Why should there be “universal background checks” for firearms sales and transfers?

[Lesh]

You are confused Moon Bat. Those restrictions are illegal.

Not according to any court ruling.

your "opinion" means shit

 

[Delldude]

Not according to any court ruling.

your "opinion" means shit

Machine guns require a BATF permit.

You can buy sawed off shotguns today.

 

[Lesh]

Machine guns require a BATF permit.

You can buy sawed off shotguns today.

There are restrictions on both

Try to follow the discussion troll

 

[Delldude]

There are restrictions on both

Try to follow the discussion troll

Only restriction on machine gun is it has to be manufactured prior to 1986 and whether your state permits ownership.

And the shotgun thing? How soon you need it?

 

[woodwork201]

You are confused about this, being a Moon Bat.

"Shall not be infringed" means that the government can't restrict anyone from owning a firearm. That is the law of the land.

If there are to be a deviation from that then it needs to be for a damn good reason.

In jurisprudence there is a method of applying exceptions to individual Constitutional rights. It is called "Strict Scrutiny". That means that a very strong test must be applied to a law that deprives an American of their individual liberty that is protected in the Constitution.

You're a great example of why we're going to lose our right to keep and bear arms, our right to free speech, and, as demonstrated during the Fauci pandemic, freedom of religion.

Please provide a link to the "damn-good-reason" clause and the "strict scrutiny" clause in the Constitution. Of course you can't because they're not there.

You completely misunderstand the entire meaning and purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution grants no rights at all. The Constitution has absolutely zero to do with what our rights are as Americans and as human beings. Just in case you've never read it or have forgotten it, here's the purpose of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Nowhere in there does it say "to establish what are the rights of the people". The Constitution formed our government. It defines what authorities the government has and it limits their authority in many ways. Nowhere is there any authority for the government to act outside the Constitution; how could that even be possible? The government does not exist on its own or outside of the Constitution. It is not a natural thing with an existence or life or power of its own. It exists wholly, and only, and absolutely, as created in the Constitution.

If a power is not defined in the Constitution then it is only by tyranny that the government can do a thing. There's no such thing as strict scrutiny by which the government can violate the Constitution for it's self-proclaimed compelling interest. The government has no legal compelling interest except in the powers granted it by the Constitution. This entire concept is an unconstitutional power grab by the Supreme Court that, if left alone or ignored, allows the Supreme Court to be supreme rulers, able to change the powers of government outside of the Constitution.

The only ones who would support this kind of power are the Marxists and the authoritarians. No freedom loving person, not a conservative, not a libertarian, and not a liberal, could ever support that kind of unconstitutional power in the Courts.

 

[Flash]

You're a great example of why we're going to lose our right to keep and bear arms, our right to free speech, and, as demonstrated during the Fauci pandemic, freedom of religion.

Please provide a link to the "damn-good-reason" clause and the "strict scrutiny" clause in the Constitution. Of course you can't because they're not there.

You completely misunderstand the entire meaning and purpose of the Constitution. The Constitution grants no rights at all. The Constitution has absolutely zero to do with what our rights are as Americans and as human beings. Just in case you've never read it or have forgotten it, here's the purpose of the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

Nowhere in there does it say "to establish what are the rights of the people". The Constitution formed our government. It defines what authorities the government has and it limits their authority in many ways. Nowhere is there any authority for the government to act outside the Constitution; how could that even be possible? The government does not exist on its own or outside of the Constitution. It is not a natural thing with an existence or life or power of its own. It exists wholly, and only, and absolutely, as created in the Constitution.

If a power is not defined in the Constitution then it is only by tyranny that the government can do a thing. There's no such thing as strict scrutiny by which the government can violate the Constitution for it's self-proclaimed compelling interest. The government has no legal compelling interest except in the powers granted it by the Constitution. This entire concept is an unconstitutional power grab by the Supreme Court that, if left alone or ignored, allows the Supreme Court to be supreme rulers, able to change the powers of government outside of the Constitution.

The only ones who would support this kind of power are the Marxists and the authoritarians. No freedom loving person, not a conservative, not a libertarian, and not a liberal, could ever support that kind of unconstitutional power in the Courts.

I don't know what fucking point you are talking about. You don't make any sense whatsoever. You are just rambling. Is it because you are confused? Probably.

Scrutiny is not defined in the Constitution but it has been the standard used by the Courts to determine the level of review that must be given to a law to determine if it is legal or not.

You may or may not like it but the job of a Court is to determine things like that. the Constitution sure as hell grants the Court the task of making those determinations.

The problem we have had far too many times is that the Courts have not applied SS when it should have been, especially with regards to the right to keep and bear arms.

I'll let Justice Kavanaugh explain it to you since you are obviously confused,

Justice Kavanaugh on Strict Scrutiny

In many areas of constitutional law, the Court allows a constitutional right to be overcome when a restriction passes "strict...

reason.com

Justice Kavanaugh on Strict Scrutiny​

 

[woodwork201]

It means up to and including now. Maybe a future court will declare background checks to be unconstitutional, but that day has not arrived yet.

The Constitution has had a number of Amendments added to it, but the basic wording is unchanged since the get-go, right? BUT - the world is constantly changing and those words have to be interpreted to cover new problems and situations that didn't exist 200+ years ago. Take for instance the development of modern day guns, which are quite different from what the framers knew. So, in order to preserve public safety and security, Congress passed a law that outlawed certain weapons of war for private use. IOW, we aren't supposed to be buying and using tanks, bazookas, and machine guns. Which is obviously a limitation on the 2nd Amendment, no? But the law exists anyway, and until the day comes when the Supreme Court declares that law to be unconstitutional, it is the law of the land. That law, along with the one that requires background checks mandatory for all retailers (excluding private sales) is in fact constitutional. You don't get to declare any existing law to be unconstitutional, that is not within your purview. You can have and share your opinion on it, but we should not be living in a world where anybody can say this law or that law is unconstitutional and I will ignore it. That's what the democrats do, and it ain't right for them and it ain't right for you either.

I have a question. Are you a registered voter? I mean, do you vote? Because you're a perfect example of why we need to change the Constitution to require passing a test on the Constitution and intelligence before allowing a person to vote.

What you are suggesting is that the Supreme Court gets to actually change the Constitution, by changing the meaning of the words, at their will, without considering Article V. If today, they say a thing is unconstitutional and tomorrow they say otherwise, you're suggesting that it is the Constitution that changed, that their word is as good as a constitutional amendment. And, hypocritically, you're saying that on a computer that didn't exist 200+ years ago, exercising your right to free speech.

If Congress believes gun laws need to be updated from what they were 200 years ago, or if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states believe it, then pass an amendment to the Constitution. Congress doesn't get to change the Constitution just because they want to reserve public safety and security. In fact, you won't find preserving public safety and security in the enumerated powers of Congress.

​

​

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;​

​

To borrow on the credit of the United States;​

​

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;​

​

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;​

​

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;​

​

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;​

​

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;​

​

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;​

​

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;​

​

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;​

​

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;​

​

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;​

​

To provide and maintain a Navy;​

​

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;​

​

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;​

​

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;​

​

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And​

​

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.​

And, no, the current gun control laws are not the law of the land. Oh, sure, at the point of a gun the government will force compliance but that doesn't mean the laws are legal. The Supremacy Clause explicitly states that the Constitution and only those laws created following the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.​

Laws that do not follow the Constitution are as if they have never existed. From American Jurisprudence 2d:

§ 195 Generally​

​

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, whether federal or state, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law(1) but is wholly void(2) and ineffective for any purpose.(3) Since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it,(4) an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed(5) and never existed;(6) that is, it is void ab initio.(7) Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.(8)

Since an unconstitutional law is void, it follows that generally the statute imposes no duties,(9) confers no rights,(10) creates no office(11) or liabilities,(12) bestows no power or authority on anyone,(13) affords no protection,(14) is incapable of creating any rights or obligations,(15) does not allow for the granting of any relief,(16) and justifies no acts performed under it.(17)​

Again, by force of their arms, the government is able to force compliance but it is by tyranny that they do so and that is exactly why the 2nd Amendment was created, as a defense against such tyranny.

 

[HandleTheTruth]

I think the right wing era that stored weapons on off site hotels around D.C. planned on trump declaring marshall law and they wanted the capital police to shoot people.

So glad the only one that got blasted was the lady that was about to attack the Republican vice president and not Nancy pelosi.

 

[woodwork201]

I don't know what fucking point you are talking about. You don't make any sense whatsoever. You are just rambling. Is it because you are confused? Probably.

Scrutiny is not defined in the Constitution but it has been the standard used by the Courts to determine the level of review that must be given to a law to determine if it is legal or not.

You may or may not like it but the job of a Court is to determine things like that. the Constitution sure as hell grants the Court the task of making those determinations.

The problem we have had far too many times is that the Courts have not applied SS when it should have been, especially with regards to the right to keep and bear arms.

I'll let Justice Kavanaugh explain it to you since you are obviously confused,

Justice Kavanaugh on Strict Scrutiny

In many areas of constitutional law, the Court allows a constitutional right to be overcome when a restriction passes "strict...

reason.com

Justice Kavanaugh on Strict Scrutiny​

Ok, we can add you to the list of those who actually have no support or belief in the supremacy of the Constitution. If the Court says the government can do something, regardless of the Constitution, then you're OK with them doing it. You're OK with any gun law the Court rules is OK, 2nd Amendment be damned.

Show where the Constitution grants the Court to make decisions on strict scrutiny or in anything outside of the Constitution. You, like many others, want the Court as supreme leaders, able to change the government according to their will with no regard to the Constitution at all.

The idea that the Court can empower the government to violate the Constitution by a claim that "strict scrutiny" was applied and that the government has compelling interest implies that the government has power of it's own, natural power, and that its interest exceed those powers granted in the Constitution. How can their interests exceed the Constitution?

And, let's see, a recipient of the unconstitutional power said that their power is constitutional? And we believe him? Just how utterly stupid can you be?

So, at least be honest. When you whine about gun rights being taken, please at least don't reference the 2nd Amendment. You don't support the Constitution and you don't support the 2nd Amendment.

 

[task0778]

I have a question. Are you a registered voter? I mean, do you vote? Because you're a perfect example of why we need to change the Constitution to require passing a test on the Constitution and intelligence before allowing a person to vote.

Yes I am a registered voter. Yes, I vote and have done so for the past 50 years. And I'm pretty sure I understand the constitution and how our gov't actually works better than you do. And fuck you for the implied insult.

What you are suggesting is that the Supreme Court gets to actually change the Constitution, by changing the meaning of the words, at their will

Dude, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution as they fit and their decisions can be overturned by a future Supreme Court, as we saw in the Dred Scott case and are apparently going to see in Roe v Wade. They do not change the words but they do interpret those words to mean whatever they think it means. As the Court changes and judges and justices are replaced, times change and so do the interpretations of what the Constitution means. And that's how it is, friend, the Constitution does not change, absent a new Amendment but different people can overturn previous rulings or strike down previous laws.

If today, they say a thing is unconstitutional and tomorrow they say otherwise, you're suggesting that it is the Constitution that changed, that their word is as good as a constitutional amendment.

No, I'm saying the Supreme Court can reverse an earlier decision but that does not change the Constitution. It is sure as hell nowhere near what a constitutional amendment is, it's just their interpretation on what the constitution really means.

If Congress believes gun laws need to be updated from what they were 200 years ago, or if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states believe it, then pass an amendment to the Constitution.

A constitutional amendment is not needed to pass new gun laws, which is or should be obvious since they've already done it and so far they have not been struck down.

Congress doesn't get to change the Constitution just because they want to reserve public safety and security. In fact, you won't find preserving public safety and security in the enumerated powers of Congress.

For one, Congress did not change the Constitution and you know it. Public safety and security are inferred by the Article 1, Section 8.

And, no, the current gun control laws are not the law of the land.

Yeah, they are.

The Supremacy Clause explicitly states that the Constitution and only those laws created following the Constitution are the supreme law of the land.

The current gun laws do in fact follow the Constitution and are the supreme law of the land. Do you realize you sound an awful lot like a democrat who wants to ignore any laws that they don't agree with?

Laws that do not follow the Constitution are as if they have never existed.

Bad news, dude. You don't get to decide that. We have a Judicial Branch of gov't that determines what is constitutional and what isn't.

 

[Flash]

Ok, we can add you to the list of those who actually have no support or belief in the supremacy of the Constitution. If the Court says the government can do something, regardless of the Constitution, then you're OK with them doing it. You're OK with any gun law the Court rules is OK, 2nd Amendment be damned.

Show where the Constitution grants the Court to make decisions on strict scrutiny or in anything outside of the Constitution. You, like many others, want the Court as supreme leaders, able to change the government according to their will with no regard to the Constitution at all.

The idea that the Court can empower the government to violate the Constitution by a claim that "strict scrutiny" was applied and that the government has compelling interest implies that the government has power of it's own, natural power, and that its interest exceed those powers granted in the Constitution. How can their interests exceed the Constitution?

And, let's see, a recipient of the unconstitutional power said that their power is constitutional? And we believe him? Just how utterly stupid can you be?

So, at least be honest. When you whine about gun rights being taken, please at least don't reference the 2nd Amendment. You don't support the Constitution and you don't support the 2nd Amendment.

What the fuck are you bitching about Moon Bat?

Are you suggesting that the Courts should not use any criteria when reviewing the laws that affect our Constitutional rights? Because if you are then that is fucking stupid as hell.

It is the job of the courts to keep the Legislature and the Executive branches from eroding our Consitional rights and applying Strict Scrutiny is usually a good thing. It certinally would be in the case of gun control laws because these Communists states have always had a very low bar.

The Courts have in the past and will fail us in the future but applying a much stricter standard is always better than just winging it.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Absolutely not. Due process grants zero authority to the Government. If they didn't have the authority prior to the 14th Amendment then they don't have the authority after the 14th Amendment. The due process clause protects people from the government randomly or unreasonably acting on the authorities they already had.

To suggest that all that is required is due process is to claim that the Constitution no longer matters at all and doesn't restrict the Government at all, as long as they get some judge to order something.

With due process, can the government imprison someone for a crime without a trial? Can they strip a defendant of the ability to have an attorney? With due process, can the government try someone a second time for the same crime?

The very sad thing is that so-called, self-proclaimed, conservatives and constitutionalists fall for stupid ideas like the one you are claiming. Really, with stupid shit like that it could be that our cause is lost.

You can be imprisoned on probable cause alone until trial.

Your freedom of movement is taken the moment you are taken into custody or even detained.

Your life can be forfeit due to conviction (due process) for a capital crime.

Your property can be seized by court order through due process.

You lose your right to keep and bear the moment you are arrested.

All of our rights can be lost through due process.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Do you not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed"? There is no such thing as a legal issue that would prevent a person from possessing a firearm outside of prison or on private property where the owner forbids it.

That's just nuts.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Yea it does. Look at any first world country with strict gun regs

Pure fantasy

You cannot not show a cause and effect relationship in those nations because there is no history to compare.

We have lots of violent crime in the US because we have lots of sociopaths running around who feel entitled to attempt to use violence to take whatever they want. That would not change with tougher gun laws as we've seen in the states with those tougher gun laws.

Until we change the culture that creates these sociopaths this dynamic isn't going to change and all your solutions would accomplish is to ensure an endless pool of available victims who would then not have a way to practically resist such attackers.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Some kids get killed at a school and knee jerk liberals want new laws passed.

Laws which nobody can show will have any effect on reducing such incidents.

 

[woodwork201]

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That section is where Congress was granted the authority to pass laws that are not specified in the Constitution. James Madison recognized that if we gave Congress the power to determine what is and is not for the general welfare of the United States, then every portion of our lives would be under the control of Congress. As we see today, Congress has inserted itself into education, traffic laws, and a host of other issues. Because Congress routinely delegates their powers to the executive and judicial branches, we now live in a nation where literally everything is a federal case.

Like I said before, you have zero understanding of the Constitution. You're a willing sheep, accepting whatever the government tells you it means as being what it must actually mean. Do you think the government is going to tell you that they're violating the Constitution when they knowingly violate the Constitution? If you think that, besides being ignorant, you're also an idiot.

The welfare clause grants no power at all. It's a limit on the other powers that the spending must be for the "general" welfare and not for specific, locational, benefit. Otherwise, the spending must still be based on powers otherwise granted in the Constitution.

Here's what James Madison actually had to say about the Welfare Clause in the Constitution, along with some very accurate commentary from the person who wrote the article from which I got this quote; Madison in red, the article author in blue:

Federalist #83: “This specification of particulars [the 18 enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8] evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd as well as useless if a general authority was intended.” James Madison reinforced this view in a letter to Henry Lee: “What think you of [Hamilton’s] commentary … on the terms ‘general welfare?’ The federal Govt. has been hitherto limited to the Specified powers… If not only the means, but the objects are unlimited, the parchment had better be thrown into the fire at once.” In a legal document, the enumeration of specific powers logically excludes all powers not listed. This is a legal maxim – Designato unius est exclusio alterius – meaning, “the designation of one is the exclusion of the other.” It follows from this construction that Congress has the authority to tax and spend for the general welfare, but the enumerated powers limit the federal government’s spending power to specific objects. As Rob Natelson put it in his paper, The General Welfare Clause and the Public Trust: “The clause was designed as a trust-style rule denying Congress authority to levy taxes for any but general, national purposes. Because the Clause prevented Congress from using tax revenue for local or special interest purposes, the Clause indirectly qualified the appropriation power. Even if some enumerated power could be enlisted to support the appropriation,317 federal tax money was not to be used for the private benefit of a museum-however worthy-in Savannah, nor an artist-however struggling-in New York.” To take the clause as a general grant of power for the federal government to do anything that promotes the general welfare would, as Madison put it, “would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”​

​

General Welfare Clause | Tenth Amendment Center

General Welfare Clause [The Congress shall have Power] To

tenthamendmentcenter.com

​

When Madison referred to Hamilton's commentary, he meant this, below, from Hamilton's Report on Manufactures 1791:

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in​

question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object,​

to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general,​

and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility,​

throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular​

spot.​

No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a​

supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else​

should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A​

power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted,​

too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other​

thing {251} not authorized in the constitution, either expressly​

or by fair implication​

No, there's no power in the Constitution for Congress to pass laws outside of the Constitution. I've also already given you the Supremacy Clause. You really are a moron.

Yes, they can, and have done so many times. It all depends on your interpretation of what "infringed" means. But the Congress and the President cannot simply do whatever they want, the Supreme court has the final say over what is constitutional and what isn't. Plus, they are also constrained by the ballot box, if they go too far they can be voted our of office and they know it. In the case of background checks, it is widely accepted that requiring a background check does not infringe the rights of any law-abiding citizen who wants to buy a gun.

Once again, you're completely wrong. I've given you the Supremacy Clause and jurispridence on unconstitutional laws. Where in the world do you get the idea that the Supreme Court can do what they want? And they absolutely never have the final say over what is and is not constitutional. The Constitution has that power, read the words - though it's clear you never have done that.

If the Court has the final word, then when they ruled in Plessy v Ferguson that separate but equal was constitutional, is what the Constitution said? And when they ruled in Brown v Board of Education that separate but equal was not constitutional did the Constitution change and now says the opposite? Can you provide the Constitutional text in the first place and the text in the second place? Of course not. The Constitution didn't change and the Court didn't change what was constitutional. Today, one might argue that separate but equal was always unconstitutional but the Court was just wrong in Plessy. Others might argue the opposite. It's possible for them to both be wrong and some other case is right, but it's not at all possible for them to both be right.

No, the Court has neither the power nor the intelligence to give the final word on constitutionality. The Court gives their opinion, no more, no less. Based on their opinion, lower courts make future rulings considering the precedent because it would be pointless to rule otherwise and have it tossed in the Supreme Court.... But then, Thurgood Marshall ignored precedent and won. The Constitution didn't change, the opinions changed. So, no, the Court does not have the final word on what is or is not constitutional.

No. When the US Congress passes legislation and the President signs it, that law IS constitutional by default. Why? Because it was passed and signed as the US Constitution prescribes. The President can't make up laws on his own authority and neither can the Congress; such laws are unconstitutional. And when a constitutional law is challenged in court, the Judicial Branch can make the determination as to whether the law has a basis in the Constitution.

As far as background checks are concerned, In March of 1981, the assassination attempt of President Ronald Reagan led to further gun legislation with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to now require background checks for the purchase of firearms from a retailer. The Brady Act, as it’s known today, also led to the development of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which launched in 1998, and is the current law on background checks for gun purchases in the U.S.

That is the law of the land and it IS constitutional until the Supreme Court says it isn't. They make that call, we don't.

I don't need a history lesson on the implementation of background checks. How they came about has nothing to do with whether or not they are constitutional. And I guarantee I know more about the history of it all than you do.

The law is not constitutional by default. It is constitutional or it is not constitutional. You show your lack of intelligence when you say it is constitutional by default and then, in the same paragraph, say that if they make up laws on their own they're unconstitutional. I have already given you the Supremacy Clause and Jurisprudence. An unconstitutional law is as if it were never passed. The government gets away with them because they have the most guns and you might have to spend 20 years in prison before you can get, if you can get, your case before the Supreme Court. And we know also that the Court often knowingly ignores the Constitution and original intent in favor of their favorite political whim.

If you were correct, if laws were fully constitutional until declared otherwise by the Supreme Court, then those who broke the law before the court ruling would still be guilty of breaking the law after the court ruling, but that is not the case, is it? The actual practice is just like I already proved to you in Jurisprudence. It is as if the law was never made.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes I am a registered voter. Yes, I vote and have done so for the past 50 years. And I'm pretty sure I understand the constitution and how our gov't actually works better than you do. And fuck you for the implied insult.




Dude, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution as they fit and their decisions can be overturned by a future Supreme Court, as we saw in the Dred Scott case and are apparently going to see in Roe v Wade. They do not change the words but they do interpret those words to mean whatever they think it means. As the Court changes and judges and justices are replaced, times change and so do the interpretations of what the Constitution means. And that's how it is, friend, the Constitution does not change, absent a new Amendment but different people can overturn previous rulings or strike down previous laws.




No, I'm saying the Supreme Court can reverse an earlier decision but that does not change the Constitution. It is sure as hell nowhere near what a constitutional amendment is, it's just their interpretation on what the constitution really means.




A constitutional amendment is not needed to pass new gun laws, which is or should be obvious since they've already done it and so far they have not been struck down.




For one, Congress did not change the Constitution and you know it. Public safety and security are inferred by the Article 1, Section 8.




Yeah, they are.




The current gun laws do in fact follow the Constitution and are the supreme law of the land. Do you realize you sound an awful lot like a democrat who wants to ignore any laws that they don't agree with?




Bad news, dude. You don't get to decide that. We have a Judicial Branch of gov't that determines what is constitutional and what isn't.

Well, it's clear that you think the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion to the Government. But then you believe the Welfare Clause gives the government the power to create any law they choose. That's an idiotic idea totally unsupported by the facts and I've given you the statements from Madison and Hamilton to back it up.

You accept that the government can violate the Constitution and that it's OK. You stated that a law is constitutional if it was passed by Congress and signed by the President even though I've given you the Supremacy Clause that explicitly states otherwise.

No, the insult was not implied. You're a moron and have zero understanding of the Constitution.

 

[woodwork201]

That's just nuts.

Really? What is a legal issue that would prevent a person from owning a gun? What is a legal issue that would permit the government to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms when the 2nd Amendment explicitly forbids it?

 

[woodwork201]

What the fuck are you bitching about Moon Bat?

Are you suggesting that the Courts should not use any criteria when reviewing the laws that affect our Constitutional rights? Because if you are then that is fucking stupid as hell.

It is the job of the courts to keep the Legislature and the Executive branches from eroding our Consitional rights and applying Strict Scrutiny is usually a good thing. It certinally would be in the case of gun control laws because these Communists states have always had a very low bar.

The Courts have in the past and will fail us in the future but applying a much stricter standard is always better than just winging it.

Well, idiot, strict scrutiny has nothing to do with determining whether or not a law is constitutional. Strict scrutiny is used to excuse the government from the constitutional requirement when they can convince the Court that the law is in the interest of the government. There's no court claim that strict scrutiny is designed to ensure compliance with the Constitution. Did you even read the article you posted about Kavinaugh?

In many areas of constitutional law, the Court allows a constitutional right to be overcome when a restriction passes "strict scrutiny"—i.e. (to oversimplify slightly), when the government can show that restricting the right is the "least restrictive means" of serving a "compelling government interest."​

The test for constitutionality is very simple: Original intent.

We're fucking doomed with idiots arguing against the Constitution when pretending to defend our rights.

 

[Lesh]

You cannot not show a cause and effect relationship in those nations because there is no history to compare.

Stop babbling.

There are plenty examples of countries with stricter gun laws that have far less RATES of gun murders and murders in general.