Swirling Array Of Gun Constitutional Issues At The Federal And State Levels Overwhelm The Senses

[shadowrider]

Pennsylvania --(AmmoLand.com)- First and foremost we finally have some clarity from the United States Supreme Court on the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to bear arms!

The decision in the McDonald case regarding the Chicago handgun ban that has been in effect since 1982 is, make no mistake about it, a landmark decision that will transform the issue of gun ownership.

-- snip --

As is usual, the anti-gun spin doctors were out within minutes trying to minimize the impact of this decision on the gun control movement. Unfortunately, for Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman and the rest of their ilk, the lies they have told incessantly for the last 40 years regarding the Constitution, our heritage and the basis of the freedoms protected therein have finally been exposed for the duplicitous and self-centered ramblings of individuals who are unwilling to retrace their steps or admit they are wrong!

http://www.ammoland.com/

[Mugweed]

1. You would agree then...

that I have the 2nd Amendment right to have rocket-propelled grenades, light anti-tank weapons, cluster bombs, land mines....

[shadowrider]

2. No one is suggesting / proposing / pushing for or insinuating any such thing.

[Mugweed]

4. The point I'm trying to make

is that the 2nd Amendment didn't specify what arms, just the right to bear arms. This "RKBA" gets pulled out when a city wants to ban a certain firearm, like a handgun...but I don't hear the NRA screaming about our right to land mines. Pro 2nd Amendment arguments always seems rather selective in the arms we're supposed to have a right to carry.

[shadowrider]

5. You've twisted the OP into something that is ridiculous on its face (It's called a "Strawman")

Stick to the OP please.

[damntexdem]

8. No, it's a valid point.

H-bombs for all, or nothing! ;-)

And, hey, I plan to continue helping to twist the ridiculous-on-its-face OP into the deformed tangle that it deserves.

[Mugweed]

11. Whatever you want to call it....

I don't think about guns much. I just saw the post as I was perusing the "Latest" during lunch break. The question came to me and this is as good a place to ask it as anywhere else. If you're a supporter of "RKBA", and I see by your tag line that you must be, the question is simple: Do you agree that I have a right to cluster bombs and land mines? It's just a question I have. On one side, a strict Constitutional interpretation would mean that we all have the right to black powder muzzle-loaded muskets and not much else. If you feel otherwise, then you really can't draw the line on what we can't keep and bear based on what kinds of arms the founding fathers didn't anticipate coming into existence. On the other side, the term "well regulated" could very well include banning certain arms. From my memory, states/counties/and municipalities were always allowed to make laws that were more strict than federal ones, but not less. Apparently the Supreme Court decided that in this case the last word is at a federal level.

See what I mean when I said I don't think about it much? I don't own guns. I really couldn't give two craps about them.

[GreenStormCloud]

15. The subordiante governments of the US are NOT allowed to violate the Constitution. N/T

If their stricter laws are in violation of the Constitution, then one they are so ruled, such laws are invalid.

The word "arms" is used in the Constitution to define individual, discrete target weapons, that can routinely be carried and operated by one ordinary person. That leaves out land mines, nukes, and such.

Your argument fails as a "strawman fallacy".

[Mugweed]

17. Sorry, I didn't read the "Definitions" section of the Constitution

That's usually the first section of most regulations. It seems to be missing in my copy.

[GreenStormCloud]

18. Go to a dictionary of the times.

In those days, laws didn't come with a definitions section. The assumption was that the common English language definitions would be used.

You do realize that you are doing a marvelous job at displaying your own ignorance and obstinacy.

[shadowrider]

19. Shhhhhhhhhhh

NEVER interrupt an anti when they're in the process of exposing their ignorance. (Ignorance CAN be cured through education).

[rrneck]

21. I'm sure the founding fathers

were aware that technology changes. I'm equally sure they felt that people never really change. The constitution is about relationships between people, not their relationship to technology.

[slackmaster]

33. Your right to own cluster bombs and land mines has been regulated through due process of law

Nobody is saying that government can't implement reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

The question always boils down to where the line should be drawn. I think it was drawn correctly in 1934, and there is no reason to change that.

[Statistical]

27. Read about "strict scrutiny" and then get back to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. 'Arms' doesn't include crew served weapons or ordnance of the time.

That is not to say that Privateers weren't able to arm their ships, but they were not protected under the 2nd for doing so.

Ordnance were provided to the unorganized militia by townships and states. It was not a cost that individuals could bear.

[benEzra]

40. Please look up the concept of "strict scrutiny" as it pertains to the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment doesn't say what kind of speech, press, and assembly are protected, either, but that does NOT mean that arbitrary restrictions on speech, press, and assembly are OK. Limited restrictions like bans on libel, slander, and child porn have been upheld, but speech cannot be restricted merely because some disagree with it or consider it "dangerous" or "subversive."

D.C. v. Heller upheld the longstanding restrictions on all automatic weapons, suppressed firearms, over-.50 caliber weapons, etc. while affirming that Title 1 firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected. That would be handguns, non-automatic Title 1 civilian rifles (including the most popular ones, aka "assault weapons"), and Title 1 shotguns.

BTW, even the broadest reading of the 2ndA only protects small arms (arms that can be "kept and borne" by an individual), not ordnance or crew-served weapons.

[rrneck]

3. *sigh*

[GreenStormCloud]

10. No. N/T

[MisterBill45]

14. Your mind is clearly made up

or you wouldn't post that ridiculous strawman. So what's the point? Other than to lie and dissemble as you antis are always wont to do?

[SteveM]

38. Gun-control Instruction Kit: "Some dis-sembly required."

[SteveM]

37. ...that you have the right to gas-huff your auto-induced wind. nt

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

7. Or what 81% of americans think?

Most people in the United States interpret their Constitution’s Second Amendment in the same fashion, according to a poll by Angus Reid Public Opinion. 81 per cent of respondents believe the Second Amendment means that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/35735/americans_agree_on_second_amendmentaas_meaning

[shadowrider]

9. I think other rights should be restricted too

1) Black men and white women can't vote
2) Freedom of the press should be curtailed, replaced by state run media
3) Police can enter your residence at any time for any reason with no warrant and arrest you for having sharp kitchen knives
4) etc. etc.

Catastrophe for reinforcing a RIGHT. Sheesh.

[Mugweed]

13. All of the above have already happened

except the white women part has been fixed. Look back to the 2000 election in FL and the 2004 in Ohio with regard to black voting, and few media today are not government propaganda outlets. I don't know how you feel, but in my opinion the police sure make up all kinds of excuses to violate your rights and get away with it the majority of the time.

I still think allowing you general access to arms (hunting rifles, shotguns), but banning certain arms in certain places, like handguns in D.C. (stricter laws enacted and enforced by local governments) does not violate your rights.

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Your side has lost. Too bad for you that you don't like it.

Now learn to live with it.

While you are doing that, the pro-RKBA movement is on a roll. We will be picking up more gains in the coming months and years.

You can keep beating that dead horse all you want to, but it isn't going to get up and carry your freight.

[Mugweed]

20. I took no side, just expressed an opinion.

As stated previously, I have no stake in this because I've made it this far without needing a gun and I anticipate carrying that situation through my old age. I'm not fighting for my right to carry a Glock into a bar, or to ban others from doing so. I just want to get an idea of how far people think that right carries, and what justification is given when they draw the line. In one post, a definition for "arms" has been provided that I didn't see anywhere in the Constitution. I'm assuming in an attempt to justify where the line between what you have the right to keep and bear and what you don't is drawn. Using that definition, I should be able to keep and bear shoulder-fired missile launchers.

I would have hoped that this could happen without people using gun-nut or anti-gun, but it's too late. Thanks for an amusing lunch break.

[shadowrider]

23. The difference is, you anticipate not needing one, I anticipate I might

No harm, no foul.

[GreenStormCloud]

26. Only the anti-RKBA people build the strawman that you built.

A shoulder fired rocket launcher is a crew served item, and the target is not discrete to just one human. It can be loaded and fired by one person, only with difficulty by that person. They are designed to be a team weapon. The explosive warhead removes them from the discretely target category by introducing an element of discrete and anybody nearby.

You are well aware the all laws, including the definitions section, must be read using the commonly understood definitions and grammar of the law's language during the time period of the law's drafting. To argue otherwise is to make nonsense of all law.

[Travis Coates]

31. LAWS is no longer in use

But I could damn sure fire one of those all by myself Ditto an AT4

[GreenStormCloud]

34. True. That's why I included the reference to explosive warheads. N/T

[SteveM]

39. Latest Gun-control Approach: "I have no stake in this," "Amusing lunch break."

[Travis Coates]

22. Please answer this question

I still think allowing you general access to arms (hunting rifles, shotguns), but banning certain arms in certain places, like handguns in D.C. (stricter laws enacted and enforced by local governments) does not violate your rights.

Did the State ban on handguns in DC do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Same question applies to Chicago.

If you allow stricter laws in certain localities they can (and do) take it all the way to a full ban. If a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen isn't a threat (and why should it be?)why should it be banned?

To answer your question I think the citizenry should be allowed to own any point effect arm currently (or previously) issued to the US Military. I have no problem W/ this including select fire and automatic weaponry.

I also don't believe a person who can legally own a firearm should be required to get a license to carry it.

[Mugweed]

25. No law does anything to keep criminals from being criminals

They do establish a punishment for transgression if you get caught, though. With your argument, all laws should be abolished because they only restrict the good folk like you and me...because criminals will do whatever they want regardless of the laws that have been established.

[Travis Coates]

28. There is some truth to what you say

but the DC gun ban only succeeded in disarming the law abiding population , leaving them defenseless. Criminal acts are criminal whether or not a gun is involved you aren't any less dead if I bean you W/ a tire iron.

[Statistical]

29. Yet another strawman.

The law against murder doesn't in any way restrict the right of the law abiding same with the laws on assault, robbery, burglary, rape, etc. All those laws mere place punishments on actions which harm others.

Felons are already prohibited from owning firearms thus a felon caught with any firearm (including handguns) anywhere in the country under any circumstances can already be charged under that statute.

The ban in Chicago and DC did nothing but deprive the law abiding from owning a class of weapons which has a lawful & legitimate use in self defense and as such is Unconstitutional.

[shadowrider]

32. Show me where anyone has suggested all laws should be abolished

No one has.

Again with the strawman

[hack89]

36. Does that mean, for example, that states can regulate abortion as they desire? nt

[Possumpoint]

12. Somehow

it sounds as if you dream of twisting the court to your desires so that they return a decision your way. After reading and re-reading the second amendment I cannot accept any other interpretation beyond what has been said by the SCOTUS. In fact, I wonder how the founding fathers would feel about excluding felons from gun ownership?

[Travis Coates]

24. John Wesley Hardin

Had his guns, along W/ other personal possessions,returned to him when he was released from prison. He walked out of the prison armed

[Statistical]

30. Most violent crime was punished by execution thus it was a rather moot point.

Still they saw no reason to deprive criminals of firearms.
Namely because such prohibition would be virtually impossible to enforce and likely ineffectual.