Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will ever rule in favor of our "Assault Rifles"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, yes they do know what they were thinking. The militia was the only defense the country had at that time. The militias were organized by the states. In effect they were the only army the country had. The militias were paid by the federal gov't as they were needed. Many people felt a standing federal army was too expensive and too dangerous to a new republic. They felt the same thing about a Navy until the war of 1812. The federal gov't didn't have a lot of money in those days like they have now.

I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this but 2A was to insure that the federal gov't could never restrict a state from raising an army from the civilian population. A guarantee that the federal gov't would never be more powerful than the states. To reinforce that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed by congress after the civil war to limit the powers of the fed using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the US.

2A was there to restrict the federal government's power over the people (states). It says just exactly that, .

Very ironic that it's mostly the states doing the restricting now with the fed being mostly hands off.

It is ironic that it is the states mostly doing the restricting. I guess that’s fine with me but if a state wants to raise its own standing army or be a pro 2A safe haven then they need to be equally hands off. Would they be if it came down to that?

The way I see it, by your reasoning is that the states do still have a right to raise their own army, but what happens if say Kansas doesn’t agree with what the rest of the country wants and they decide to secede from any federal control. I could totally see the US more or less blockading and bullying the state back into their control! Do you see where I am going with this? At that point, does the guard and any weapons that is in the state now belong to Kansas or the feds? Say Kansas ceded back all weapons that belonged to the US and wanted to buy their own. The feds could simply block all routes into the state and essentially keep them from setting up their own military. So, if you look at it like that, what’s the point of the individual state retaining such power if it cannot be effectively used? Obviously, the states on the coast would be a little better off in this example but it could still be done.

It would be much easier to control and bully a state than it would be an entire nations population. Does that make sense? So, while yes the state could raise its own army, does it really have the power to do so and be on a level playing field with the rest of the US? I mean realistically if you look on it as you have presented it’s almost an empty amendment. But put the control back into the entire citizenship of the nation then it’s not. Make sense?


Why do people have to agree and make a stand if a right is granted by God? Does God not defend the rights He grants? How is it that man has the power to revoke the rights granted by God, the rights enumerated by Jefferson? Perhaps we should stick to what we can control?

I think he does defend his rights that he grants and I think we are seeing a battle unfold as we speak. However, it is also a gift left to the people to defend. It’s kind of like his gift of free will. Yes, he will certainly try and tug and lead you down a certain path but he also gives us the power of free will. So, you can still take your own path right or wrong. Same thing applies here in my mind. While he grants the rights we must also try to manage to keep it much in the same way that we must try and continue to seek him when he calls. As far as I’m concerned, man cannot revoke the rights that God granted. That’s my entire point. Politicians like to play like they can but the way the Constitution is presented they really don’t have the ability to do so. The only reason they have tried to get away with it and have in some cases is because an ignorant base has allowed it. Many politicians have forgot that they serve us, not the other way around.

PS I don’t think any politicians can be controlled. I believe they can be bought but many seem to flip on a whim, just depends on the day. Don’t think that just because someone has consistently leaned a specific way that they want just one day flip. It happens, especially when money became involved.
 
Well, they have for a very long time and continue to do it. To now say that they can't is going to take a mighty powerful argument and a reversal of the status quo for about 200 years in this country.

I'm not saying you are wrong, just saying it isn't likely to come from a SC ruling.

I follow AA's line of reasoning here. Congress is going to do something to our RKBA soon. Probably in the form of changing NFA and requiring a stamp for semi-auto rifles. It happened once before with machine guns, it could easily happen again with semi-auto rifles. Not banned, just heavily restricted. If you own one you will have to register it and pay for a stamp. Otherwise you will be in possession of contraband.

I was making an argument based on "the plain meaning of the word." Sure, the courts might get it wrong --- even the Heller case is not a really 2A victory. I doubt Kongress will add semiautos to the NFA. Even if they do, original owners won't pay the tax, only register them; that's what happened to machinegun owners in the 1930s.

I think they're gonna do a lot of posturing for their electorate, if they pass anything it will bog down in the senate. As the power structure stands there, better hope rino senators don't go squishy.
 
Well, yes they do know what they were thinking. The militia was the only defense the country had at that time. The militias were organized by the states. In effect they were the only army the country had. The militias were paid by the federal gov't as they were needed. Many people felt a standing federal army was too expensive and too dangerous to a new republic. They felt the same thing about a Navy until the war of 1812. The federal gov't didn't have a lot of money in those days like they have now.

I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this but 2A was to insure that the federal gov't could never restrict a state from raising an army from the civilian population. A guarantee that the federal gov't would never be more powerful than the states. To reinforce that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed by congress after the civil war to limit the powers of the fed using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the US.

2A was there to restrict the federal government's power over the people (states). It says just exactly that, .

Very ironic that it's mostly the states doing the restricting now with the fed being mostly hands off.

The second amendment' mention of "free state" meant the same as "free condition." State was not capitalized.
 
I think they're gonna do a lot of posturing for their electorate, if they pass anything it will bog down in the senate. As the power structure stands there, better hope rino senators don't go squishy.
I believe the Democrats will pass a gun bill in the House in 2019, as a "marker" for the next election. Then, if they can flip 3 Senate seats (as well as obviously the White House) in 2020, we will see a federal AWB for sure in 2021. That is why this discussion of the Supreme Court is not moot.
 
I believe the Democrats will pass a gun bill in the House in 2019, as a "marker" for the next election. Then, if they can flip 3 Senate seats (as well as obviously the White House) in 2020, we will see a federal AWB for sure in 2021.
Maybe .... the next 2 years will be critical.

What I would fear more than just a ban would be confiscation. I don't like sounding selfish ..... but I have pretty much what I need.
 
I believe the Democrats will pass a gun bill in the House in 2019, as a "marker" for the next election. Then, if they can flip 3 Senate seats (as well as obviously the White House) in 2020, we will see a federal AWB for sure in 2021. That is why this discussion of the Supreme Court is not moot.
Not three Senate seats, 13 Senate seats.
 
The need for a populace to be armed and familiar with the use of their arms, so that they can serve as a militia when it becomes necessary to defend their freedoms, is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed upon by the government. I am very grateful for my Constitutional right to bear arms to defend myself and my state.

The only point of a government is to preserve the liberties and freedoms of its citizens.
 
Will they ever rule in a way that 80% of we "gun people" will ever agree is a 'win'?

Probably not.

That's equal parts from the fact that the anti legislators are professionals at writing laws so that they cannot be overturned on simple constitutional bases. And, the fact that far too many of "our side" don't understand the above. Which is no slur on their understanding nor education nor inclination. It is that "we" expect Reasonable Person" simplicity from our laws and ordinances. And, our laws and ordinances must needs be more complicated than that.

The Supreme Court is functionally predicated on the finest nuances in our laws, the minute esoterica. Which can be 'irritating' when we see what are obvious to 'us' injustices.
As an example, one of the pending cases is one where there is an issue about whether incarcerated aliens can be released at the end of their sentence, or whether DHS/ICE must, instead, take immediate custody of the alien on release. This is a thorny issue as the operators of the jails are responsible to the courts who sentence the criminals, that they serve the directed time. The jailers are not at liberty to extend (nor to decrease) time served at the convenience of DHS/ICE.

It's deep and complicated, and very much the business of the SC.
 
We are NOT doing religion!
That will close the thread. Stay on the processes of the Court.
 
The way I see it, by your reasoning is that the states do still have a right to raise their own army, but what happens if say Kansas doesn’t agree with what the rest of the country wants and they decide to secede from any federal control. I could totally see the US more or less blockading and bullying the state back into their control!

That's what happened in the civil war. I'm pretty sure nobody wants that to happen again because it isn't in anyone's best interest. States don't agree with federal policy now on immigration and drug enforcement and lots of other stuff that goes to court.

You have to remember that when the constitution was written the states had all the money and the military, the fed had neither. Just the reverse now. The fed has stepped in to enforce federal policy recently, happened in Alabama in the 60's.

So the vision of the people who wrote the BOR didn't really come to pass as planned. I think they would all be horrified at how big and powerful the federal gov't is these days. I don't think they ever had that in mind.

The problem is the constitution keeps getting in the way of changes that the majority wants. The SC isn't going to rule against the constitution, but congress might just roll on over it like it isn't even there.
 
The need for a populace to be armed and familiar with the use of their arms, so that they can serve as a militia when it becomes necessary to defend their freedoms, is why the right of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed upon by the government. I am very grateful for my Constitutional right to bear arms to defend myself and my state.

The only point of a government is to preserve the liberties and freedoms of its citizens.

What country are you living in? :D
 
Here's the danger -- that the Supreme Court will grant a writ of certiorari in an AWB case (it only takes 4 justices to grant a writ), but then uphold the AWB after consideration by the full Court. It all boils down to Chief Justice Roberts. He's considered a "conservative" but he's also primarily concerned with the institutional standing of the Court. He doesn't want the Court to be embroiled in political controversies, or to get too far ahead of public opinion. (Ergo, his vote to uphold Obamacare.) I would bet that Roberts would side with the 4 liberal justices to uphold an AWB. This would be a worse outcome than no decision at all, since it would set a precedent. We need to wait until there is at least one more pro-2A justice.

That is why we all need to PRAY for RBG to realize that her health is more important and she should RETIRE NOW.
 
An unbalanced Supreme Court is the greatest threat to freedom that we face in America. 4 conservative justices, 4 liberal justices, and 1 swing justice is a formula which has worked well for us for a long time. We have lost that balance now and are at risk for tyrannical manipulation of our laws. Gun control is not the only important legal issue facing the USA. You can worry only about your guns, but there is real danger of other fundamental rights being lost, rights that would be better protected by liberal justices, not conservative ones. Justice Ginsberg has served this country with honor and dedication. You would be wise to appreciate her better.
 
Why didn't you bold and underline the part about the militia too. It isn’t there by accident.

Well, mostly because it wasn't relevant to the point I was highlighting. Regardless, the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that the 2nd Amendment describes an individual right to keep and bear arms, not one connected to military service. As such, whether or not I highlighted the word militia was even more irrelevant (reference: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).

An unbalanced Supreme Court is the greatest threat to freedom that we face in America. 4 conservative justices, 4 liberal justices, and 1 swing justice is a formula which has worked well for us for a long time. We have lost that balance now and are at risk for tyrannical manipulation of our laws. Gun control is not the only important legal issue facing the USA. You can worry only about your guns, but there is real danger of other fundamental rights being lost, rights that would be better protected by liberal justices, not conservative ones. Justice Ginsberg has served this country with honor and dedication. You would be wise to appreciate her better.

Did you show up to offer an opinion regarding the question I posed at the beginning of the thread, or just to argue about people who you believe are conservatives? I'd kind of like to keep this thread going, so if you could stay on-point here that would be appreciated!

I never said gun control is the only important issue before the courts, but seeing that we're having this debate on a gun forum where only topics related to guns are allowed, it's the only important topic for this particular discussion.
 
Not three Senate seats, 13 Senate seats.
No, for two reasons: (1) the Senate majority sets the rules at the beginning of each session, including the "nuclear option" of doing away with the filibuster altogether (as has already been done with court appointments), and (2) certain things can be done under the budget reconciliation procedure, which only requires a bare majority. Gun legislation can take the form of taxes (such as by expanding the scope of the NFA), which would qualify for budget reconciliation.
 
I'm not sure what aspect of my post generated your question, but both my country and my state have constitutions which are intended to protect my rights. I do not believe I've misstated the documents.

He was being sarcastic, making a funny, is in full agreement with you, but also is saying this is not how the country is being run. That’s why he made his question with a smiley face next to it. Yes, the country and states should be ran just like you pointed out, yet they are not.
 
Did you ever believe that the Supreme Court would ever rule that the 2nd Amendment protected (not granted) an individual right? I've had plenty of people tell me it NEVER would.

Those who prepare for defeat usually achieve it.
 
Probably in the form of changing NFA and requiring a stamp for semi-auto rifles.
And the compliance rate will be what... 1-2%?

And when the BATFE starts killing people over it?

Every time an anti-gunner suggests such a thing to me, I recommend that they watch "Michael Collins" and "Defiance" and rethink.
 
I think we have run the course of useful debate if we start to discuss such matters.
I am loathe to shut this down, but can we get back on the topic of the Court and let other things slide.
 
So, without attacking individual Justices for their percieved biases, or the two main opposing viewpoints that make up the Court, is it possible to take an emotionally-charged and intellectually-nuanced question like an AW ban and rule soley on the basis of law and precedent?

I've personally crossed the Rubicon in coming to guns from a liberal, urban, pacifist background. It took me 30 years of living in rural communities, befriending gunnies who patiently mentored me into shooting sports, and living long enough to mature into a more sophisticated and less knee jerk world view about guns and society. The only way I got here was becoming invested in guns as an owner and an experienced shooter.

Unlike any other experience or right guaranteed under the Constitution, guns empower the individual with an extreme power and responsibility seen as a threat by the uninitiated citizen. Therefore, how does a Court rule on something they have less than direct experience of when all the can consider is the abstract balance of Constitutional rights vs. the common good?
 
So, without attacking individual Justices for their percieved biases, or the two main opposing viewpoints that make up the Court, is it possible to take an emotionally-charged and intellectually-nuanced question like an AW ban and rule soley on the basis of law and precedent?

I've personally crossed the Rubicon in coming to guns from a liberal, urban, pacifist background. It took me 30 years of living in rural communities, befriending gunnies who patiently mentored me into shooting sports, and living long enough to mature into a more sophisticated and less knee jerk world view about guns and society. The only way I got here was becoming invested in guns as an owner and an experienced shooter.

Unlike any other experience or right guaranteed under the Constitution, guns empower the individual with an extreme power and responsibility seen as a threat by the uninitiated citizen. Therefore, how does a Court rule on something they have less than direct experience of when all the can consider is the abstract balance of Constitutional rights vs. the common good?
Very well said. A well reasoned position.
 
So, without attacking individual Justices for their percieved biases, or the two main opposing viewpoints that make up the Court, is it possible to take an emotionally-charged and intellectually-nuanced question like an AW ban and rule soley on the basis of law and precedent?

I've personally crossed the Rubicon in coming to guns from a liberal, urban, pacifist background. It took me 30 years of living in rural communities, befriending gunnies who patiently mentored me into shooting sports, and living long enough to mature into a more sophisticated and less knee jerk world view about guns and society. The only way I got here was becoming invested in guns as an owner and an experienced shooter.

Unlike any other experience or right guaranteed under the Constitution, guns empower the individual with an extreme power and responsibility seen as a threat by the uninitiated citizen. Therefore, how does a Court rule on something they have less than direct experience of when all the can consider is the abstract balance of Constitutional rights vs. the common good?

I'd contend that freedom of speech, ultimately, is more powerful than freedom to own a gun. There's a reason the Soviet Union used to register typewriters.

Larry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top