Gun Confiscation

[geerair]

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

I'll let Scalia words speak for me. "Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was NOT a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

[scrogdog]

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.

Absolutely. However that is going to work against you in this way; they will NEVER rule on the entire thing for the exact reason that you state.

However, it is interesting to note that the Heller case in fact DID legally define some of that language.

That's how it works. Limited scope rulings that build on past decisions.

The Heller case is quite important, even historic, in that regard. Other rulings will be affected by those definitions.

[scrogdog]

I'll let Scalia words speak for me. "Like most rights, the right secured by the second amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was NOT a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Right. Exactly.

A line has to be drawn somewhere and that is what this is about. Not disarming citizens.

[wolfstrike]

Yawn.

Just another gun range lawyer who knows less about the second amendment and Supreme Court rulings on this issue than your run of the mill room temperature IQ tea bagger.

what we need is more great wisdom about how the phrase "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means people CAN'T own guns

[scrogdog]

what we need is more great wisdom about how the phrase "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" means people CAN'T own guns

Who said people can't own guns? If you own 5 different guns and I take one away, you still own guns.

[wolfstrike]

1. Municipalities or states for that matter do not decide on the constituionality of federal law.

bullsht
it's the job of every citizen to judge whether or not a law is uncostitutional and do everything within their power to correct a perverse law.
according to James Madison, the President is the last safe-guard in case the government fails, which means, the President has the power to strike down (not uphold) any unconstitutional law aprroved by government or the Supreme Court.

2. Federal law is the supreme law of the United States and supersedes local and state law.

when the Constitution was written, the Federal courts needed approval from the states to interfere with laws.
it was only unconstitutional Civil War era politics that said everyone has to do what the feds say.
if you agree with Civil War era policy, then their own words say they will enforce the Bill of Rights in the states, which means it is the job of the Federal government to make sure everyone has unrestricted gun ownership.
the federal government was never given authority or a police force to ever do anything like confiscate guns.

The problem with the 10th is that it is not well written, in my opinion, and is open to broad interpretation.

the 10th is only unclear to people who want it to be unclear.

this goes back as far as Justice Marshall in the 1800's

justice Mashall was a Federalist who didn't like the way politics going and spent his time undermining the constitution and grabbing power for the Supreme Court that was never awarded to it.

the constitution needs to be restored and the influence of Justice Marshall should be removed from our history.

Since the Supreme Court has consistenly held that the federal government has the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms, that would make the 10th amendment, in this case, irrelevent, a moot point.,

who cares?
the ruling of the Supreme Court is unconstitutional

I expect you forgot that just recently the Supreme Court found that Obamacare was constitutional. As such it is the supreme law of the land and trumps state law.

you're using one pervert to justify another one

Kinda jumping the gun as no AWB has been passed into law but again the feds have the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms.

show me in the U.S. Constitution where it says that.

True, but like all rights, the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. Governments have the constitutional power to regulate/restrict firearms.

the text of the Second Amendment gives any citizen the right to own what ever they can buy.

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.

because lawyers and politician aren't doing there job, and most don't know or care what their job is.

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.

good.
that means we need people far more conservative on the Supreme Court than Scalia

Heller case

according to Civil War era policy, it is now the job of the Supreme Court to ENFORCE the Bill of Rights in the states, which means every time a state passes an anti-gun law, it's the job of the Supreme Court to over-rule them.
what the Supreme Court did in the Heller case was dismiss their responsibility to enforce the Second Amendment.

[jpsmith1cm]

Who said people can't own guns? If you own 5 different guns and I take one away, you still own guns.

Why do we jump on tragedies like Newtown and Aurora and use these to punish or restrict the millions of people who DIDN'T DO IT?

[scrogdog]

Why do we jump on tragedies like Newtown and Aurora and use these to punish or restrict the millions of people who DIDN'T DO IT?

Listen, I don't think that owning one of those weapons makes you a bad person.

Again, I will simply define this discussion; no one in thier right mind would suggest that any citizen should have the right to own a nuclear weapon. Thus, it is clear that there is a line to be drawn. Nothing more. Don't make it in to more than that, because if the Feds ever make it more than that, then all of a sudden and just like that I'm on your side.

I'm not sure that you guys realize that there are moderates on this issue and that the dynamic changes considerably when it becomes something more than I beleive it to currently be.

[jpsmith1cm]

Yet, many people in government today are doing exactly that.

Assault weapons bans, assault BULLETS, now for crying out loud.

Assault EVERYTHING and it plays great on TV while you're surrounded by little kids who wrote letters.

And, in the entire argument, the biggest casualties and the ones that aren't reported are truth and freedom.

[scrogdog]

bullsht
it's the job of every citizen to judge whether or not a law is uncostitutional and do everything within their power to correct a perverse law.
according to James Madison, the President is the last safe-guard in case the government fails, which means, the President has the power to strike down (not uphold) any unconstitutional law aprroved by government or the Supreme Court.

Are you suggesting that such a measure will pass without broad popular support century old politics notwithstanding?

Gotta heartily and earnestly disagree with you on this. This measure will need broad popular support.

As for the language of the tenth, not only do most constitutional scholars that I've read disagree, but the intentional ambiguity of constitutional law was addressed as far back the federalist papers if I am not mistaken and if you want to go all archaic on us.

Even Lincoln said in the civil war days that the constitution was always open to interpretation. We know yours I think.

[scrogdog]

Yet, many people in government today are doing exactly that.

Assault weapons bans, assault BULLETS, now for crying out loud.

Assault EVERYTHING and it plays great on TV while you're surrounded by little kids who wrote letters.

And, in the entire argument, the biggest casualties and the ones that aren't reported are truth and freedom.

Honest question; not trying to be a jerk here.

What bad things happen in your life if all you've just mentioned is banned?

[jmac00]

Honest question; not trying to be a jerk here.

What bad things happen in your life if all you've just mentioned is banned?

I'd probably be either in the hospital or to scared to leave the house.

[jpsmith1cm]

Honest question; not trying to be a jerk here.

What bad things happen in your life if all you've just mentioned is banned?

Nothing, because I'll simply disobey the laws.