Are ANY Gun Laws Legal?
- Thread starter Double J
- Start date
- Status
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Tuttle8 said:
Today or back then? If you are talking about back then you can listen to the oral arguments in Heller and maybe you have, where they talk about laws in Massachusetts about loaded weapons in the home and such. Pretty Interesting.
Tuttle8 said:
Not sure I understand what you mean. What are the two wrongs?
Tuttle8 said:
Because I don't think the Founding Fathers ever believed that a right was absolute and that all of them could be regulated. Anyway, IIRC the BOR was not even applicable to the States until the 14A?
Such statements are pathetic, Wild. "Move if you don't like it"? Seriously? Gradually nicking away at personal freedoms and seeing no effect from it politically just emboldens politicians to meddle further and further in our private lives. The trend should worry you even if the current things being limited/restricted does not.
What will you do, Wild, if the president & gang call for federal restrictions on guns to the extent it affected you? Would you move? Perhaps you should move from your very free state of Alaska to England.
Change doesn't always come quickly, nor can your fight against that change wait until it is upon your own doorstep. If the lower 48 gradually started restricting personal freedoms, your beloved state wouldn't be able to hold out against that tide. California is a massive state, and things that get passed there could just as easily end up getting pushed through elsewhere.
People shouldn't always flee, sometimes they need to fight. People of color and women were discriminated against for decades in the USA via state and local laws. Should they have found somewhere else to live or should they have fought to get back their 'inalienable rights' and a measure of equality? Just because someone manages to pass a law doesn't mean the fight is over.
California should be a warning of the direction we're headed in. England even moreso.
Last edited:
amendments
yes there is a way to amend the constitution but I have seen no amendment to the second,it clarly sated tha the right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.it says nothing about BUT.and the scotus did not rule on regulations they ducked it.and ruled only on a narrow point.whats the 15 amendment say, can you have a partial civil right.all the gun laws were put in place to prevent a class or group of people from having arms.
the blacks were one the political parties another.all intended to prevent the defence from attack.
yes there is a way to amend the constitution but I have seen no amendment to the second,it clarly sated tha the right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.it says nothing about BUT.and the scotus did not rule on regulations they ducked it.and ruled only on a narrow point.whats the 15 amendment say, can you have a partial civil right.all the gun laws were put in place to prevent a class or group of people from having arms.
the blacks were one the political parties another.all intended to prevent the defence from attack.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Tennessee Gentleman said:
Just because they introduced laws back then just after the BOR was introduced doesn't necessarily mean it was valid.
One of my basic points is laws upon laws are being bombarded on us for no good reason. If we keep accepting "reasonable" laws the very foundation of gun rights isn't going to be a foundation anymore.
Let's say you like old stock muscle cars...like a '64 1/2 mustang. There's nothing finer than seeing an unmolested 'stang with low miles found in some grandma's barn. You guarantee that by restoring it to original condition. You give it to your son. He goes off and chops/channels it. Hacks up the frame even more by tubbing it. Don't forget about air bags, dechroming, recaro seats, humongous non-functional spoiler, 350(yes, Chevy 350) engine, turbocharger(s), headers, sound system with 24 speakers and 6 monitors (2 in the headrests), ground effects body kit, and koenig wheels on toyo tires.
Is this a mustang? Well, yes. But is isn't a mustang anymore, either. The 2A is still one of our bill of rights, but has so much garbage (laws) attached to it that it really isn't the foundation we follow anymore. The laws take over and this is never what the founding fathers intended, IMO.
So, is the Constitution an absolute? Should be and followed absolutely. Our system is in place to allow amendments as necessary and there's nothing wrong with it. Living in Cook county Illinois and not even allowed to own a handgun is....
Wildalaska
Moderator
Somehow I fail to see the connection between hot water governors and the end of freedom as we know it
WildnomanisanislandAlaska TM
I think that the words "shall not be infringed" pretty muchs sums it up. Virtually all Federal gun control laws are unConstitutional. Laws limiting felons and criminals from having firearms are Constitutional however, because criminals do not have the same rights that the rest of us enjoy. This right is absolute for citizens in good standing. Keeping and bearing arms is NOT the same as free speech. I cannot cause harm to someone by keeping and bearing arms. Therefore the right is absolute. Period.
Ben Towe said:
The words, "Congress shall make no law" ... "abridging the freedom of speech," means exactly that. As the Courts developed the interpretation of these phrases, especially after incorporation, it has come to mean that no political body can make repressive laws on speech. Speech itself has come to mean almost any expressive act.
Yet....
Try to hold an unannounced political rally in any residential neighborhood, in any city, town or village in America, at midnight. There are express laws that prohibit such an act. How can they do this, in the face of such an absolute constitutional prohibition?
The answer is quite simple. No right is absolute. You do not have to right to express yourself (Free Speech) when it will interfere with the rights of others.
In the admittedly extreme (and possibly absurd) example above, such speech would interfere with the rights of the people that live in that residential area, to enjoy a peaceful nights sleep. Hence the variations on Disturbing the Peace laws.
All speech may be regulated as to Time, Place and Manner. Such restrictions have been in place from almost the inception of this country, because they place the rights of others as equal to the rights of those who wish to express themselves.
"Shall make no law," is pretty strict language, yet the rights contained in the first amendment are regulated. Everyday. Do you think these regulations (law) are unconstitutional, also?
"... The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," does not mean that regulation(s) cannot be placed upon the right. Like it or not, government can regulate the Manner by which you bear arms. The government may also regulate the Place in which you bear arms. Likewise, the Times.
To the same extent, the Keeping of arms may also be regulated.
If you think in such absolute terms, educate me on why speech restrictions can be regulated, but not the keeping and bearing of arms?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I was wondering when you would step in.Antipitas said:
Interesting viewpoint
I know it is a grey area, but I have alwways believed that the purpose and intent of having a Supreme Court is to determine whether or not individual LAWS are in conflict with the "plain language" of the Constitution. And to settle jurisdictional disputes between the branches of govt.
I do not think that it is the proper business of the Court (any Court) to rule on what the Constitution "means". Rather it is their job to rule on whether or not a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
Obviously, in order to do that they have to understand what the Constitutions says, and the simplest standard (which is the one that should always be employed) is to take the words at plain face value, considering the intent of the Founders (as expressed in the other documents written at the time), and the language as used in that era.
Our system is, for better or worse, that any law passed is valid and legal, until nullified by the Court. If a law has never been judged, then it is "legal", until it is ruled not to be so. Period.
However, it is also written that we do not have a duty, or moral obligation to obey unconstituional laws. And indeed, we do not. You may feel a law is unconstitutional, and disobey, that is your moral right. But, you will be subject to any and all penalties for disobeying that law, until, and unless it is ruled unconstitutional.
So, for better or worse, ALL gun laws are legal and Constitutional, until struck down. They may be distasteful. They may be clearly invalid to any reasoning individual (like the DC ban) BUT until the High Court rules, they are the law.
The mindset that the High Court is there to interpret the Constitution should not be encouraged. That is not their job. Interpreting the Constitution allows them to change it by judicial decree, and is very much at the whim and will of those individuals on the bench. This is not their job, changing the Constitution is a structured process, involving both the Federal and state legislatures, not the court.
It is all certainly a matter of semantics and viewpoint, but that's what law is, isn't it?
I know it is a grey area, but I have alwways believed that the purpose and intent of having a Supreme Court is to determine whether or not individual LAWS are in conflict with the "plain language" of the Constitution. And to settle jurisdictional disputes between the branches of govt.
I do not think that it is the proper business of the Court (any Court) to rule on what the Constitution "means". Rather it is their job to rule on whether or not a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
Obviously, in order to do that they have to understand what the Constitutions says, and the simplest standard (which is the one that should always be employed) is to take the words at plain face value, considering the intent of the Founders (as expressed in the other documents written at the time), and the language as used in that era.
Our system is, for better or worse, that any law passed is valid and legal, until nullified by the Court. If a law has never been judged, then it is "legal", until it is ruled not to be so. Period.
However, it is also written that we do not have a duty, or moral obligation to obey unconstituional laws. And indeed, we do not. You may feel a law is unconstitutional, and disobey, that is your moral right. But, you will be subject to any and all penalties for disobeying that law, until, and unless it is ruled unconstitutional.
So, for better or worse, ALL gun laws are legal and Constitutional, until struck down. They may be distasteful. They may be clearly invalid to any reasoning individual (like the DC ban) BUT until the High Court rules, they are the law.
The mindset that the High Court is there to interpret the Constitution should not be encouraged. That is not their job. Interpreting the Constitution allows them to change it by judicial decree, and is very much at the whim and will of those individuals on the bench. This is not their job, changing the Constitution is a structured process, involving both the Federal and state legislatures, not the court.
It is all certainly a matter of semantics and viewpoint, but that's what law is, isn't it?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
44 AMP said:
Which to me a layman, is six of one half dozen of the other. How can they say it conflicts without telling us what it means? Each time they rule it gives us yet another insight into the COTUS.
What I read in Heller is that we citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in the militia. Huge opinion IMO in that it decoupled militia service from our right of individual self defense. I think Heller might later on be (pardon the pun) hell on very oneous gun control and possibly render void some bans. Maybe a new AWB? We'll see.
Full auto and military weapons? No. I don't think so. Background check thrown out? No again. CCW? Not sure we will get much help there either.
Should be exciting.
Shane Tuttle
Staff
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the use of words such as "regulations" and "restrictions" are being used incorrectly. A person doesn't have the right to exercise the 1A if it interferes with rights of another person. Call it a restriction or a regulation, but there doesn't need to be additional laws. Your rights are absolute until your actions inhibit others to exercise theirs.
I think there's a miscommunication on that issue. I'm all for a law abiding citizen having ONE S&W 686 in his house or 5,000 ARs stacked wall to wall. It bears NO harm and does NOT interfere with the fellow citizen next door. He has an absolute right to keep and bear these arms.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Tuttle8 said:
But it is a law and that is what places the restriction on the right. How else could you do it? It would have to be a law or you could not assert against the behavior.
The Constitution is SUPPOSED to limit government, Federal and state law. The tort system is designed to prevent harm, and make people whole after they are damaged by misuse of liberties. For instance Libel and Slander, tort principals, are the remedies for misuse of Free Speech.
The Federal government has NO place limiting First or Second Amendment issues, period. The concept is the states, with their laws in both the tort system, and criminal system, were supposed to be the regulators for stopping harm done to citizens, NOT the Federal government.
Slavery screwed that system up, as it has done to many other Constitutional rights, by extending the BORights against the states, through Equal Protection, and the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court gutted that with the Slaughterhouse cases, and now, nearly 130 years later, we are finally facing that the Amendment did incorporate the BORights against the States as well. The system has required the Supreme Court to 'judge' if the BORights amendments, individually, applied against the states. That was NOT the intent of the 14th amendment, but, that's how the court went about using it.
Ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, which Heller represents, and, that government regulation of the area is 'reasonable' is NOT a logical representation of the law, but, a neccesary one to finally get the area of law changed.
The Federal government has NO place limiting First or Second Amendment issues, period. The concept is the states, with their laws in both the tort system, and criminal system, were supposed to be the regulators for stopping harm done to citizens, NOT the Federal government.
Slavery screwed that system up, as it has done to many other Constitutional rights, by extending the BORights against the states, through Equal Protection, and the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court gutted that with the Slaughterhouse cases, and now, nearly 130 years later, we are finally facing that the Amendment did incorporate the BORights against the States as well. The system has required the Supreme Court to 'judge' if the BORights amendments, individually, applied against the states. That was NOT the intent of the 14th amendment, but, that's how the court went about using it.
Ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, which Heller represents, and, that government regulation of the area is 'reasonable' is NOT a logical representation of the law, but, a neccesary one to finally get the area of law changed.
Evan Thomas
New member
44 AMP said:
Tennessee Gentleman said:
I think TG has it exactly right, particularly as regards Heller and the Second Amendment: "...it decoupled militia service from our right of individual self defense." The decoupling was a necessary interpretation of the meaning, which isn't all that obvious.
If it were only a matter of determining the status of a law in relation to some sort of idealized "plain meaning," no Supreme Court decision would ever need to be revisited or overturned. What was the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, for example, if not a reinterpretation of the meaning of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to say that separate facilities for the separate races were inherently unequal? Plessy v. Ferguson interpreted the meaning of the equal protection clause one way; Brown interpreted it differently.
44 AMP said:
Exactly -- this is the point I was making in a previous post.
44 AMP said:
Well... semantics, syntax, and viewpoint, in the case of the 2nd Amendment: if the syntax were clearer, the semantics would take care of themselves. But that's why interpretation is necessary -- it's those darn commas, and deciding what counts as a subordinate clause.
Call me a deconstructionist
or worse, if you will, but I find the notion that there's some sort of "plain meaning" of language that exists on some level other than how humans interpret it (which may vary) sort of naive...
Last edited:
The concepts and ideas behind the writing of the Constitution are relatively easy to find. It's these basic concepts that for most Constitutional scholars are easy to find, and, are the reason for many justices using a 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution. It's a fairly long document, concerned with one man's nature, once given power, to misuse that power, destroying what gave them that power in the first place, and causing suffering and misery.
These were also very smart men, that could anticipate that things would develop that they might not be ready for. However, the primary ideals of freedom they knew must be present for the society to flourish.
Having British soldiers running around, moving into their houses for months at a time, eating their food, etc. certainly is little different from the threat of home invasion, and the recognition of the need for firearms to be secure in your own home.
They attempted to limit the Federal government, but, that created serious problems as well, since raising an army was difficult, and paying for it even harder.
They also understood the concept that government bureaucracy is unlikely to flourish if there is no money to pay people, and, that was clearly their intent.
We are now on a path, or already really have, an oligarchy we elect. Even the state congress' are reasserting their right to govern their states, for fear of Obama and the current congress. We are clearly going down a path to socialism, or socialized government practices. That is not the direction the founders designed the Constitution to go in.
I believe there are a LOT of folks out there that are concerned about these issues, and, they are voting with gun and ammunition dollars, right now.
The Supreme Court has in the past been a rock in the path to socialism. It has also done incredible things to help get to that point. There is a split on the court, one side going for government being the solution to everything, and, that the Constitution is a 'living' document, to be changed as everything changes.
The strict constructionist view is that the limitations on the Federal Government MUST be upheld, or, the system of government we have is not going to be the one the founders designed, and, that has worked for a couple hundred years.
One of the other great fears is the benevolent dictator, similar to Pericles. A sophist that will say anything to gain power, and, then do anything to keep it. FDR was very close to that, a country that was in desperate straight relied on this man on the radio to guide them. There are different views on how well he did that, but, one is very clear, he erroded the limitations on the Federal government tremendously, and, created bureaucracy
at a new, self-serving level, and, the war is what saved us.
The founders understood the threat of such a person, and, designed a system to stifle this sort of person.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Buying guns and ammo because we are going down the socialist path is the path to the Condition Tin Foil and a lock down.
If we want to discuss what gun laws are legal - that's our topic.
Just a hint to steer closer to the topic of this thread.
If we want to discuss what gun laws are legal - that's our topic.
Just a hint to steer closer to the topic of this thread.
Short answer:
If you are a Strict Constructionist, NO.
If you are a Frankfurter, and believe in slippery slopes, and expanding the power of the government, then yes.
In a state that won't trust me with hot water, why would they trust me with a gun?
ONLY because it's in the BOR's. Apparently hot water isn't...
If you are a Strict Constructionist, NO.
If you are a Frankfurter, and believe in slippery slopes, and expanding the power of the government, then yes.
In a state that won't trust me with hot water, why would they trust me with a gun?
ONLY because it's in the BOR's. Apparently hot water isn't...
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
So, should any gunpowder based weapon be available for purchase by civilians without any restrictions? We've had this discussion before until it was locked.
Thus, I can live under a flight path to the airport with a L-70 Bofors 40mm, if I can afford it? Or one of those WWII vehicles with four 5O BMGs mounted?
They sure would help defending your neighborhood. But if Ma Deuces were easily available - guess what - they would be in gang hands very quickly. The risk of such weaponery is irrelevant to the argument only if your view is based on a discredited view of how the Constitution is interpreted. Remember the Constitution has changed as morays changed. A strict constructionist might pine for days of slaves and no women voting.
No limits at all? We've seen that the Swiss and Japanese arguments have been flawed. The argument that laws don't regulate speech on the Federal level has been discredited. If we want to maintain gun rights, cliches and incorrect arguments won't cut it.
So if the only argument is repeating 'shall not' over and over again without resort to context, this argument is becoming worthless - esp. if it is 'get ready for the revolution thread'. How about this - we had a presidency that many disagreed with - for some its policies were threats to the BOR. No one had to drive around with a Ma Deuce - we had an election. Saying this particular presidency is a call for Ma Deuces behind your Hummer is a specious practical argument. In 2012, if Obama flops, the Congress changes.
Justing saying 'gun' - not convincing.
Thus, I can live under a flight path to the airport with a L-70 Bofors 40mm, if I can afford it? Or one of those WWII vehicles with four 5O BMGs mounted?
They sure would help defending your neighborhood.
But if Ma Deuces were easily available - guess what - they would be in gang hands very quickly. The risk of such weaponery is irrelevant to the argument only if your view is based on a discredited view of how the Constitution is interpreted. Remember the Constitution has changed as morays changed. A strict constructionist might pine for days of slaves and no women voting. No limits at all? We've seen that the Swiss and Japanese arguments have been flawed. The argument that laws don't regulate speech on the Federal level has been discredited. If we want to maintain gun rights, cliches and incorrect arguments won't cut it.
So if the only argument is repeating 'shall not' over and over again without resort to context, this argument is becoming worthless - esp. if it is 'get ready for the revolution thread'. How about this - we had a presidency that many disagreed with - for some its policies were threats to the BOR. No one had to drive around with a Ma Deuce - we had an election. Saying this particular presidency is a call for Ma Deuces behind your Hummer is a specious practical argument. In 2012, if Obama flops, the Congress changes.
Justing saying 'gun' - not convincing.
You win this one, just because Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas and friends were appointed by FDR, stayed on the bench for 30+ years, and, out numbered Hugo Black, and the strict constructionist prior. Their effect on the Incorporationist Doctrine is pivotal to the issue under discussion, and, their failure to ever address the 2nd Amendment, and the individual right to bear arms.
If not for the fact that FDR was elected for 4 terms, and appointed Charles Evan Hughes, Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, and Chief Justice, Harlan Fiske Stone, that's TEN Supreme Court Justices, we might well be having a different discussion. When you have a president with such incredible support, who is intent on one thing: Expanding the government and it's power, and he appoints the entire bench, plus one, well, it's amazing that anyone even brings up the concept of Strict Construction.
However, we now have a few Constitutional law scholars that have come to the same same conclusion as far as Strict Construction:
Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts, we may finally have enough votes to reign in the 'growth and slippery slope' trend.
If not for the fact that FDR was elected for 4 terms, and appointed Charles Evan Hughes, Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, James F. Byrnes, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley B. Rutledge, and Chief Justice, Harlan Fiske Stone, that's TEN Supreme Court Justices, we might well be having a different discussion. When you have a president with such incredible support, who is intent on one thing: Expanding the government and it's power, and he appoints the entire bench, plus one, well, it's amazing that anyone even brings up the concept of Strict Construction.
However, we now have a few Constitutional law scholars that have come to the same same conclusion as far as Strict Construction:
Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts, we may finally have enough votes to reign in the 'growth and slippery slope' trend.
- Status