...shall not be infringed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
And if you would have read the rest of my post, you would see that I did too.

Yes I did read your post. You say that Baz argument is flawed, but that's not necessarily so.

It's not about "letting them do it". There is very little at this late point that can be done to stop "them" at least as far as the Supremes go.

At this point the argument of ownership over use might be the best way out of the fire pit. Certainly not the cleanest, but the Supremes are not likely to apply the logic of "not be infringed" or "make no law" to this, since they clearly haven't applied it to anything else.

Baz has a decent point anyway, something to consider, wasn't arguing with what you said really, I probably think faster than I can type.....
 
dont understand what youre really saying eric...doesnt make sense to me.

There are a few really radical thinking individuals around here that would think that banning-restricting guns on any level including going to jail would count twards "infringment" in was more or less a sarcastic comment.
 
I do find
"infringe - advance beyond the usual limit"

But I also find

in·fringe (in frinjÆ), v., -fringed, -fring·ing.
–v.t.
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–v.i.
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.
[1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- IN-2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to BREAK]
—in·fringÆer, n.
—Syn. 1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.

So I am not sure the argument is gone. What did the word "infringe" mean to the founding fathers? If they meant "usual limits" what were the usual limits to them?
 
It's important to note that "Freedom of speech" is, or at least has been, defined as "Freedom of expression." That is there can be restrictions. You not allowed to SPEAK whatever you want, but you can express any feeling you want.

For example:
Hillary Clinton is a @#%@ing sack of @##@( (#@%@# who @#%#@( @#$#% .

NOT PROTECTED.

Hillary Clinton is a politician with a history lies, half truths, and anti-gun legislation which I do not agree with.

PROTECTED.

Now, there are times when you can say more vile things, but not on High Road, and its not always protected. Cursing was a criminal offense that charged a few cents to anyone who did it in public.

But I think there is a difference between "Make no law" and "not infringe." The latter seems to be more concrete. Not infringing would mean to basically leave it alone completely, no law, no restriction, no penalty (taxes!! fees!!), registration. Anything that could impair your ability to keep and bear an arm is an infringement. There was no waiting period in 1776.

Make No Law, while offering much of the same protection, sort of limits itself in that if you figured out a way to infringe on those ideas expressed without passing a "law" would technically mean you weren't violating the 1st.
 
Relating this to freedom of speech: You have the freedom to say anything you like. You also have the responsibility to deal with the consequenses.

In other words...you do have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater and create a stampede that could hurt people. But you'd better have a good reason - like an actual fire.

Same thing with RKBA. You should have the right to keep, bear and use arms. But you had better have a darn good reason to point or shoot anywhere near another person.
 
"Felon" is not a reasonable restriction. The term is too broad. Tax evaders, and similar others, should not lose their right to defend themselves with a firearm.


That is very true. I bet 99% of the people on this forum have done something in their life that could be a Felony.

The guys with actual serious crimes that did their time in prison. Their debt paid. Do they not have constitutional rights? I agree that some shouldn't be allowed but they do have a valid point.
 
In relation to felons is there not a way to get their gun rights back? I seem to recall in certian cases some felons can do this but can not seem to find a resource for this info.
 
In relation to felons is there not a way to get their gun rights back? I seem to recall in certian cases some felons can do this but can not seem to find a resource for this info
.

It is a state by state thing. Some states will allow them back after so many years and some states it takes a Gov. pardon.

I am sure there are other factors also.
 
Since we are discussing the 2nd in relation to the 1st, I'm going to repeat something I wrote when we were battling the "It's a Crime, Bill."

"DLS" stands for Daniel L. Schofield, SJD
"A&S" stands for Armed and Safe, a Southern California activist newsletter

FBI Policy on First Amendment Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FBI ACADEMY ADVICE ON CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
In November of 1994, Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., Unit Chief of the Legal Instruction at the FBI Academy, gave his reading of the way police officers and government agencies should view the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In the following, we will look at the Second Amendment in light of his advice on the First.

DLS - "The Supreme Court has indicated that in the context of protests, parades and picketing in such public places as streets and parks, ...citizens must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate breathing space to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment."
Armed&Safe - If applied to the Second Amendment, this would mean that bearing arms in even an "outrageous" manner in public places must be tolerated by citizens.

DLS - "Three general first amendment principles guide departmental decision making in controlling public protest. First, political speech in traditional public forums, such as streets and parks, is afforded a very high level of first amendment protection, and blanket prohibitions of such speech are generally unconstitutional."
A&S - Applied to the Second Amendment, this principle would not allow blanket prohibition of open possession of arms in public places.

DLS - "Second, reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on such speech are permissible if they are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests, and leave ample ways for the speech to occur.
A&S - Time, place and manner restrictions on the carrying of arms would have to be neutral as to which arms were to be restricted, narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests and leave ample ways for all to carry arms.

DLS - "Third, speech or expressive conduct can be restricted because of its relationship to unlawful conduct, such as disorderly conduct or trespass."
A&S - The carry of arms can be declared illegal when it is in conjunction with the breaking of other laws.

DLS - "The first amendment permits the government to impose a permit requirement for those wishing to engage in expressive activity on public property, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks. Any such permit scheme controlling the time, place, and manner of speech must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and must leave open ample alternatives for communication. The Supreme Court has held that any permit regulation that allows arbitrary application is '...inherently inconsistent with a valid time, place, and manner regulation because such discretion has the potential for becoming a means of suppressing a particular point of view."
A&S - Thus, permits to carry would be allowed, so long as they could not be arbitrarily denied and did not place unreasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of carry.

DLS - "The Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional permit schemes that vest government decision-makers with uncontrolled discretion in deciding whether to issue a particular permit."
A&S - This would make California's concealed carry permit scheme, as practiced today, unconstitutional.

DLS - "The Supreme Court has interpreted the first amendment as creating a '...profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open.' Law enforcement often has the responsibility of balancing the legitimate need to maintain public order with the important interest in protecting first amendment rights. Because the legality of the various enforcement options discussed in this article depends on a complex and fact-specific analysis, law enforcement decision makers should obtain competent legal review of any proposed restriction on expressive activity, In that regard, a particular group's past violent or disruptive conduct should be carefully documented because it is relevant to this analysis. Finally, it is recommended that officers receive legal training on the basic principles of first amendment law before being assigned the difficult task of controlling public protest."
A&S - There should be a "profound national commitment" to the principle that the right to keep and bear arms should be uninhibited, robust and wide-open. While it is necessary that the police maintain public order and guard against criminal activity, they have, at the same time, an important interest in protecting your exercise of your Second Amendment rights.

Pops
 
Well as horrible as it sounds, if the child molester was non-violent why should he lose his right to bear arms?

I agree. Because he should lose his right to freedom. And IMHO, he should lose his right to breathing. Pretty simple. Bearing arms should not even be a question.

If we agree that those on parole can be trusted with cars, explosives (like gasoline, fertilizer), etc. why should they not be trusted with guns? The problem is that there are too many violent criminals on parole, not access to guns.

If there are parolees in society we do not trust with guns, how can we possibly trust them with access to automobiles and gasoline?
 
"Bear" means "to carry," not "to use."

I have no problem with a law that tells me it is illegal for me to use my lawfully-carried handgun to commit a bank robbery, or an unprovoked assault on my neighbor or on a motorist whose driving has irritated me.

I do have a problem with any law that either tells me I may not carry a handgun for self-defense, or that tells me I need a piece of paper to document the state's permission to exercise my "absolute" right to carry a handgun for self-defense.

I also have a problem with any law that tells me I must retreat "if possible" (who defines whether or not it's possible) before I may lawfully employ my lawfully carried handgun for the purpose of self-defense. The law should be clear, simple, and unequivocal: Lay a hand on me or threaten me (or my family) and you become a pedestrian free fire zone.

"An armed society is a polite society."
 
XDkingslayer said:
Maybe that's because the 1st amendment doesn't include the words "shall not be infringed".

Your logic is flawed from the start.
And you are avoiding the argument. I'm asking "what" is it that is not to be infringed? Those who quote "shall not be infringed" as non-negotiable, without explaining what it is that is non-negotiable, come off sounding like the 2nd Amendment stands against any law whatsoever about guns. It doesn't. A law that says I cannot hunt with a semi-automatic rifle having a capacity of more than five rounds doesn't violate the RKBA. A law that says I cannot shoot off any firearm inside a city in celebration of New Year's eve doesn't violate my RKBA.

As long as we cite "shall not be infringed" and refuse to discuss what laws affecting guns might be "reasonable" we are going to be relegated to the fringes in political discussion.

All I'm saying is that we can concede "reasonable" restrictions on the use of firearms, but not on the ownership of the type of weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment.

On Aquila Blanca's distinction between carry and use ("'Bear' means 'to carry,' not 'to use.'). I don't think that flies. In the 2nd Amendment, "bear" means to carry arms for particular kinds of uses. I seems to me that it is clearly intended to protect carry for self-defense, both against individuals and against tyranny. It doesn't protect carry per se, as you note with your example of how you can be restricted from carrying for unlawful purposes, such as robbing a bank. What is it that makes one kind of "carry" different than another kind of "carry?" The use for which the fire arm is being carried. Thus it is impossible to define what "shall not be infringed" means in the context of "bearing arms" without defining "bearing arms." And only certain kinds of bearing arms -- certain kinds of uses of firearms -- are intended for protection under the RKBA.

So I come back to believing that there is a useful distinction to be made between ownership and use. The limits on use are going to be far greater than the limitations on ownership. I would go as far as to say for anyone who has a 2nd Amendment right (thus evading here the question of "felons"), that any restriction on owning a weapon suitable suitable for the uses envisaged in the right being protected is infringement. If the forces of tyranny can carry M16's or M4's, then the 2nd Amendment protects my right to keep the same in reserve for use against them. And while the government can tell me I cannot "carry" such into the woods to go after bambi, any attempt to prevent me from owning them at all goes too far.
 
And you are avoiding the argument. I'm asking "what" is it that is not to be infringed?

No I'm not. There is no arguement. What is not to be infringed is the right to keep and bear arms.

It's right there in the 2nd amendment in plain english.

There is no arguement, only people incorrectly changing or interperating it to fit their political agenda.

Of course there are laws on the use of guns. But laws CAN be made on the use of guns that effect the RKBA. What if Congress passed a law saying it was legal to own any gun you wish, but you're not allowed to shoot politicians with them. That kinda goes against the very reason the 2nd amendment was created doesn't it?
 
2nd amendment rights!?

Most of the constitutin and amendments are political and individual. Individual is self evident (each person not a group). Polital in that they are aimed at the government. The right is to be able to speak one's ideals about the government, unmolested by that government. The right to bear arms was written to allow an armed citizenry to be able to defend against an oppressive government. For the citizen to form a militia against such, there is a need for weapons parity. Imagine attempting a resistance to a government when only allowed such things as restricted caliber rifles and pistols. The fact that they require a special licensing to purchase a cannon is an infringement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top