Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/4/2001 7:51:57 AM EST
I just don't get it. The 2nd Amendment is very clear. It clearly states that my rights to keep and bear arms CAN NOT be infringed. Since any gun law is clearly infringing on my rights they are not constitutional. Creating laws stating that I can't have certain features on my rifle in infringing on my right to keep and bear arms as well as putting me at a disadvantage if I'm needed for a militia. Why isn't this cut and dry?
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 7:59:14 AM EST
i sit in court about 2 time a week and its never this clear cut...people dont read it that way ...some would say you could keep arms but not the ammo until your were getting ready to fight.... it pretty dumb i think lawyers and judges read to much into looking for loop holes and interprating laws to suit thier needs.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:06:37 AM EST
If I was writing the 2nd I would have a tough time making it any more clear. a) I can keep them (at my house in working order) b) I can bear them (carry them with me and use them) c) Not to be infringed (you can't do anything to change this right) So any law infringing on these rights is clearly unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:11:52 AM EST
yes but a high priced libral lawyer can say it dosnt say anything about ammo and sheeple will agree with him. its sick to live in a country where a mom will let little joey buy a rap cd talkin about crime. but get mad if the neighbors kid points a water pistol at her.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:15:45 AM EST
I can't believe Lawyers even try that. It doens't say ammo because all you needed was bullets and black powder, not to mention it is a given. What good are you to a militia if you don't have any bullets?
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:19:58 AM EST
No Kidding! What I think is worse are cocksuckers like Spike Lee who openly advocated assasinating Charlton Heston with a .44 magnum because he is president of the NRA. Of course it's okay for pricks like him to advocate killing people for their political beliefs but all us NRA members are a bunch of thugs and gun-toting psychos because we want to keep gun ownership legal.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:20:57 AM EST
Well, the reality is that the vast majority of gun laws in this country aren't normally enforced - for precisely this reason. For example, if they started taking lots of average gun owners to court for having folding telestocks on their AR-15s, the vast majority of judges and juries would see the idiocy (come on, a fixed and folding telestock are nearly the same thing, even to a complete gun neophyte) and before long, there goes the AW "evil features" bans. For this reason these laws are RARELY enforced, and when they are, it's to add charges to somebody who's already in a whole lot of trouble for more serious crimes (drug dealers, murderers), and even then in many cases the firearms charges are eventually dropped. Things like the "evil features" ban and the high cap ban don't exist because they think gun owners are criminals - they exist because they (meaning ATF and other involved agencies) know that legitimate gun owners are SO honest and law abiding that these rules will end up being self-policed. Look at all the condemnation anyone who suggests putting a pre-ban upper on a post-ban lower will get on AR15.com. Many people here (who don't possess preban guns) wouldn't even allow a pre-ban upper into their homes out of fear of violating the law. Yet (and I'm not advocating either way) please name for me the hundreds of people you know who are rotting in jail or even just had their firearms confiscated for the *sole reason* that they did something like that. Pretty hard to do. In other countries (Australia and England come to mind), gun owners' honesty was used to take their guns away. I'm not saying we should all start putting together full auto CAR-15s on post-ban receivers, which probably WOULD have the result of a big list of people sitting in jail. But it's just something to think about. We are our own worst enemy in many ways. Personally when I see a violation of many of the more clearly unenforceable firearms laws, I ignore it. It is not my duty to play ATF (and local and state LEOs - it is not your duty either when the law is in violation of the constitution) and I have no desire to follow in the footsteps of the Nazis, who ratted on their friends and parents.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:26:03 AM EST
Originally Posted By maelcum: Well, the reality is that the vast majority of gun laws in this country aren't normally enforced - for precisely this reason.
View Quote
Don't worry, under Project Exile and the current administration's promise of "zero tolerance strict enforcement of existing laws" this reality will change.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:31:09 AM EST
The government has decided that your Second Amendment rights aren't being infringed as you still have the right to own a gun. The gun laws exist because firearms are regulated through the interstate commerce law. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce, including banning certain items. That's why the judge in US vs. Emmerson asked how his shotgun sitting in his closet affected interstate commerce. The good news is the US Supreme Court has been tightening down on Congress using the interstate commerce law to pass certain restrictions. The latest had something to do with wetlands. The US Supreme Court has actually spanked Congress several times when they tried pass some gun laws, such as when they overturn the law that says no guns within 1,000 feet of a school.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:34:52 AM EST
Well, with regard to state laws, the problem lies in the fact that the US Supreme Court has never held the 2nd Amendment incorporated to the states through the 14th Amendment. I can't remember the name of the case offhand, but Justice Black argued for a "total incorporation" theory (that ALL the rights in the BoR were applicable to the states)- unfortunately Black lost and there has been selective incorporation ever since. Not that all rights in the BoR cannot be incorporated, but the Court is only going to do it one by one, if at all. Now with regard to federal legislation, you have to remember that no right is absolute. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre, and you can't engage in human sacrifice even if it is an integral part of your religion. There are limits to every right enumerated in the BoR. Gun legislation is no different. Usually enacted pursuant to the commerce power or the taxing power, so far gun legislation seems to be valid extentions of this power limiting the RKBA. Of course, there are limits to the extent of the power, but the Supreme Court in particular has been unwilling to hear cases in this arena to determine the exact limits. Cases before US District and Circuit Courts have been equally unwilling to reign in this power as valid applications of the commerce power. So yes, you have a RKBA, but just what "arms' you have a right to keep and bear is in question, as well as where and under what circumstances you can "keep" and "bear" them.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 8:41:13 AM EST
How can you enforce unconstitutional laws?
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 9:41:51 AM EST
I think what's being said is that the law isn't unconstitutional until a court says it is. And US federal courts have been pretty mum on the issue for quite a while. They haven't upheld the laws as valid, but they haven't struck them down yet either.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 10:26:07 AM EST
Originally Posted By GeoffM24: How can you enforce unconstitutional laws?
View Quote
Just like you uphold constitutional ones. The gov't has been doing it for years.
Link Posted: 6/4/2001 2:58:47 PM EST
becosuet he courts are loaded with people that dopnt c it that way and if u think that the repuclicans are our friends wake up please
Top Top