TOADMAN
Member
IIRC, there are nearly 20,000 gun laws in the US...
Are US Gun Laws Un-constitutional?
- Thread starter TOADMAN
- Start date
- Status
WuzYoungOnceToo
member
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 225
Accurate answer? Some are, some aren't. Many are debatable.
Yes !!! But it takes Big Money to Challenge them.. The 2nd is Clear !!
Right to bear arms....But some C***S*** liberals have Changed them!!
The Framers knew this would happen that's why they wrote the 2nd that
way...
We should not forget that the spark witch ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the Firearms of the
Colonists.... April 19 1775......Echo...out
Right to bear arms....But some C***S*** liberals have Changed them!!
The Framers knew this would happen that's why they wrote the 2nd that
way...
We should not forget that the spark witch ignited the American Revolution was caused by the British attempt to confiscate the Firearms of the
Colonists.... April 19 1775......Echo...out
Jack A. Sol
member
yes.
MudPuppy
Member
Yes.
The constitution is largely ignored by the politicians, from the 1st (congress shall make no law...yet continues to interfere in school prayer and many other religious considerations) to the 2nd, to wiretaps to imminent domain and perhaps the most often abused, the 10th (if the constitution doesn't explicitly grant the feds the right to do something, then it's a state right).
The Soviets had a wonderful, freedom embracing constitution too--it meant about as much as ours does now.
The constitution is largely ignored by the politicians, from the 1st (congress shall make no law...yet continues to interfere in school prayer and many other religious considerations) to the 2nd, to wiretaps to imminent domain and perhaps the most often abused, the 10th (if the constitution doesn't explicitly grant the feds the right to do something, then it's a state right).
The Soviets had a wonderful, freedom embracing constitution too--it meant about as much as ours does now.
Yes but from what I read so is income tax. Several other's probably are too. We now have simple words we cannot say and I hear no uproar over free speech about it. Some are maybe good some are not.
Like it or not they are laws and upheld. I don't care for the consequences so I obey like a good serf should.
Like it or not they are laws and upheld. I don't care for the consequences so I obey like a good serf should.
Mr.V.
Member
E20thLRP said:
Riiiight...only liberals are to blame. They never got any major assistance from revered conservatives like Ronald "The Greatest President" Reagan...
oh wait...
Mr.V.
Member
eliphalet said:
So the income tax is unconstitutional?
16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America said:
Now if you want to argue that the Amendment is wrong, unfair, unjust, not in the spirit of American productivity, etc etc go right ahead. But it's a bit of logical irony to say the constitution is unconstitutional.
glockman19
Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2007
- Messages
- 3,700
Agreed.
tasco 74
Member
YES!..
Anteater1717
Member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2006
- Messages
- 586
Most are!!!
SoCalShooter
Member
Short answer: yes
My answer: Mostly yes
As I am sure many other gun owners do not want mentally handicapped or defective people to own guns or felons. But thats my opinion.
My answer: Mostly yes
As I am sure many other gun owners do not want mentally handicapped or defective people to own guns or felons. But thats my opinion.
Gunnerpalace
Member
Uhhh.........................YES!
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Laws that do not infringe the right of the people to both keep and bear arms would be constitutional.
Since most gun control laws have infringement as their express goal, few would pass muster.
I'm sure maybe some examples might could be found.
Since most gun control laws have infringement as their express goal, few would pass muster.
I'm sure maybe some examples might could be found.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
A law that says you cannot fire your gun in the middle of downtown unless in self defense is not unconstitutional. Laws that prohibit brandishing except in self defense or handling your gun in a threatening or unsafe manner would not be unconstitutional. Laws can be written that govern some of the uses of guns. No law can be written that infringes upon buying, keeping, storing, carrying, limiting caliber, limiting capacity, limiting quantity, limiting action, or any other act that would infringe upon the keeping or bearing of arms. That is the truth and simple reality of the limits placed upon government by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. B.E.Wood
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. Governments come and go, but your rights live on. If you wish to survive government, you must protect with jealous resolve all the powers that come with your rights - especially with the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Without the power of those arms, you will perish with that government - or at its hand. B.E. Wood
yesit'sloaded
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,662
Limiting firearms and punishing dangerous behavior with firearms are two different things as mentioned earlier. Giving mentally ill individuals firearms is about as prudent as giving them a hand grenade or asking a blind person to drive you to the bank. Ownership should not be limited at all, behavior with those weapons can be if it passes the "reasonable man" test. An example of this would be no shooting in the air, at houses, walking around town with your finger in the trigger guard of a loaded gun. I'm not into the whole gun safety law thing. I would think that the love of your child would be a good enough incentive to keep your guns put away until they are old enough to be educated on how to use them.
Are US Gun Laws Constitutional?
Constitutional???
CONSTITUTIONAL???
Constitutional stopped mattering years ago but the knotheads in the SCOTUS made it official with their support of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and the Kelo decision.
They seem more interested in not rocking the boat and making decisions in favor of government over the people than making decisions in accordance with what the constitution actually says and what the writers of it meant when they wrote it. Their extremely broad interpretation of the Commerce clause has made it possible for congress to control almost every conceivable aspect of our lives and write the states and local communities out of the governing process for all but the most minor of affairs.
Constitutional???
CONSTITUTIONAL???
ROFLMFAO!!
Constitutional stopped mattering years ago but the knotheads in the SCOTUS made it official with their support of McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform and the Kelo decision.
They seem more interested in not rocking the boat and making decisions in favor of government over the people than making decisions in accordance with what the constitution actually says and what the writers of it meant when they wrote it. Their extremely broad interpretation of the Commerce clause has made it possible for congress to control almost every conceivable aspect of our lives and write the states and local communities out of the governing process for all but the most minor of affairs.
hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
IMO, federal gun laws are generally unconstitutional, while State gun laws are generally constitutional.
Frog48
Member
Yes, I believe they are unconstitutional.
Regolith
Member
As ConstitutionCowboy pointed out with his quotes, laws that regulate the dangerous use of firearms (i.e. shooting in crowded or congested areas, threatening, etc) can and should be considered constitutional.
Laws that prohibit who can own and what we can own, are not.
Laws that prohibit who can own and what we can own, are not.
Nolo
Member
The best way to figure out if something's Constitutional or not is to read the Constitution. Constitutionality falls into four basic categories:
1): Constitutional. The U.S. Constitution says it's "O.K.".
2): Debated. The U.S. Constitution contradicts itself several times, so laws in those areas are in this category.
3): Not Mentioned. The Constitution does not say anything about parking permits in Baltimore (unlike the Maryland Constitution, mind you... I'm not kidding), so they would go here.
4): Unconstitutional. The Constitution expressly forbids it.
Funnily enough, the "keep and bear arms" clause is one of the more prominent areas where the Constitution expressly forbids infringement ("shall not be infringed").
So, in an echo, yes, they are all pretty much unconstitutional.
1): Constitutional. The U.S. Constitution says it's "O.K.".
2): Debated. The U.S. Constitution contradicts itself several times, so laws in those areas are in this category.
3): Not Mentioned. The Constitution does not say anything about parking permits in Baltimore (unlike the Maryland Constitution, mind you... I'm not kidding), so they would go here.
4): Unconstitutional. The Constitution expressly forbids it.
Funnily enough, the "keep and bear arms" clause is one of the more prominent areas where the Constitution expressly forbids infringement ("shall not be infringed").
So, in an echo, yes, they are all pretty much unconstitutional.
MudPuppy
Member
Respectfully, this is wrong.
Look at the wording--the parts of the constitution that say "Congress shall make no laws concerning..." mean that the states can. The 2nd it clear--"shall not be infringed". The states individually could make laws requiring school prayer and not be unconsitutional, but no body--federal, state, or local--can infringe the right. It can regulate, but not infringe.
And if we, as a society, believe that any part of the constitution should be changed, it is a thing of beauty and allows for that--when we ignore it and pass laws in conflict or violation, no matter how much we feel its for the good of all, it is so very, very counterproductive because it diminishes our freedom. That's why I think so many anti gun efforts are simply un-American--no matter how well intentioned. If an anti-gunner wants to discuss repealing the 2nd, that is a reasonable and valid approach (no matter how much I completely disagree). But when the constitution is circumvented, that is when we must not allow this attack on our way of life.
Frog48
Member
Agreed. Thats the only legitimate method of instituting gun control. I dont like the idea, but at least it follows the proper convention.
- Status
