearm" under the National Firearms Act (NFA or Act), 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(3), which defines that term to include a rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches long, known as a short barreled rifle, but not a pistol or a rifle having a barrel 16 inches or more in length. Respondent paid the $200 tax levied by § 5821 upon anyone "making" a "firearm" and filed a claim for a refund. When its refund claim proved fruitless, respondent brought this suit under the Tucker Act. The Claims Court entered summary judgment for the Government, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a short barreled rifle "actually must be assembled" in ordered to be "made" within the NFA's meaning.
Held: The judgment is affirmed.

I've read many of the Supreme Court decisions involving firearms.

You might try reading them in a language you understand.

 

[Koios]

Nope. Once again you miss the obvious, that anyone with an IQ north of goldfish should recognize: He knows exactly what he meant; it's you who cannot parse the patently fucking obvious.

Yawn.

You scumbags believe you have enough power to crush the constitution through force. You can never make a logical or rational argument that will justify revocation of civil liberties, nor do you even make an effort.

Nope. But we can amend it, if enough of us agree.

Meanwhile back in the USA, we have weapons (specific) bans and myriad regulations now, and have had, with Con or Lib leaning Courts, Dem or Rep presidents and Congress ...

So if real isn't you preferred, no prob. Imagine away. But I'll stick to reality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 2nd amend. is and was intended to have a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. that was when they wanted the states to set up militias. do you think we should disband the US military and go back to state run militias?

Comrade, what is the "militia?"

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
Elbridge Gerry

So why is the anti-liberty left so intent on redefining the English language in a desperate attempt to disarm the American people?

"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.

Oh, that's why.

 

[Dubya]

Nope. Once again you miss the obvious, that anyone with an IQ north of goldfish should recognize: He knows exactly what he meant; it's you who cannot parse the patently fucking obvious.

Yawn.

You scumbags believe you have enough power to crush the constitution through force. You can never make a logical or rational argument that will justify revocation of civil liberties, nor do you even make an effort.

It's your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is wrong. It boils down to a prohibition against disarming the populace and nothing more. You aren't going to be allowed to jeopardize public safety because of your psychological predispositions. So what, you're paranoid and it's up to you to deal with it. We aren't going to make laws to cater to your problems and once the NRA influence in Congress is diminished, we're going to have lawmakers coming to their senses and passing laws saying the people don't need armor piercing bullets and these high capacity magazines.

The days of hiding behind the 2nd Amendment are nearing an end. The people in this country want an end to the constant violence based on laws you clowns have put on the books. We've had enough of your nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. Once again you miss the obvious, that anyone with an IQ north of goldfish should recognize: He knows exactly what he meant; it's you who cannot parse the patently fucking obvious.

Yawn.

You scumbags believe you have enough power to crush the constitution through force. You can never make a logical or rational argument that will justify revocation of civil liberties, nor do you even make an effort.

It's your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is wrong. It boils down to a prohibition against disarming the populace and nothing more

Unsupportable nonsense - Infringement comes into play LONG before actual bans on guns.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I'm a person who has studied American History.

To little result.

Jefferson and Madison were against the National Bank.

This is the logical fallacy known as a "red herring." The statement has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand, but you have hopes of distracting from the fact that you have no foundation by pointing to another subject.

You're full of bullshit from blogs that lie about history.

So, your claim is that the cited quotes of Jefferson, Webster, Mason, et al, are fabricated?

Just a tad desperate, aren't you.

I have thoroughly researched these things and I don't fault Madison for changing his mind.

ROFL

Researched by reading Common Dreams and other hate sites faithfully.

You have no knowledge at all regarding the subject. You spew mindless talking points and seek to distract when you are called on your idiocy.

I think what Jackson did was a little extreme and I think the income tax and federal reserve system designed by the Republicans were good ideas, but the Republicans wanted more private control and I favor the modern system, which seems to work fairly well.

That's nice, but again is not relevant to the issue at hand.


And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. - Samuel Adams

You see, anyone who has read even a little of the founding fathers, the Federalist Papers, or even the "Age of Reason" knows that there was complete consensus to an armed citizenry. You Marxists pretend that this is some mystery, but it isn't. You don't grasp this because you have zero knowledge of American history.


The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. - Supreme Court of Texas ruling, Cockrum v. State

 

[Dubya]

I see a child wants to debate sentences. Posting stupid comments for each sentence just shows you can't write a paragraph with a theme.

 

[M14 Shooter]

SCOTUS doesn't allow a prohibition against handguns, but it has ruled that particular weapons can be banned.

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

Still waiting for your cite as well.
Please cite the case where the SCotUS upheld a ban on specific weapons, and provide the text to that effect.
Any time you're ready.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nope. But we can amend it, if enough of us agree.

And yet no attempt is made by the anti-liberty left to do so. Instead you seek to infringe the existing constitution.

The reason? Because you have no prayer to revoke the bill of rights through legal means. So you attack the perimeter with executive orders and judicial acts, avoiding a direct confrontation with the constitution, since you simply cannot prevail.

Meanwhile back in the USA, we have weapons (specific) bans and myriad regulations now, and have had, with Con or Lib leaning Courts, Dem or Rep presidents and Congress ...

Weapons bans ebb and flow. The attack on basic rifles, which the anti-liberty left seeks at the moment can never stand judicial review, at least not as long as pro-constitution Jurists sit on the court.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so. Indeed I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order." - Elena Kagan.

Oh sorry, it was actually ~ Adolf Hitler, April 11, 1942, in “Hitler's Table-Talk at the Führer's Headquarters 1941—1942,” Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaeum Verlag, Bonn, 1951)

But it illustrates the desire of Barack Obama and those dedicated to the revocation of liberty to stuff a few more Kagan like scumbags on the court so that the Bill of Rights may be summarily dismissed.

So if real isn't you preferred, no prob. Imagine away. But I'll stick to reality.

The reality is that you're a buffoon, aping talking points from various hate sites.

 

[Koios]

Duyba, you DRUNKEN MORON, the SCOTUS is firmly in my camp on most guns., if not all.

Sleep it off and try again...

SCOTUS doesn't allow a prohibition against handguns, but it has ruled that particular weapons can be banned.

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THEM!!!

Jesus; get a clue. There's the shit the NRA is telling you and wants you to beleive, and then the very few and blattant violations of the actual 2A, which the NRA dares to challenge in court, since they know specific weapons bans are perfectly within the bounds of the 2A.

 

[francoHFW]

Reagan wanted a ban on assault rifles, Scalia said that the gov't can limit the kind of firearms allowed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Reagan wanted a ban on assault rifles

Please provide a quote to this effect.

Scalia ruled that the gov't can limit the kind of firearms allowed.

Please cite the ruling and quote the text to this effect.

 

[Dubya]

SCOTUS doesn't allow a prohibition against handguns, but it has ruled that particular weapons can be banned.

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THEM!!!

Jesus; get a clue. There's the shit the NRA is telling you and wants you to beleive, and then the very few and blattant violations of the actual 2A, which the NRA dares to challenge in court, since they know specific weapons bans are perfectly within the bounds of the 2A.

The Supreme Court decisions also contain the opinion of the court and they have made it clear that doing something like banning pistols from DC is illegal, but it isn't illegal to ban a particular type of weapon for public safety. The gun nuts just read the headlines and not the story.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THEM!!!

Jesus; get a clue. There's the shit the NRA is telling you and wants you to beleive, and then the very few and blattant violations of the actual 2A, which the NRA dares to challenge in court, since they know specific weapons bans are perfectly within the bounds of the 2A.

The Supreme Court decisions also contain the opinion of the court and they have made it clear that doing something like banning pistols from DC is illegal, but it isn't illegal to ban a particular type of weapon for public safety.

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

 

[Koios]

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THEM!!!

Jesus; get a clue. There's the shit the NRA is telling you and wants you to beleive, and then the very few and blattant violations of the actual 2A, which the NRA dares to challenge in court, since they know specific weapons bans are perfectly within the bounds of the 2A.

The Supreme Court decisions also contain the opinion of the court and they have made it clear that doing something like banning pistols from DC is illegal, but it isn't illegal to ban a particular type of weapon for public safety. The gun nuts just read the headlines and not the story.

I think the righties on the court, Scalia in particular, merely said it'll have to be determined in the future whether specific gun bans are constitutional. They kicked it down the road to save face with their ilk, knowing full well no pro-gun entity would dare put it before them, since it would crash and burn with absolute certainty, the moment some kid fresh out of law school queries, "So everyone can have nukes, Your Honor?"

 

[Koios]

BECAUSE IT'S NEVER BROUGHT BEFORE THEM!!!

Jesus; get a clue. There's the shit the NRA is telling you and wants you to beleive, and then the very few and blattant violations of the actual 2A, which the NRA dares to challenge in court, since they know specific weapons bans are perfectly within the bounds of the 2A.

The Supreme Court decisions also contain the opinion of the court and they have made it clear that doing something like banning pistols from DC is illegal, but it isn't illegal to ban a particular type of weapon for public safety.

This is a lie. The SCotUS has never upheld a ban on specific weapons.

You can say (paste) that again!!!