You think you're pro-2nd but you're not

[woodwork201]

The court stated that weapons in common use were protected meaning those military style weapons

Military style? Like M-16s? Or like AR-15s?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Banning their right to own a gun can indeed be a part of the sentence. 8 years in prison and a ban on owning a gun. There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop that as long as it was done through due process.

Whether we should is a seperate question.

No if the are freed and have paid their debt they should have all their rights. Other than that they should remain in prison.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Military style? Like M-16s? Or like AR-15s?

Yes military style weapons are protected. Oh and fyi no law prevents you from buying an M16

 

[pknopp]

No if the are freed and have paid their debt they should have all their rights. Other than that they should remain in prison.

Again, the ban can be a part of the sentence. Just the same as sexual offenders must register anywhere they move to. They may have served the jail part of the sentence but that doesn't mean that's it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again, the ban can be a part of the sentence. Just the same as sexual offenders must register anywhere they move to. They may have served the jail part of the sentence but that doesn't mean that's it.

You're just arguing for argument sack

 

[pknopp]

You're just arguing for argument sack

Sexual offenders aren't restricted even after they serve their sentence?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sexual offenders aren't restricted even after they serve their sentence?

They should get their rights back if the government said they paid their debt to society.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes.

If one supports the Second Amendment then he supports Second Amendment case law; the Constitution exists solely in the contexts of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

Firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the Supreme Court are perfectly lawful and neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Measures such as background checks and licensing requirements neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Indeed, to lie about background checks or licensing requirements ‘violating’ or ‘infringing upon’ the Second Amendment is to be an enemy of the Second Amendment.

Totally false, every word, every punctuation.

Supporting the 2nd Amendment means supporting the Constitution, not the Court.

And unconstitutional laws are not perfectly lawful - even if enforced at the end of a government barrel. The Supremacy Clause clearly states that only those laws that follow the Constitution are the law of the land.

But I'm glad we won't be hearing any more about Roe from you since case law says it's back in the States.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The fact is, most gun owners support gun control. Most gun owners on this site, support gun control. As an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner, this is very disappointing to me.

Nonsense.

You’re not an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner unless you acknowledge and follow Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s perfectly appropriate and warranted for an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner to agree with certain firearm regulatory measures, provided those measures haven’t been invalidated by the courts.

 

[pknopp]

They should get their rights back if the government said they paid their debt to society.

That's certainly a valid position to take.

 

[Circe]

Certainly not! They'll just go diddle little boys again, or whatever their perversion is.

Consider the priests ---- they NEVER stopped, wherever they moved them, they would just do it again to other victims, by the thousands and thousands, all over the world.


Organized crime.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Certainly not! They'll just go diddle little boys again, or whatever their perversion is.

Consider the priests ---- they NEVER stopped, wherever they moved them, they would just do it again to other victims, by the thousands and thousands, all over the world.


Organized crime.

They shouldn't be released but if the government says a person has paid their debt to society they should get their rights back. That in itself would stop a lot of repeat offenders

 

[Circe]

Nonsense.

You’re not an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner unless you acknowledge and follow Second Amendment jurisprudence.

It’s perfectly appropriate and warranted for an actual pro-2nd-Amendment gun owner to agree with certain firearm regulatory measures, provided those measures haven’t been invalidated by the courts.

I disagree. All these many, many, many licenses, regulations, etc., etc., are a way to nickle and dime gun ownership to death. There should be NO, that's NO barriers to owning or carrying.


AFTER ALL, There sure are no barriers to what the bazillion criminals do with guns!!! Why against the honest people???!

 

[woodwork201]

Wrong just an outright uninformed lie.

It's an informed lie; he knows better but lies anyway.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No....Heller didn't say that....in fact, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment....

This is a lie.

Heller concerned solely the District’s handgun ban; no other class of firearm was subject to review – including military weapons.

The Heller Court reaffirmed Miller’s holding that there are weapons entitled to Constitutional protections and weapons that are not:

“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

The Heller Court made no determination as to what weapons were within the scope of the Second Amendment, save that for handguns; indeed, the Court has yet to make such a determination other than handguns.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But no gun law will keep a violent felon from accessing a gun, don't you agree? If a violent felon is too dangerous to be around a gun, he's too dangerous to be out of prison.

And what about violent felons who have not been convicted? Current laws still give them access to guns.

And what about non-violent people who might be convicted of a violent crime? There are plenty of domestic abuse cases that fit that model.

Having nothing whatsoever to do with whether one is ‘pro’- or ‘anti’- Second Amendment.

That a law might be ineffective doesn’t mean it’s un-Constitutional; this is a political argument, not legal.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The justices that decided Heller stated it didn't necessarily cover all arms. They didn't say it didn't but they were specific to note to not assume it did.

The Heller Court didn’t decide anything about what weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover – again, save for handguns.

What weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover wasn’t even subject to review in Heller.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This is a lie.

Heller concerned solely the District’s handgun ban; no other class of firearm was subject to review – including military weapons.

The Heller Court reaffirmed Miller’s holding that there are weapons entitled to Constitutional protections and weapons that are not:

“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

The Heller Court made no determination as to what weapons were within the scope of the Second Amendment, save that for handguns; indeed, the Court has yet to make such a determination other than handguns.

Heller reaffirmed miller and Miller stated that in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it would need to reasonable expectations to the efficiency of a militia. Meaning those AR 15s

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Heller Court didn’t decide anything about what weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover – again, save for handguns.

What weapons the Second Amendment did or did not cover wasn’t even subject to review in Heller.

If it reaffirmed miller it most certainly did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Rules of war aren't in the Constitution, they're included by common law. It's treason to share troop movements with the enemy and treason is in t he Constitution.

And there's no room for interpretation of the explicit limitations in the Constitution.

The 4th Amendment, for instance, protects from unreasonable search and seizures but it defines neither reasonable nor unreasonable. But the use of the word unreasonable proves that the Founders were aware of the concept of reasonable and able to specify it when it was their intent. The result is that the 4th must be interpreted but must be interpreted based on original intent but applied to modern technology.

The 8th Amendment doesn't define excessive bail so it has to be interpreted. We don't apply the same dollar amounts to bail that they did in 1791 but we still apply the level of consideration for what's excessive. For instance 500,000 for the bodega owner in NYC was excessive and it was lowered to 50K.

On the other hand, the 2nd Amendment has no such vagueness. It says "Shall not be infringed". You can interpret that all day long, for 231 years, and it still means "Shall not be infringed". As I proved to you, the Founders understood the concept of reasonable exceptions, as they used it in the 4th Amendment. Had they meant to except reasonable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, they would have included the same thing in the 2nd Amendment, such as, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed." Had they said that, then you might be right but that's not what they said.

The Framers actually weren't attempting to create a republic of limited power and authority; they actually DID create a republic of limited power and authority.

And though they didn't explicitly authorize yelling fire in a theater, they did explicitly forbid Congress from making it illegal, thus, to this very day, there is no Federal law forbidding yelling fire in a theater, is there?

Are you suggesting that the Founders would have agreed to getting government permission and paying a fee in order to vote? Or getting government permission to speak out against the government?

Maybe you believe that the Founders would have accepted a court fee to have your attorney with you in a trial? Or perhaps a fee in order to have a trial in the first place? If you choose not to pay the fee then the judge makes the ruling of guilt or innocence.

If the right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to felons, then wouldn't that apply to all rights? There's no specific exception in the 2nd Amendment about felons so it must be inferred so wouldn't it be inferred for all rights? If you're a convicted felon then the next time you're charged with a crime, no lawyer, no jury. If you're a convicted felon, you can be held in chains and beaten daily for 10 years sentence because cruel and inhuman no longer applies to you. So no trial, no jury, and daily beatings for once-convicted felons. Got it.

Originalist hogwash.

There is no such thing as ‘too much’ interpretation of the Constitution.

No right is absolute or unlimited, government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on our rights consistent with the will of the people and Constitutional case law.

The courts determine when government has acted in accordance with the Constitution based on that case law; when government oversteps its authority, the courts invalidate the unlawful acts.