Guns in America and the Supreme Court Ruling

i think he hit it on the head

Awesome

I think that for the benefit of those whose dial-up connection doesn't allow good function with videos, some commentary as to the subject matter and views should be included with the post.

Art

Only one complaint with the dude on the video. The "reasonable restrictions" should be restricting the freedom of the violent felons and insane by keeping them in prison or an institution and not require the rest of us to prove we aren't one of them every time we wish to buy a new gun.

Woody

Perhaps we have allowed ourselves to become too "politically-correctified" to properly address the "reasonable restrictions" issue. There was a time not too long ago, when anyone, man, woman or child could walk into the local Ace Hardware and lay his/her money down and walk out with any gun on the rack. We didn't have mass shootings at the local high school then nor did we have governmental intrusion into every facet of our lives from pre-birth to post burial.
We - that's me, you, everyone who reads this and all the neighbors and relatives, have sat in the shade, sipping the kool-aid for the past seventy years. Now we (at least most of us) fully believe the nanny-state is the only entity qualified to protect us from "felons and mentally challenged individuals."
I can almost read the replies already: 'Times have changed. Society is different now.'
Those are the identical arguments voiced by the Feinsteins, Schumers and Kennedys of the world. If we can successfully shoot down their claims how can we then pick them up, dust them off and use them to our advantage? We can't. At least not honestly.
There's a guy down the street from me who's been in and out of jail half a dozen times in the last fifteen years. He originally got busted for using dope but most recently they raided him to shut down a manufacturing operation. I don't know or care if he has a gun, though he probably needs one worse than I do. I'm much more concerned that some of his customers might run over my cats. Actually, the worst traffic problems aren't generated by his customers but by the police when they decide to send in a SWAT unit to raid him.
Now, for those who might be wondering about my position with regard to NCIS, let me put it this way: I do not believe the government has any RIGHT to dictate who may or may not own guns. If the government assumes (or usurps) that POWER it must also provide protection to those it denies the right of self defense. Persons in State owned and operated facilities such as prisons should be protected by the State. If the State is unwilling to keep a person in a controlled environment where their safety can be assured that person must be allowed to defend him/herself if and when it becomes neccesary. If they misuse their defensive weapon to harm another person they need to be sent back to prison until they either learn their lesson or die of old age.

y'know oldfart .... that was just beautifully said.

By the way the guy in the video seemed to be right on the money for the most part. "There are some things that confront men more than dying..." Well put sir.

I thought it was ironic that someone talking so passionately about our 2A rights was so quick to jump to this conclusion:

"Reasonable restrictions - sure. If you have a criminal record or are mentally ill - of course - you have no business owning a gun - that's common sense."

Excellent video. I enjoyed watching it very much. Thanks for the link.

He responded to that ["reasonable restrictions"] in the comments box below.

Click to expand...

He did respond in part by saying a violent criminal history should disqualify someone from owning a firearm (rather than just any criminal history).

Perhaps he meant to imply that the same "reasonableness" should apply to those persons with mental illness. But he didn't say that. The term "mental illness" is FAR to broad too be bandied about lightly as a group of "others" that we are casually willing to subject to "reasonable restrictions."

Even those of us who are passionate about OUR 2A rights are sometimes perfectly willing to allow other's rights to be infringed. I am guilty of that myself to a certain degree. By that I mean I'm not certain that "shall not be infringed" can be effectively interpreted as an absolute. Neither is Justice Scalia and many other 2A supporters and activists.

Of course there are those that believe a "little infringement" is like a "little pregnant". We do need to be careful about who's rights we are willing to sacrifice.

A big part of his premise is flawed... that 75% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right to the same degree as he does. SCOTUS has no legitimacy save for what the people give it, it has no ability to enforce except through the executive the people put in place, and though insulated from politics it is not immune to the pressures of the people. SCOTUS is nearly always a symptom and in the few cases it's the problem, it gets flipped and overturn as illegitimate by those avenues of pressure the people can exert.

The buck stops with you and me, not a public servant. They reflect what's already out there, but it's our job to change what that is... opinions, consensus, representation, legislation. To ask otherwise is to have SCOTUS rule by fiat which is more abhorrent to freedom than any legalese opinion about the 2nd.

75% of Americans believe the 2nd Amendment is an individual right

Click to expand...

From a Constitutional standpoint, it makes no difference what 75% of Americans believe one way or the other. The Supreme Court is supposed to interpret the law - not public opinion.

If you hunt hard enough in the Anti-Federalist Papers, you'll find that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights and wrote/supported the Second Amendment believed that the right to bear arms did not apply to "...those of unsound mind or of ill repute."

Allowing for the difference in word usage over the centuries, I have to assume they were referring to what we today call "adjudicated nutzoidal" and "felons".

IOW, the Second Amendment was not consdered a free and unfettered right for every person who was upright and breathing.

IOW, the Second Amendment was not consdered a free and unfettered right for every person who was upright and breathing.

Click to expand...

Then why was the Second Amendment written in such absolute terms? I would suggest that imprisonment would be sufficient to assuage those concerned about the violent felons and nutzoids, and not rely upon restrictions upon the right that must be overcome by every law abiding citizen who wished to exercise that right.

I sure wish you could post where you found that in the Anti-Fed Papers, Art.

Woody

Invoking the specter of John Allen Muhammad's just-for-kicks killing spree was unfortunate.

Then why was the Second Amendment written in such absolute terms? I would suggest that imprisonment would be sufficient to assuage those concerned about the violent felons and nutzoids, and not rely upon restrictions upon the right that must be overcome by every law abiding citizen who wished to exercise that right.

Click to expand...

As it assumed that under the law some subgroup of citizens, Felons and the criminally insane for example, do not share the same rights as a normal citizen. Just as say, children do not have the same rights as adults.

As it assumed that under the law some subgroup of citizens, Felons and the criminally insane for example, do not share the same rights as a normal citizen. Just as say, children do not have the same rights as adults.

Click to expand...

Assumed? I see nothing in the Constitution about assuming anything. I assume you assumed that such an assumption exists under the Constitution some where. How about showing where you found it.

Congress would have to usurp such a power to make such an assumption as there is no such power granted in the Constitution for Congress to assume anything.

Going back to the discussion surrounding what the Founding Fathers settled upon and wrote, then grabbing a snip-it from that discussion and interpolating it back into what they wrote is not an epexegesis. If the Founding Fathers wished for any such meaning to be derived from what they wrote, they would have included text to indicate it. If they discussed it and left it out, they obviously didn't want it in there at all.

I know of no other case in the Constitution that could be used as an example to allow any such assumptions.

Children have the same rights all of us do. While under guardianship, the guardian(s) are responsible for their behavior regarding any rights exercised by said minors. That said, minors can be charged with any crimes they commit like anyone else - though it certainly doesn't say much for the guardians(parents) who raised them.

Woody

Assumed under common law.

Children, Mentally Incompetent, and those of "Ill repute" do not have the full citizenship rights under common law.

Same thing with voting or other rights.

I know of no other case in the Constitution that could be used as an example to allow any such assumptions.

Click to expand...

Wasn't it assumed under the Constitution - without specifying it - that women and slaves did not posses the same civil rights as white males? Just askin'.

If the answer to that question is yes, then it is possible to argue that it may have been assumed under the Constitution that criminals and the insane did not possess those same civil rights.

Most - if not all - of those assumptions are wrong. Some have been rectified. However, it seems likely most of those assumptions were in the minds of the framers.

But that's just my assumption.

Assumed under common law.

Click to expand...

Interesting theory in light of the fact that it was neither "common" or "law" until 200 years after the BOR was conceived.

Asumptions, Common Law, and Common Sense

rainbowbob said:

Wasn't it assumed under the Constitution - without specifying it - that women and slaves did not posses the same civil rights as white males? Just askin'.

Click to expand...

There is nothing in the Constitution to even suggest that as far as women and voting was concerned. All laws on who was allowed to vote were up to the several states until the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments forbade the Union and the several states to deny the vote to anyone on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; sex; or on account of age for anyone eighteen or older, respectively. Note that none of those amendments alter anything previously in the Constitution.

Slaves were an entirely different matter up until the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. But there was nothing assumed about the status of the slaves. They were considered to be held to service or labor according to state law and the Constitution provided authority for such persons to be returned to whom such service or labor was due if they escaped. I find it interesting that these slaves - never called such in the Constitution - were considered persons in spite of their condition of servitude.

Drgong said:

Assumed under common law.

Click to expand...

Common law is inferior to statutory law and most certainly inferior to constitution law. Everyone has the same rights, no exceptions. Some may not be trustworthy enough to exercise those rights and may be deprived their exercise of those rights by due process or their legal guardian(s). Those people are not lessor or inferior; just insane, criminal, or immature.

The only mention of "common law" in the Constitution is in the Sixth Amendment, and it deals with issues where a value of Twenty Dollars or more is involved. It's for things where there is no statute controlling an issue such as, "You dropped your anchor through my boat!" and the retort is, "You scratched my anchor!" You won't find a statute controlling such a dispute and a suit at common law may proceed to resolve the issue. "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them, then they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked" Deuteronomy 25:1-3

Don't confuse "common law" with things like "common characteristics" - things people have in common - or laws strictly for us commoners. It's more like common sense. We all know that the law trumps common sense. Gun control laws are a good example.

Woody

"I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this Union, founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood

There is nothing in the Constitution to even suggest that as far as women and voting was concerned.

Click to expand...

That is precisely my point. There is nothing in the constitution - and yet the assumption was clearly in place.

From A THR Primer on Courtesy

Posting links: Don't post a link to a news article and let it go at that. Please post the first paragraph or a summary of the article. That would help members decide if they want to go to the linked article for the remainder of the story.

Click to expand...