Reasonable Restrictions Vs Infringed ?

[NukemJim]

I've been reading the responses and counter responses to the question that was originally posed.

In case anybody forgot the original question it was

is there any current legal doctrine/area of law/examples that covers the phrase "shall not be infringed" Vs "Reasonable Restriction" in NonFirearms areas of law?

Does anybody want to try to answer the question that was asked?

NukemJim

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

This is getting laughable.

Congress has been given no such power to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms in the first place. All the unconstitutional gun control laws have been done with a misconstrual of the militia clause in the amendment itself, or through the commerce clause while ignoring the amendment altogether.

Ah, that would be in your opinion, right? Too bad the SCOTUS has never agreed.

The Supreme Court has been given no such power to decide what the Constitution says. The law, yes. The law as it relates to the Constitution: Yes. This is not to say that the Supreme Court won't go ahead and make it's own "interpretation" of what they wish for it to say, and the truth be damned.

I'd refer you to Marbury v Madison.

The Court has ruled that they do have the authority to interpret the law and the Constitution. And what they rule is the law of the land. For you to insist that your opinion on this deserves any special weight is ludicrous.

Your statements seem to presuppose that you have an insight into "revealed truth" that the courts and others (not as special as you perhaps?) seem to lack. If you were a sitting justice on the SCOTUS it might matter, but since you aren't it doesn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie the yankee

And who determines what the Constitution means as it stands? You?

Yes, if I believe the Constitution is being misread or misapplied, how else would I know and come to the conclusion that I must make a challenge in court?

No, you don't determine what it means. You simply have an opinion as to what it means. There is a huge difference. If you want to challenge a particular law on constitutional grounds, by all means do so. But in the end it is up to the SCOTUS to determine what it means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie the yankee

To me, someone making catagorical statements about this or that law being unconstitutional is living in a delusion.

So, how do you suppose all these challenges of constitutionality come about if someone doesn't figure it out and say, "Hey! That's unconstitutional!"

As I stated above, there's a difference, a huge difference, between having an opinion and making a pronouncement of revealed truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frankie the yankee

Not exactly. You're forgetting about those who would not have a gun even though they could. There are many such people. They would not think that a criminal attacker was in any way enabled by some law that you might think are unconstitutional.

We're talking about those who DON"T have the choice.

Let's revisit your original statement about this.

Each and every victim of a crime committed with the use of a gun, not having one to defend themselves with, can vouch for that - if they survived the encounter, that is.

"Each and every victim.....". Not, "Each and every victim that didn't have a choice.". "Each and every victim....."

I simply pointed out, correctly, that there were whole classes of victims that do not share that view. You tried to wriggle out of your error by moving the goalposts and hoping we wouldn't notice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
Besides, I'm still waiting for you to describe how you would deal with the absurdity of a "no restrictions" regime where Al Qaeda death squads would be able to purchase MP-5's like soda pop and carry them aboard airliners.

No problem. They won't be the only ones carrying MP5s.

So that's your "solution"? You're advocating a regime where Al Qaeda death squads would be allowed to board airliners with MP-5's, and we would cope with that by carrying MP-5's ourselves and, presumably, engaging in full auto firefights at 35,000 feet.

Like I said, absurd. Not only will we never go there, but just you advocating it could set gun rights back if the Brady Bunch monitors forums like this and disseminates your views as being typical of gun rights supporters.

Originally posted by frankie_thet_yankee:

Then there's the courtroom scenario. You know, the bitterly contested divorce where everyone, judge, jury, the people in the galleries, etc. shows up toting MP-5's. I think you suggested that bullet proof glass would be the solution there. So how would you and/or your ilk configure the glass partition(s)?

I don't know, and I don't much care. The architects can figure it out.

Ha..ha.. They'd better, because you sure can't. Another absurd result that you don't want to face up to because it puts a dent in a greatly cherished delusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
You see to me, people who think for even one second that others would agree to live under a regime that would allow for such things are living in a delusion.

So, our Founding Fathers were deluded?

Not at all. Some people simply delude themselves as to what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution, and that they have some unique pipeline to revealed truth. They uncritically presume that whatever they happen to think is exactly what The Founders meant. Logical argument means nothing to them. Conflicts, contradictions, and absurd results mean nothing to them. This leads them to think that it is unreasonable to take simple measures that prevent full auto shootouts aboard airliners and to imagine courtrooms divided up by walls of bullet proof glass.

Anyway, I've done enough of this. I'll leave it to others to judge.

 

[ilbob]

is there any current legal doctrine/area of law/examples that covers the phrase "shall not be infringed" Vs "Reasonable Restriction" in NonFirearms areas of law?

Does anybody want to try to answer the question that was asked?

Look at other rights such as the right to remain free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The courts have made it very easy for police to seize your property and you have little recourse except to complain about to the very people who stole it. All they have to do is claim drugs were somehow involved and anything is fair game. The cost to litigate is so high, you will never see your property again.

Look at the huge number of unreasonable searches the courts has allowed - think pat downs before entering subways, DUI checkpoints, so called "Terry" stops. There is generally no PC involved in these cases, but the courts allow them anyway.

Look at all the pretext stops. Got a loose bolt on your license plate, or a burned out tail light? Thats a pretext to get pulled over, stopped, and searched.

 

[mainmech48]

In the main, my objection to the qualifer "reasonable" lies in the fact that, lacking the description and acceptance of specific objective criteria or a real-world referrent, it is semantically null. As such, its definition is more likely than not be entirely based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by the intrinsic merits of facts in evidence.

Your gratuitous, sarcastic, and condescending "civics lesson" aside, while I may have to accept that there are (and concede that there arguably must be for it to function at all) certain individuals to whom the exercise of arbitrary powers have been delegated, I don't have to like it. And I don't. Perhaps if it were truly so, as you would seem to be asserting, that such persons by virtue of having been appointed, must be, are, and will ever be "smart", "honorable" and "fair" I might feel differently. (For some examples of why I don't, see the 9th Circuit, et al)

Show me objective arguments for the restrictions you would impose upon my liberties and I'll decide whether I think they're "reasonable" or not. Tell me that I should just accept whatever definition you or anyone else decide on, from sheer faith in your superior intelligence and altruistic fervor to promote the greater good, and we have a real problem.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Show me objective arguments for the restrictions you would impose upon my liberties and I'll decide whether I think they're "reasonable" or not.

They avoid Al Qaeda death squads on airliners armed with MP-5's.

They avoid bitterly contested divorces and custody battles where everyone shows up in the courtroom toting MP-5's.

Enough, or do you need more?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

Perhaps if it were truly so, as you would seem to be asserting, that such persons by virtue of having been appointed, must be, are, and will ever be "smart", "honorable" and "fair" I might feel differently. (For some examples of why I don't, see the 9th Circuit, et al)

I don't assert that at all. That is what we would like them to be. But that's an ideal. The reality always falls short.

Note that I also stated that when the pendulum swings too far in one direction, as it sometimes does, people change the way they vote. This results in different types of judges, with different judicial philosophies, being appointed. Over time, the system corrects its most egregious errors. And it does so peacefully. (See Plessey v Ferguson)

 

[Liko81]

You're asking gun guys to define terms relating to the Second Amendment, expecting fair and unbiased answers.

Oxford provides the following definitions:

reasonable - 1 fair and sensible. 2 as much as is appropriate or fair; moderate. 3 fairly good; average.

restriction - 1 a limiting condition or measure. 2 the action of restricting or the state of being restricted.

infringe - 1 violate (a law, agreement, etc.). 2 encroach on (a right or privilege).

By these definitions, any restriction of the RKBA is an infringement of it, especially if you define infringement as encroachment.

However, "reasonable restriction" is not an oxymoron. The term strictly means "a fair and sensible limiting condition"; the thesaurus would list this under "rule" or "law", as in theory any just rule or law is logically derived, and agreed upon in principle by a high percentage of people as being fair. "Fair" rarely involves absolutes, and "all or nothing" is usually a false choice as there is a lot of room between all and nothing.

The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is an absolute. The reason behind it ("A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") follows Kantian logic: if citizens of a free state did not have weapons, they would find themselves unable to defend themselves against those who did, and would find themselves conquered by an oppressor, no longer a free state. Therefore to remain a free state, citizens must have arms.

However, Kantian logic is not without its faults, for the express reason that it does deal in absolutes. A citizenry that is better-armed than its government's army makes no sense, first off. That implies that the army does not have the best equipment, which, as the first line of defense of the nation, is prudent.

Second, an armed citizenry can quickly be caught in an internal arms race. We think of guns as equalizers, but that only applies to weapons of the same class. In terms of firepower, a bolt or lever-action repeater rifle loses to a semi-automatic one. A revolver has less ammunition than an autoloader (and a 6-shooter is little comfort against more than a couple assailants). In a nation where ANY gun is available to the man with enough money, those with money gain power through force of arms, enough perhaps to rival the government. We see it with the drug lords in Latin America and the warlords in the Middle East; non-governmental entities with enough power to rival the government and its allies. If the U.S. Government is the supreme law of the land as the original Constitution stated, it has the right to assert its supremacy, and it may do so by ensuring that its forces are better-equipped than any rebel population, be it one person, an armed group, a subversive movement, a single State, or many States.

So, this is the 2A vs the Supremacy Clause. The RKBA notwithstanding, the continued existence of the United States of America is paramount under the Constitution; every right and responsibility you have is intended with that in mind. The paradox is that ensuring the continued existence of the RKBA in the face of a government that wants to end it may well require the destruction of the system founded by that document in the first place.

 

[v35]

The paradox is that ensuring the continued existence of the RKBA in the face of a government that wants to end it may well require the destruction of the system founded by that document in the first place.

Not a paradox at all. Wasn't the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence written to justify that same action?

NO, I'm not advocating overthrowing the government...

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If the U.S. Government is the supreme law of the land as the original Constitution stated, it has the right to assert its supremacy, and it may do so by ensuring that its forces are better-equipped than any rebel population, be it one person, an armed group, a subversive movement, a single State, or many States.

Fortunately, the U. S. Government isn't the supreme law of the land; the Constitution and only the laws and treaties the United States makes under the authority of the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. The 2A is the Supreme Law of the Land as is any other caveat in the Constitution. One thing, though: The Second Amendment supersedes anything in the original Constitution that would be in conflict with it - like the commerce clause - since that is what amendments do. So, in essence, the Second Amendment is more powerful than anything in the Constitution in conflict with the Second Amendment.

Nothing needs destroying. But if it comes to the point something needs to be destroyed, it will only need to be those in power who have run astray with the government and those in power who refuse or fail to return things to the way they are supposed to be. There would be nothing wrong with such a snake that a new head wouldn't fix.

Woody

"It is up to We the People to decide if and when we shall revolt. It is not up to those in government to prevent it. It is up to those in government to see that revolution never becomes necessary." B.E.Wood

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

One thing, though: The Second Amendment supersedes anything in the original Constitution that would be in conflict with it - like the commerce clause - since that is what amendments do.

Not exactly. If the people drafting a law want it to supercede other, possibly conflicting, provisions already written into law, they can preface it with a statement like, "...Notwithstanding any provision in law to the contrary.....". The Founders were certainly aware of this option. Since they did not use any such verbiage in the BOR, you cannot simply assume that they intended it to work that way.

When there are conflicts between or among different provisions of the Constitution or the law, we rely on the courts to resolve them.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

frankie the yankee

I've figured out where you are coming from. You give more credence to the Supreme Court than to the Constitution. To my mind, that makes you an apologist for the oligarchy the Supreme Court has become over the last 70 or so years.

Thankfully, with John Roberts and Sam Alito recently added to the ranks of the Court, joining Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that oligarchy is in it's death throes and we may see a Court more in line with my vision of what the Constitution says it's supposed to be rather than your vision of how it is now.

As for what the Court did in Madison v. Marbury, you are wrong. The Court claimed no such power to interpret the Constitution. What the Court did was state that it couldn't abide unconstitutional law.

Congress "granted" or "assigned" a particular power it wanted the Court to have and the Court correctly stated it couldn't act upon that power because it wasn't granted to the Court in the Constitution. (It's a little more in depth than what I just wrote, it having to deal with appellate and original jurisdiction as well.)

That recognition by the Court that it didn't have that power has been given the moniker of "judicial review", and the Court rightly recognizes the fact that it can't adjudicate a case brought in violation of unconstitutional law. It is more rightly the court's lack of power to adjudicate a case brought up upon unconstitutional law than it is a power of the Court to declare a law unconstitutional, though that is in effect what the Court is doing. Is it semantics? Sort of. But in reality, it's truthfully what the court can't do that gives it that hypothetical power.

ilbob has come up with a good example of what the OP was looking for. Regardless of the example of the Fourth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment's 'cruel and unusual' caveats being similar to what would be "reasonable" in the Fourth, neither would be analogous to any such limits placed upon the RKBA without amending the Second Amendment to allow infringement. Constitutionally, there is no wiggle room in the Second Amendment for any restrictions, reasonable or otherwise; other than that which is or has been usurped. 'Course, there are those who give more credence to the errant machinations of the Court than to the Constitution and will say I'm wrong.

Not exactly. If the people drafting a law want it to supercede other, possibly conflicting, provisions already written into law, they can preface it with a statement like, "...Notwithstanding any provision in law to the contrary.....". The Founders were certainly aware of this option. Since they did not use any such verbiage in the BOR, you cannot simply assume that they intended it to work that way.

Then explain the efficacy of, and how it is intended that the Seventeenth Amendment works? It has no statement like, "...Notwithstanding any provision Article I, Section 3, to the contrary.....".

For the intent, purpose, scope, and force of the Second Amendment, I refer you to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.


Woody

If you want security, buy a gun. If you want longevity, learn how to use it. If you want freedom, carry it. There is nothing worth more than freedom you win for yourself. There is nothing more valuable to that end than the tools of the right that make it possible. B.E.Wood

 

[ServiceSoon]

Ya. What Woody said.

That sentence (shall not infringe) is clear to me. If the gov wants to infringe that right than they need to do what is right and amend the constitution. It's really that simple to me.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Minors are under the guardianship of their parents or "parent figures". The parent(s) are responsible for the actions of their charges, which would include any liability incurred. Until emancipated, minors are answerable to their parents and the parents are not limited by the Second Amendment

Where in the Constitution does it say that minors are under the guardianship of their parents (or parental figures), that parents are responsible for the actions of of their charges, or that minors get to be emancipated?

If there was at least one armed law abiding citizen on each of those four airliners on September 11, 2001, things might have turned out a little different.

I take it that you mean at least one armed law enforcement officer because had there been a citizen on any of those flights who had a gun in his/her possession other than LEOs, then that person would not have been law abiding, huh?

Woody, do you ever wonder why so few people agree with your views?

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

I've figured out where you are coming from. You give more credence to the Supreme Court than to the Constitution.

Not quite.

I give more credence to the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution (i.e. their rulings and opinions) than I do to your opinion, my own opinion, or anyone else's opinion.

Their opinions are the law of the land. Yours and mine are not.

Thankfully, with John Roberts and Sam Alito recently added to the ranks of the Court, joining Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, that oligarchy is in it's death throes and we may see a Court more in line with my vision of what the Constitution says it's supposed to be rather than your vision of how it is now.

Actually, I see Roberts and Alito as bringing the Court, and its interpretation of the Constitution, more in line with my thinking than it has been in the past.

But don't forget that your vision of what the Constitution involves full auto firefights at 35,000 feet, courtrooms built up in a maze of bulletproof glass partitions, and God only knows what else.

Don't ever expect them to go there, or within a million miles of there.

Then explain the efficacy of, and how it is intended that the Seventeenth Amendment works? It has no statement like, "...Notwithstanding any provision Article I, Section 3, to the contrary.....".

Simple. Look at the last sentence.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Which obviously means that it SHOULD be construed as affecting the election or term of any senator chosen AFTER it became part of the Constitution.

Besides, the 2A did not supercede a previous RKBA provision of the Constitution, (as the 17th Amendment superceded the earlier provision for the election of senators) because there wasn't any. Neither does it supercede the Commerce Clause or any other Article or Section. Each of those provisions stands on its own. When one conflicts with another, we settle it via a ruling from the Court.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

When one conflicts with another, we settle it via a ruling from the Court.

The Constitution wasn't written to be administered by the Court.​

The Second Amendment is a prohibition on government to infringe the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. Any use of the Commerce Clause, or any other clause in the Constitution, that would infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is prohibited by the Second Amendment. By your logic, the action of the Second Amendment is just as obvious as your take is on that last sentence in the Seventeenth Amendment.

Seems to me, what is safe for you to assume is safe for me to assume. Besides, if the Founding Fathers DIDN'T intend for the Second Amendment to protect the people's Right to Keep and Bear Arms from any provision already in the Constitution, they would have included an explicit exception to exclude that specific provision from the prohibition in the Second Amendment. You know, like they made a specific exception to the requirement in Article III, Section 2, Clause 3, that all trials shall be by jury except in cases of impeachment.

Woody, do you ever wonder why so few people agree with your views?

I don't have a clue how many people agree with my views. I do wonder why so few disagree with me, though....

"I swear to protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but I am not trigger-happy. I am merely prepared and determined in its defense. It's a comfortable place to be. I don't suffer doubt." B.E.Wood

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

The Constitution wasn't written to be administered by the Court.

1) If not by them, by who?

2) Don't count on Roberts or Alito, or any other Justice sitting on the Court between now and the end of time to support this view.

Besides, if the Founding Fathers DIDN'T intend for the Second Amendment to protect the people's Right to Keep and Bear Arms from any provision already in the Constitution, they would have included an explicit exception to exclude that specific provision from the prohibition in the Second Amendment.

How do you know?

 

[Liko81]

The Constitution was not written to be administered by the Court because the Framers never specifically enumerated the power of judicial review to SCOTUS. It was intended simply as the court of highest appeal, meant to interpret law, not review it.

However, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court judged actions by the incoming president in cancelling a number of official appointments as "unconstitutional", and waited for someone to call the bluff. Nobody did, and thus SCOTUS and the judicial system in general, by their own precedent, gained a broad power called judicial review. It has become one of the accepted checks and balances of the system; if a new law conflicts with the Constitution or its Amendments, it can be struck down as unconstitutional. However the Founders never enumerated that right to the Court.

 

[ServiceSoon]

The Constitution was not written to be administered by the Court because the Framers never specifically enumerated the power of judicial review to SCOTUS. It was intended simply as the court of highest appeal, meant to interpret law, not review it.

However, in Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court judged actions by the incoming president in cancelling a number of official appointments as "unconstitutional", and waited for someone to call the bluff. Nobody did, and thus SCOTUS and the judicial system in general, by their own precedent, gained a broad power called judicial review. It has become one of the accepted checks and balances of the system; if a new law conflicts with the Constitution or its Amendments, it can be struck down as unconstitutional. However the Founders never enumerated that right to the Court.

So the founders didn't have a plan on how to repeal unconstitutional laws? Surely they knew unconstitutional laws would eventually be passed.

 

[mainmech48]

Frankie, I asked that you specify exactly what restrictions you consider to be "reasonable" and to objectively (adv.: 1. Expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations., 2. Limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum.) show me how you arrived at your conclusions.

You belligerently restated your two favorite hyperbolic scenarios.

I'm still waiting to see what you had in mind and your argument. How can I determine if it's "reasonable" if you refuse to explain and/or detail your rationale?

Back to your little Civics homily:

In it you describe all those appointed arbiters, without qualification or allowance for exception, as being both "smart" and "honorable" people who, again without acknowledging the possibility for exception, will[/I "fairly interpret the meaning of the laws and issues..........carefully taking into account situations where some rights conflict with others."

You presented this demonstrably false assumption as fact, without referrence to its being the hypothetical "ideal" and despite all evidence to the contrary. This, to me, qualifies as "asserting" (v.: To state or declare positively, and often forcefully or aggressively.)

You can assume whatever you like. Just don't expect me not to question it just because you got testy in return.

The whole point of my objection to the term "reasonable" is that it's entirely predicated upon the thought processes of each individual human. Without explanation or description of the bases of that process, I won't accept anyone's conclusions as being "reasonable".

 

[ozwyn]

Funny how frankie keeps going to AL Qaeda death squads and airlines in these threads.

However, if I recall the consitutional rights do not apply to foreign nationals, as they are not US citizens. If war was ever offically declared, they would be foreign combatants.

the argument bear no more weight than the allegation that shall issue permits results in more crime, as both positions rely on the fallacy that greater legal access to weapons results in more criminal behavior.

I suppose it could also be noted that AL Qaeda has had a track record of successful bombings ang terroistic attacks from US embassies to both world trade center attacks without using ANY firearms. This does question the idea that expanding firearm rights would magically empower them overnight.

Looking at Miller, it could be argued that any firearm the military could use, a civilian should be able to buy without unreasonable restriction. That means select fire m-16's, etc should be purchaseable by any citizen with little to no restrictions involved.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

McCain-Feingold, which I personally believe to be blatently unconstitutional, but which is currently the law of the land.

I don't like McCain-Feingold, but it isn't a restriction on freedom of speech. It is a restriction on advertising.

In the context of the times when the Constitution was written, the intent of the 1st amendment was to guarantee that people would not be punished for criticizing the government. It guarantees that you can say anything you wish in favor anything you want, and say so out loud, without being arrested. But it does NOT guarantee you a place to say it, or an audience.

 

[brickeyee]

"The 2A is the Supreme Law of the Land..."

No, it is one step above "Supreme Law".
Laws in our system are passed by congress and approved by the executive (with provisions for veto override).
The executive has NO SAY in amending the constitution.
It is a matter between the states and the congress (or a called convention by the states).

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

However, if I recall the consitutional rights do not apply to foreign nationals, as they are not US citizens. If war was ever offically declared, they would be foreign combatants.

Absolutely wrong. Except for certain political rights like the qualifications to be an "elector" (voter) and to hold certain offices, all of the civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution apply to any person legally and physically present in the USA.

This means foreign nationals on visas, or those who have green cards (i.e. permanent residents), etc.

You're correct that this can change in a declared war, but that need not concern us here.

Even illegal aliens have the right to due process, to be protected against cruel and ususual punishments, etc.

Resident aliens with green cards can buy guns and in most shall issue states they can obtain CHL's.

In open carry states they can open carry if they want to.

And if you had no background checks to buy guns, as many here believe is an "infringement" who would know whether someone was an illegal alien, a resident alien, a convicted violent felon, a child molester, a member of Al Qaeda, or a law-abiding native-born American? You walk into a store, pick out the gun, an MP-5 of course, grab some extra mags, some duct tape (to jungle rig the mags of course) and a few cases of ammo, put your money down on the counter and you're on your way to die gloriously in the service of Allah, right?

This is what happens when people don't think through the consequences of their cherished, if simplistic, notions.

I'm still waiting to see what you had in mind and your argument. How can I determine if it's "reasonable" if you refuse to explain and/or detail your rationale?

I can't blame you for not wading through this whole tedious thread. But I've posted my position as to what is "reasonable" and hence not an "infringement" a couple of times. I'll summarize.

1) Background checks should be required to purchase.

2) No violent felons, children, adjucated mental incompetents, or adjudicated drunks/drug addicts allowed to purchase.

3) No license required to purchase, possess or transport non-NFA firearms. No license required to possess firearms on one's own property. Shall issue license required to carry loaded firearms in public. Either concealed or open is OK.

4) Full LTC reciprocity among all states and political subdivisions thereof.

5) Concealed carry by licensees allowed in any workplace or public accommodation, with certain exceptions. A government agency or private property owner could set up a "sterile area" where carrying is banned, but they would have to provide gun check lockers and would be required to screen everyone entering for weapons. Certain places such as airliners, courtrooms, etc. would be defined as sterile areas by law.

6) No registration of firearms allowed.

7) Special license required to purchase or possess full auto weapons, SBR's, destructive devices, and sawed off shotguns. Carrying full autos, SBR's, destructive devices, or sawed off shotguns in public could be banned. (Similar to NFA provisions.)

The above is just off the top of my head. I wouldn't bother nitpicking at details. I prefer to think in terms of the big picture. The single theme linking all of the above proposals is that they place little burden on LAC's who choose to possess or carry guns, while putting a larger burden upon criminals, terrorists, etc. who might elect to do so.

In this way, the balance of power between LAC's and criminals, terrorists, etc. is shifted in a favorable direction (i.e. towards the LAC's).

The fact remains that if anyone can buy any gun with no questions asked, and carry it anywhere they choose with no questions asked, you would have Al Qaeda death squads armed with MP-5's running suicide ops on airliners every day.

It would simply be too easy for them not to do it.

And the people who say, "Well, let them try because the good guys would have MP-5's too." are clearly way, way up in some very tall tree.

Full auto firefights at 35,000 feet are simply not an acceptable consequence of someone's interpretation of the Second Amendment.

No legislature would ever pass laws (no background checks to purchase, open carry anywhere, no questions asked) that would facilitate such a thing.

No court would ever overturn laws (background check requirements, licenses to carry, ban on carrying on airliners, in courtrooms, etc.) that would prevent such a thing.

And make no mistake, our current laws do make this type of attack unfeasible. How do we know? Simple. AQ has never attempted it. Whereas if we had no "restrictions", it would be a simple matter, as I stated above, for them to run ops like that every day.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

I don't like McCain-Feingold, but it isn't a restriction on freedom of speech. It is a restriction on advertising.

Advertising is simply speech that can be heard/read by large numbers of people.

The courts have ruled that advertising is speech.

Commercial advertising is classified as commercial speech.

Political advertising is classified (by the courts) as political speech.

Political speech has historically enjoyed the highest level of 1st Amendment protection. Recently, this has been turned on its head by the Supreme Court. As near as I can tell, it looks like pornogrpahy gets the highest level of protection, the "media" gets a slightly lesser but still high level of protection, and political speech gets very little protection (since McCain-Feingold).

This is mostly due to the worst mistake of W's career (signing it) and an obviously addle-brained and out of her depth Justice O'Connor who sided with the four Stalinists to uphold it against the challenge by McConnell et al.

The current Court seems to be chipping away at it as cases work their way up to it. But I am disappointed that they haven't overturned it root and branch.

Yet.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

In it you describe all those appointed arbiters, without qualification or allowance for exception, as being both "smart" and "honorable" people who, again without acknowledging the possibility for exception, will[/I "fairly interpret the meaning of the laws and issues..........carefully taking into account situations where some rights conflict with others."

You presented this demonstrably false assumption as fact, without referrence to its being the hypothetical "ideal" and despite all evidence to the contrary. This, to me, qualifies as "asserting" (v.: To state or declare positively, and often forcefully or aggressively.)

To the contrary, I plainly stated that my description of how the courts were supposed to work was an ideal, and that the reality often fell short.

Then I stated that when things swing too far in one direction, the people eventually take notice and start voting for different types of leaders, who appoint different types of judges, and over time, sometimes a long time, the system corrects major errors.

I even cited Plessey v Ferguson as an example of this.

Sometimes the courts get it wrong. And sometimes it takes a long time for them to correct their errors. But without some official arbiter of the law, we would have nothing more than 300 million different opinions - each person "sure" they know what this or that provision of law means.

In other words, chaos (or this thread).

Some people have simply quoted the 2A and stated that this is all the gun law we need.

Great. Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?

So I ask these repositories of wisdom, does the 2A require that violent felons be allowed to possess guns? How about prison inmates? Crazy people? Drug addicts and habitual drunks? Does it require that we allow people to board airliners carrying MP-5's, no questions asked? Or to enter courtrooms so armed? Is the only check on criminal misuse of guns that the 2A absolutists will allow are firefights where armed LAC's gun down any bad guys attempting to misuse guns? Do they want life to be like a great big IDPA scenario day in and day out? (If so, it says here that they are crazy.)

The 2A does not address any of these things directly. It needs to be interpreted by fair and honest arbiters, or as close as we can come to that.

And don't forget the so-called "elastic clause" that reads (paraphrasing) "Congress shall make such laws as are necessary and proper...."

They put that in there because they realized that the Constitution should be the repository of a small number of rules and principles around which a government of enumerated powers could be organized. The details were for Congress to deal with as needed as time went on.