Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

"I don't find such an enumeration for gun control."

Then you'd be OK with someone buying a nuke?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms.

he explained this very clearly, I have no idea how you missed it

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

"I don't find such an enumeration for gun control."

Then you'd be OK with someone buying a nuke?

Jim.. the little loophole you are fixating on says nothing about the students not beating able to own weapons. They just can’t bring them to campus. They could store them at an outside residence, their family homestead or at a local armory, etc for safe keeping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

I would argue that Jefferson would never link the right secured by the federal 2nd Amendment with the arms restriction enforced on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

Why? The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws.

The argument that University of Virginia's weapons ban means Jefferson and Madison felt weapon bans were agreeable with the 2nd Amendment, is only extending the author's constitutional ignorance onto Madison and Jefferson.

We see the same disingenuous argument used by gun control supporters in reference to concealed weapon bans. Those statements only utter half of the doctrine; they proclaim loudly:

BANS ON CONCEALED WEAPONS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

But they never state the simple, unremarkable reason; the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on state or local law.

.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

The argument that University of Virginia's weapons ban means Jefferson and Madison felt weapon bans were agreeable with the 2nd Amendment, is only extending the author's constitutional ignorance onto Madison and Jefferson.

We see the same disingenuous argument used by gun control supporters in reference to concealed weapon bans. Those statements only utter half of the doctrine; they proclaim loudly:

BANS ON CONCEALED WEAPONS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

[/I].

.

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

As you so eloquently put it, what a crock.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period.

which means what? "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ....is somehow affected or diluted by that?

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

which means what? "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ....is somehow affected or diluted by that?

It places the right in context of the purpose.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

It places the right in context of the purpose.

You don't seem to know the purpose. Nor its context.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

It places the right in context of the purpose.

Actually you have stumbled over the truth but not in the way you intended . . .

SCOTUS has filtered the right to arms through the "object" of the 2nd Amendment -- the "why" the framers secured the right from government interference. That is of course to preserve the general militia concept, the political philosophy that the mass of private citizens having their personal, military useful arms in their hands, without regulation of law or permission of authorities, stands as a barrier to domestic tyrants and foreign invaders.

That intent has informed the Court on what types of arms are protected for possession and use by private citizen.

US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:

• In common use at the time and/or
• that constitute the ordinary military equipment / are usually employed in civilized warfare and/or
• that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession must be repelled or invalidated.

That protection criteria, based solely on how effective an arm is in killing people, demands that those types of arms known as "assault weapons" be recognized as fitting the protection criteria better than any other type of arm.

So, thanks for trying so hard to link the right to arms to a militia intent, it is the left's unending pressure to that end, that will preserve those weapons in private hands.


.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

Jim, at the time that the university ban was crafted, it was understood that the second amendment restricted only the federal government. As ReelinRod said "The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws." Which "necessarily means," as you put it, that the Second Amendment was absolute vis a vis the federal government, not for the States. Therefor Jefferson and Madison would not have objected to the university ban, but they would have objected to a federal government ban. That is a huge difference. What is being called for by present day gun controllers are federal bans.

Since Madison's and Jefferson's time, the federal government has snuck its foot into state territory and is now having some say in the matter. That's why I avoided the States Rights issue and explained the matter in terms of Constitutional congruity. But I see now, as is your wont to do, when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, at the time that the university ban was crafted, it was understood that the second amendment restricted only the federal government. As ReelinRod said "The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws." Which "necessarily means," as you put it, that the Second Amendment was absolute vis a vis the federal government, not for the States. Therefor Jefferson and Madison would not have objected to the university ban, but they would have objected to a federal government ban. That is a huge difference. What is being called for by present day gun controllers are federal bans.

Since Madison's and Jefferson's time, the federal government has snuck its foot into state territory and is now having some say in the matter. That's why I avoided the States Rights issue and explained the matter in terms of Constitutional congruity. But I see now, as is your wont to do, when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you.

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? The United States Constitution did not apply to the states? States were free to violate the constitution as they saw fit? I majored in math, not history, but that doesn't sound right at all. You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?

"when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you"

Not so. I asked a question for the specific purpose of continuing the conversation. The supremacy clause is in the original draft of the constitution, I think, Article 6. It says pretty clearly that the US Constitution is the law of the land, "and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."

That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.

We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? . . . You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?

Correct, the Bill of Rights did not have any weight on state law. This fact is what made the 14th Amendment necessary. After the Civil War, the Southern States enacted and enforced with brutality the Black Codes which forbade Blacks from owning arms. The "official" state militias were the enforcers of these laws and violated the rights of Freemen to the point that the 39th Congress disbanded the militias of several states. Of course, the violence continued; the militia members just put on hoods and continued harassing and killing Freemen.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to finally enforce the federal amendments on the states and the right to arms was a primary reason.

Of course this was frustrated by the Supreme Court in 1873 where it gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This only left "due process" and "equal protection" as the mechanism to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.

This begat the "Selective Incorporation" doctrine because each claim of rights injury had to be painstakingly examined and the resulting decisions narrowly applied certain clauses of the 1st or the 4th or the 5th Amendments over many decades . . . The 2nd Amendment was not applied to the states -- "incorporated" against state law -- until 2010.

What's that saying? Justice delayed is justice denied. . .

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.

The doctrines of supremacy and preemption cover conflicts in claims of power.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

The right to arms has exactly the same kinds of "restrictions" . . . One can't brandish or threaten the use of a weapon, one can't shoot at someone without justification, one can not kill another person without justification.

Gun controllers are arguing for a much different "restriction" schedule to be pressed for guns . . . Broad proscriptions on simple ownership, registration with the government to exercise a right including licensing. Enacting bans on certain types of commonly owned arms and endorsing absolute bans on all operable guns based on geography.

Your equivalency fails, to put the kind of restrictions you want for guns on any other right would be laughed off as prior restraint.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Correct, the Bill of Rights did not have any weight on state law. This fact is what made the 14th Amendment necessary. After the Civil War, the Southern States enacted and enforced with brutality the Black Codes which forbade Blacks from owning arms. The "official" state militias were the enforcers of these laws and violated the rights of Freemen to the point that the 39th Congress disbanded the militias of several states. Of course, the violence continued; the militia members just put on hoods and continued harassing and killing Freemen.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to finally enforce the federal amendments on the states and the right to arms was a primary reason.

Of course this was frustrated by the Supreme Court in 1873 where it gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This only left "due process" and "equal protection" as the mechanism to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.

This begat the "Selective Incorporation" doctrine because each claim of rights injury had to be painstakingly examined and the resulting decisions narrowly applied certain clauses of the 1st or the 4th or the 5th Amendments over many decades . . . The 2nd Amendment was not applied to the states -- "incorporated" against state law -- until 2010.

What's that saying? Justice delayed is justice denied. . .




The doctrines of supremacy and preemption cover conflicts in claims of power.



The right to arms has exactly the same kinds of "restrictions" . . . One can't brandish or threaten the use of a weapon, one can't shoot at someone without justification, one can not kill another person without justification.

Gun controllers are arguing for a much different "restriction" schedule to be pressed for guns . . . Broad proscriptions on simple ownership, registration with the government to exercise a right including licensing. Enacting bans on certain types of commonly owned arms and endorsing absolute bans on all operable guns based on geography.

Your equivalency fails, to put the kind of restrictions you want for guns on any other right would be laughed off as prior restraint.

"The right to arms has exactly the same kinds of "restrictions" . . . One can't brandish or threaten the use of a weapon, one can't shoot at someone without justification, one can not kill another person without justification."

I don't think that's exactly true. Again, when some of the founding fathers were on the board of governors at the University Of Virginia, they passed a rule saying no guns were allowed on campus. They didn't say you could have a gun as long as you weren't threatening someone...they said you could not possess a gun on campus at all. The founding fathers apparently did not believe that such a ban was a violation of the second amendment.

I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do?

making my hair hurt

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

making my hair hurt

Scott, the supremacy clause, very clearly limits what states can do. States may not pass a law which violates the US Constitution.

I get what detbuch is saying about a list of enumerated powers to the feds, and all else goes to the states. I'm not disputing that.

All I am saying, is that there are limits to the freedoms in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

for this to be a valid comparison you'd have to take away the vocal cords and cameras....get it?