Gun Confiscation

[geerair]

ooh really, then why does every state have different laws respecting to firearms?

States are constitutionally empowered to regulate/restrict firearms as long as those laws do not violate federal and constitutional laws.

How did NYS pass the Safe Act despite what you say is a federal regulation, Why does Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming (and one other state) have no licensing regulation other than felons and mentally ill can't own firearms.

Same as above.

If the federal Firearms laws have the supreme law of the land, why are there 10,000 pages of laws with 27,000 different firearms laws on the books through out the country.

Same answer as above.

why is there no ONE LAW.

Same answer as above.

[Hugh B]

States are constitutionally empowered to regulate/restrict firearms as long as those laws do not violate federal and constitutional laws.

Same as above.

Same answer as above.


Same answer as above.

Yup, and the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" which means all state laws infinging on on firearms are illegal. Pretty simple.

[scrogdog]

ooh really, then why does every state have different laws respecting to firearms?

How did NYS pass the Safe Act despite what you say is a federal regulation, Why does Arizona, Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming (and one other state) have no licensing regulation other than felons and mentally ill can't own firearms.

If the federal Firearms laws have the supreme law of the land, why are there 10,000 pages of laws with 27,000 different firearms laws on the books through out the country.

why is there no ONE LAW.

Because states are fully able to enact laws that are not in conflict with federal law. Similarly, cities and towns are fully able to enact their own statutes as long as they don't conflict with state and federal law.

For example, a town may decide to be dry, as in no alcohol. No package stores or alcohol licenses for resteraunts. This does not violate higher laws it simply adds an additional layer of regulation.

So, yeah, taken fully together it can be a bit of a mish mash.

What a town could not do is to ignore a state law. It could add to them though.

[Hugh B]

I have yet to find a single person, government official or court willing to define the terms, "shall not", "Be" and "Infringed". They cant do so without recognizing that the second amendment clearly means absolutely no gun control.

Now, Geer, go ahead and reply without directly defining those terms.

[geerair]

The fact is, the supreme court has only ruled on the second amendment a couple of times and has not actually defined the meaning of the second amendment. Its meaning is quite clear when it says "shall not be infringed". The supreme court has ignored most of the state and local firearms laws up to this point. Therefore we are waiting for the supreme court to take up the second amendment issues again.

The Supreme Court just recently ruled on 2nd issues.

Some states actually understand the real meaning of "shall not be infringed" and are therefore opposing the current federal move to confiscate firearms. Clearly even a fifth grader can understand "shall not be infringed". Geer cannot. Liberals cannot. And even the supreme court is a political body divided according to their individual personal leaning. But, the clear meaning of these words in plain English cannot be avoided but can be dismissed by those who like Bill Clinton play with the meaning of the word "is" in an effort to get their own way.

Uber conservative Justice Scalia just recently wrote the majority opinion of the Supreme Court on the 2nd A. which cinfirmed that government does have constitutional powers to regulate/restrict firearms.

Perhaps you should go to Washington and confront Scalia with your idea that he has less understanding of constitutional law than a fifth grader.

Meanwhile, many local police officers and sheriffs know the real meaning of the second amendment by simply reading what is says. I simply want to make the court define the words "Shall not" and "Infringed" and the apply those terms to the second amendment. Any other meaning other that no gun control is simply incorrect. If you dont like the second amendment then work to change the amendment itself but dont lie, cheat and redefine the English language.

I'm sure Justice Scalia would welcome your comments regarding constitutional law. Probably would be impressed with your extensive constitutional law training as well.

[geerair]

Yup, and the second amendment says "shall not be infringed" which means all state laws infinging on on firearms are illegal. Pretty simple.

Tell it to Scalia.

[scrogdog]

I have yet to find a single person, government official or court willing to define the terms, "shall not", "Be" and "Infringed". They cant do so without recognizing that the second amendment clearly means absolutely no gun control.

Now, Geer, go ahead and reply without directly defining those terms.

I disagree. Hugh, have you read the comments of the justices and indeed the even larger scholarly debate on the Heller case? Heck as late as 2008 scholars were trying to define exactly what bear arms even legally means!

It means, legally and literally "have weapons".

And also it was only fairly recently decided that this was an individual right as in not necessarily in the service of a militia.

Regulating certain weapons still allows you to "have weapons" and since that is so, the government has not disarmed the public.

Sounds perfectly legal to me and still in accordance with "shall not be infringed".

[Hugh B]

Tell it to Scalia.

Would love to make him clearly define it. Since he is not here you define it for me according to your view. What does it mean?

[geerair]

For example, a town may decide to be dry, as in no alcohol. No package stores or alcohol licenses for resteraunts. This does not violate higher laws it simply adds an additional layer of regulation.

Good example.

We have that sme mismash in Texas.

Can be a PIA when a man is thirsting for a cold one.

[Hugh B]

I disagree. Hugh, have you read the comments of the justices and indeed the even larger scholarly debate on the Heller case? Heck as late as 2008 scholars were trying to define exactly what bear arms even legally means!

It means, legally and literally "have weapons".

And also it was only fairly recently decided that this was an individual right as in not necessarily in the service of a militia.

Regulating certain weapons still allows you to "have weapons" and since that is so, the government has not disarmed the public.

Sounds perfectly legal to me and still in accordance with "shall not be infringed".

When you follow the history of the decisions of the Supreme Court you will see that the court is always very careful to make every rule they make as narrow as possible, directly and only directly ruling on a small area of law. I took a constitutational law class at the police academy and the instructors (lawyers) carefully pointed out each Supreme Court ruling and how carefully narrow each ruling was.

The Second Amendment has hardly been addressed by the Supreme Court. It has not been defined and they know it. Hopefully, the new proposals of law regarding firearms will force them to rule on the second amendment. They are forced however to deal with the actual language of the amendment in a way they have not looked at it up to this point. Yet, it remains quite clear, that is unless you are Geer.

[geerair]

I have yet to find a single person, government official or court willing to define the terms, "shall not", "Be" and "Infringed". They cant do so without recognizing that the second amendment clearly means absolutely no gun control.

Now, Geer, go ahead and reply without directly defining those terms.

I would say that you are hung up on the literal meaning of the words and refusing to consider them in context of the whole 2nd amendment.

[Hugh B]

I would say that you are hung up on the literal meaning of the words and refusing to consider them in context of the whole 2nd amendment.

Ok, so enlighten us. Tell us what those words mean in the context of the entire amendment.

[geerair]

The Second Amendment has hardly been addressed by the Supreme Court. It has not been defined and they know it.

You keep asserting this yet you refuse to acknowledge that the SCOTUS just examined and ruled on this very issue.