It's been a while since I'd been on here. I joined this website to ask some technical questions and when they were answered, I hadn't come back... until now... I was hoping someone might have picked up this argument so OTHER frank doesn't actually think he's right about this because he is WRONG!
First off , let me say, it's NOT about my opinion and I never claimed it to be. The reality is, the system which the Founding Fathers put in place is NOT being followed the way it is supposed to! Judges routinely rule with logic that has nothing to do with the constitution. It's basically like adultery against the constitution!
You wrote a lot to make it look like you are saying something... but the examples you gave are irrelevant!
Hylton v. United States... is about taxes, NOT gun rights
McCulloch v. Maryland... is about taxes and banking, Not gun rights
Marbury v. Madison... Doesn't touch on the issue of gun rights at all. It gets into how the system is organized, but that doesn't mean much when those judges are ruling based on ideas OTHER than the constitution. I am not knocking the system. Just the unconstitutional REASONING judges often use in these processes. When they use the system in order to justify unconstitutional rulings, the system, no matter how good it was set up, becomes a SCAM!
I'll give YOU an example... Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She wet through all the processes to become a judge, did everything expected. But I think you know DARN WELL that her decisions are based on almost ANYTHING BUT the constitution or the Bill of Rights! There's usually 2 judicial "opinions", but usually only ONE can be right by the constitution (regardless of consensus) . Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinions are usually based on left-wing ideology. there are A LOT of judges like that and they don't necessarily have to be left-wing.
So, as the Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution, if there is disagreement about whether a law is constitutional, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178):
...And they found a way to circumvent that by politicizing judges. Over time, they threw enough money at the system and worked from "behind the scenes" and got what they wanted. Now it mostly just serves to put on a show to get us to accept whatever they are going to do. It's a SCAM
Honestly.... let me give you some court examples... And please, remember, I am not taking sides with this example and it's REALLY controversial, so let's not get sidetracked on the issue... but how it radically changed.
How on Earth can you go from:
Pace v. Alabama to
Loving v. Virginia?
First of all, for a unanimous decision to be challenged, going through ALL THOSE CIRCUITS, during a time when popular opinion was 90% for the status quo, is unusual enough. But for it to be UNANIMOUSLY OVERTURNED... with a KKK member on the bench (Hugo Black) is comical.
When Hugo Black was asked about his KKK past, he made it noted that he disassociated himself with them before he got into the senate... I suppose people can change... but is this the type of turbulence we should rely on to make such decisions?
Later in life, he said of it:
"I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."
That is the type of person he is.
A fake. A little snot-nose who decided that he wanted some authority when he grow'd up, so he worked for it. And the oblivious masses praised him for his self-serving achievements.
Franklin D. Roosevelt handpicked psychopaths who would do whatever he needed them to do. Hugo Black was just one of them and it go's much deeper than FDR.
For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion against laws that abridge those rights we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:
Okay. let's...
Laws prohibiting such things as false advertising, fraud or misrepresentation, as well as laws requiring certain disclosures in connection with various transactions, would absolutely survive a challenge to their validity on Constitutional grounds even though such laws do impinge on the freedom of speech. Among other things, such laws serve compelling state interests related to promoting honest business and helping to preserve the integrity of commercial transactions. They tend to be only as broad as necessary to serve that function.
The function of the second Amendment is: "Power to the people." The people are never meant to be at a tactical disadvantage against authority. Laws are supposed to be enforced by the community. Therefore, gun control should be irrelevant.
One criminal, with a gun equal to everyone else's, can't really out-gun a crowd.
If ever the majority of the common man becomes pitted against authority, the authority might just be in the wrong. Authority is supposed to be a community effort. It is not supposed to asserted on the community.
If you take a type weapon away from civilians, because it is too dangerous, then it's too dangerous for the police who patrol the civilians of that community. Otherwise, you break the balance of power between people and authority, thus sabotaging the function of the Second Amendment.
If you are offering securities or certain other types of investments to the public, your written solicitation materials will have to first be approved prior to use by one or more regulatory agencies. If you are selling medicines in interstate commerce, your labeling will have to be approved in advance by the FDA, and you will have to have demonstrated, through hard, scientific data, that any claims or representations made are true. These are also laws that abridge freedom of speech, and yet they are regularly enforced.
That sounds like an argument an anti-gun troll would use. IT'S NOT COMPARABLE!!!! Selling lies is not "free speech", It's like stealing... so nice try... It honestly makes me wonder why you'd even be on a site like this, with THAT argument... Seriously.
- Laws respecting the time, place and manner of speech or assembly have also survived Constitutional challenges. Thus a municipality may require that organizers obtain a permit in order to hold an assembly or a parade and may prohibit such activities during, for example, the very early morning hours. Such regulations would be permitted only to the extent necessary to serve the compelling state interest of protecting public health and safety. Any such regulations, to be constitutionally permissible, could not consider the content of the speech or assembly; and they would need to be applied in an even handed manner based on set guidelines and not subject to the discretion of a public official. See, for example:
- Hill v Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000), in which the Court, in upholding a Colorado law restricting protesting, educational or counseling activities within 100 feet of the entrance to a health facility, noted:
That's NOT a good example because it's more of a "when and where" situation. That would be like how you typically aren't allowed to bring a gun into a courtroom. but this post is NOT about getting into "when and where's", which may have their own valid arguments.
This post is however, about gun laws that prohibit or limit what common people can have in MOST ANY time and place; and how the balance of power between authority is the intent of the Second Amendment. And with that being said, you CAN NOT limit one and not the other and maintain the intended balance.
- Santa Monica Food Not Bombs v. Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir., 2006) in which the court upheld a Santa Monica ordinance requiring a permit for public assemblies. In fact in Santa Monica Food Not Bombs the court specifically acknowledges that the ordinance may burden the protected right, noting, at pg 1038:
In the leading case on prior restraint (Near v. State of Minnesota Olson, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S.Ct. 625, 75 L.Ed. 1357 (1931)) the Court in striking down a Minnesota statute allowing for the abatement, as a public nuisance, of malicious, scandalous and defamatory news analyzed in considerable detail and depth the scope and extent of the infringement of the freedom of press, the interests served and the availability of other and narrower remedies. And the Court then reached the conclusion that the statute went too far to be a permissible regulation.
But nonetheless the Court also noted that certain interests, under certain circumstances would justify even prior restraint (Near, 283 U. S. 657, at 715 - 716):
Honestly. I don't know about every decision. I'm sure you can throw me hundreds of examples that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment and try to draw some nonexistent conclusion.
The only "free speech" violations to point out, that would compare to gun control, would be "hate speech" laws. But that is something which happens in countries that don't have a Bill of Rights like we do... But it has been talked about here... maybe if it happens, you can post a bunch of other court cases to try to justify that hypothetical violation to the constitution... and pretend that a good legal "opinion" makes it ok. I'm sure that will make you (and others) feel better about the "system" so you can keep some distorted sense of faith in it.
In the past, laws prohibiting polygamy have been upheld against challenges that they violate the right to free exercise of religion (Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333, 10 S.Ct. 299, 33 L.Ed. 637 (1890)).
You know what? I'm not sure how I feel about "freedom of religion". So you're kind of barking up the wrong tree about that issue. I feel like some religions can have negative influences on people's sanity, and I feel that religions often take advantage of people...
However, that's how I
feel about some religions. I don't necessarily advocate those feelings. Politicians aren't really supposed to advocate feelings (not that they have any). Politicians are only supposed to advocate the constitution!
Gun control is a VERY feely issue. You have positive feelings from guns like: feeling
safe, guns are
awesome works of engineering, guns are
liberating or guns are
fun to shoot. But you also have people with negative feelings about guns: Guns are
scary, guns cause
sadness, guns cause
regret, guns cause the loss of people's loved ones...
So yeah... very feely indeed. However, politicians and judges are supposed to put feelings like that aside, that's their job! Instead, they often manipulate and use feelings to their advantage. That's fine for some issues. Some issues and feelings can be indifferent to the constitution...
BUT THEY SHOULD NEVER USE FEELINGS AGAINST THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO GET VOTES!!!!! ...And that's basically what motivates gun control. The masses of anti-gun people are about feelings... the rest are the fiendish leaders who take advantage of those feelings in people.
The level of scrutiny between "rational basis" and "strict scrutiny" is "intermediate scrutiny." To satisfy the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way substantially related to that interest.
Again, It's about
balance of power between common people and authority.
Since you brought it up, let's talk about scrutiny. I don't think an individual should be able to own nuclear or chemical weapons...
And neither should police!
Same go's for guns. If it's too dangerous for use
BY civilians, it's too dangerous for police to use
ON civilians! You are a Stockholm syndrome'd masochist if you are a civilian who think that's ok... And you are a HOSTILE TYRANT if you are a policeman, politician or judge who thinks that's ok... There's no hiding behind "it's just my opinion" when having a hostile opinion like that, which CLEARLY go's against our
supposed guaranteed rights!
Whichever level of scrutiny may apply, the government, state or federal, seeking to have the regulation sustained will have the burden of convincing a court (and in some cases, ultimately the Supreme Court) that the regulation is acceptable under the applicable level of scrutiny.
No. It's like finding a perfect square and a perfect circle... you can clearly see the difference between the two... but then you STILL you go to through the courts so they can officially decide what a square and a circle is... that's my impression of taking the second amendment to court.
It says right there in the Bill of Rights, that I have the right... There is no reason that would be going to court, other than to give authority a chance to re-neg. Our answer to them should be a steadfast "Folk you! we already know our rights. We are NOT going to ask permission on our established rights!"
Even if gun control were a good idea... it would ONLY be a good idea IN SPITE of the constitution. I DON'T need a judge to tell me that!
I am not claiming to be an expert on the entire constitution, but I do know the the part of the constitution that the common man was meant to understand. What he is entitled to; the Bill of Rights.