...
From your article:
"However, they're (Federal Authorities) also investigating him for possible gun smuggling, tax evasion and violating importation laws.
Court documents reveal federal agents were watching Adams for years and that some documentation was missing "to determine to whom Adams [was] selling or exporting his firearms."
The guns were also not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes, investigators alleged.
However, a bigger concern is that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement."
...
Yeah... he hasn't been charged... yet. But, the investigation isn't completed, either. Let's wait until we find out about the weapons and whether or not he was smugglng guns, evading taxes and selling illegal guns to criminals before we weigh in on our, "It's Hitler all over again' rants.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
It's issues like this I wish people would learn up on their history.
I hate that when people hear gun control, people automatically assume "take away guns." It just means to make laws to make sure gun safety is ensured.
I don't get how people hate the new laws regarding universal background checks. It seems common sense to me. If you are not mentally unstable and have no criminal past and show you can be responsible, you deserve a gun.
Personally, I don't trust anyone with a gun. I am not saying we should not have guns, but in the end, it is our emotions that get the best of us. If we are extremely angry and we have a gun, it is an easy ticket out of that situation.
But America is at a point where we can't live with or without guns. So the best we can do is try to limit the number of deaths as best we can in a cooperative, non-political way. We need to realize that the safety of Americans is important and we should do what we can to ensure Americans are safe.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
They are trying to enforce the law..............................but Obama has illegally made that impossible .....................
In 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals confiscated firearms.
...
I know it was a long. long time ago... but, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina... people were looting and firing shots at news helicopters.
Are you telling me that you believe having a lot of guns in that state of anarchy is a good idea?
I know you are going to try to counter about taking the guns from 'law abiding' citizens... to which I argue that looting is not abiding the law. Taking guns away from them was probably a good thing.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
They are trying to enforce the law..............................but Obama has illegally made that impossible .....................
In 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals confiscated firearms.
...
I know it was a long. long time ago... but, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina... people were looting and firing shots at news helicopters.
Are you telling me that you believe having a lot of guns in that state of anarchy is a good idea?
I know you are going to try to counter about taking the guns from 'law abiding' citizens... to which I argue that looting is not abiding the law. Taking guns away from them was probably a good thing.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
They are trying to enforce the law..............................but Obama has illegally made that impossible .....................
In 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police, National Guard troops, and U.S. Marshals confiscated firearms.
...
I know it was a long. long time ago... but, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina... people were looting and firing shots at news helicopters.
Are you telling me that you believe having a lot of guns in that state of anarchy is a good idea?
I know you are going to try to counter about taking the guns from 'law abiding' citizens... to which I argue that looting is not abiding the law. Taking guns away from them was probably a good thing.
who exactly was president in 2005?
...
I think i heard somewhere on the internets that someone read an E-Mail that said it must have been Obama because only Obama want to take away our guns.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
first search showed all conservative(use term loosely) sites related to this/.
Further search of state database shows these related to firearms. Found within "firearms and fireworks. Not seeing what you suggest is happening. All kinds of progun legislation. Many directed at the federal government related to firearms.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
Better start building those prisons and digging those graves. We will not comply.
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
Better start building those prisons and digging those graves. We will not comply.
ok. I see that now. I say good for them. Also says they are only going after 1 type or class of firearm.
Your post above seemed to suggest an outright ban on all firearms and confiscation as a result. Guess I misunderstood.
Having said that Mo IS a GOP heavy state is it not? Just because these two reps have proposed this, do you think this has a fair shot at passage?
Also given this a state proposal for that state it seems to put in to conflict of states rights vs. federal powers does it not?
Given your Libertarian thinking(at least as I read you) , I was curious what your thoughts were on this sort of broader aspect.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Having said that Mo IS a GOP heavy state is it not? Just because these two reps have proposed this, do you think this has a fair shot at passage?
This
It most likely will not pass. Just like Obama's proposals. People are/were freaking out because he wants assault rifle bans, but since the GOP control the Congress, it most likely won't pass.
~Carter~
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
ok. I see that now. I say good for them. Also says they are only going after 1 type or class of firearm.
Of which nobody has a definition. An assault weapon is about as general as can be. It could mean anything.
I'll answer your other questions when I get to a computer.
I'll admit that I didnt read it slowly to digest everything, but I did see they attempted to give a definate or at least thorough definition of what they wish to do away with.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Having said that Mo IS a GOP heavy state is it not? Just because these two reps have proposed this, do you think this has a fair shot at passage?
Also given this a state proposal for that state it seems to put in to conflict of states rights vs. federal powers does it not?
Given your Libertarian thinking(at least as I read you) , I was curious what your thoughts were on this sort of broader aspect.
I do not believe it will pass. However the mere attempt, knowing that it will not, is inflammatory.
I see no conflict of a states rights issue v fed. The General government has no authority according to the Constitution to enact gun control laws. Those issues are in fact left to the states. All Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional in the eyes of Libertarians and Constitutionalists. Art 1 Sec VIII spells out exactly what the General government may do. Remember the Constitution wasn't written as a guide for what the people can do, it was a guide for what the General government can or cannot do.
That being said the State has the right to create gun control laws that do not infringe. What's the level of infringement? Can that be defined? The phrase "shall not" implies that it cannot. Unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that the State can create certain restrictions. That's why some states you can own a suppressor, and some you can't. Some you can have class III weapons, some you can't. Most people have accepted that, I personally see no issue with someone wanting a SBR, SBS, or class III. I see the acceptable level of restriction set against the ownership of high explosives, WOMD, missiles, anti-air, etc. Those are excessive in the use of defending ones property, IMO. Some will still disagree. I feel that I should be able to defend my property with a fully automatic rifle if I so desired. I don't believe defending my property requires an ICBM, because in the defense of my property I'd obviously cause mass casualties to innocents. That's how I define it.
A so-called "high cap" magazine ban is unconstitutional at any level.
On edit: FWIW you may see around that people will claim that the general govt is passing gun control under the general welfare cause, that in itself is an incorrect path. The Preamble is not binding, just like the table of contents of a book doesn't tell the whole story. Then you'll see them try to pass laws under the Commerce Clause. That would be an acceptable path, however there is legislation in many states that can void that as well. The states are writing laws that say as long as the parts/guns are manufactured IN THAT STATE, the Feds can't touch them. Nothing has left the state, and nothing was brought into the state, therefore the State has the right to regulate as it sees fit. There has been no intra-state trade going on that would be subject to general government regulation.
Realize that most, if not all, legal gun owners only want to be able to protect their property and defend their family and themselves. We are not looking to start a war or harm innocent people. I personally am subject to constant FBI background checks and I am subject to mandatory drug testing and psychological examinations as a condition of my employment. I am not, nor will I ever be, a threat to an innocent person. I will however use lethal force to defend my family if it is required.
I have spent over five hours this weekend filling out witness slips and briefs pertaining to laws in my State. It's what I do on my free time. Everyone should do so, no matter what your stance is. This is our country, not any politicians. They work for us.
I do not believe it will pass. However the mere attempt, knowing that it will not, is inflammatory.
I see no conflict of a states rights issue v fed. The General government has no authority according to the Constitution to enact gun control laws. Those issues are in fact left to the states. All Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional in the eyes of Libertarians and Constitutionalists. Art 1 Sec VIII spells out exactly what the General government may do. Remember the Constitution wasn't written as a guide for what the people can do, it was a guide for what the General government can or cannot do.
That being said the State has the right to create gun control laws that do not infringe. What's the level of infringement? Can that be defined? The phrase "shall not" implies that it cannot. Unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that the State can create certain restrictions. That's why some states you can own a suppressor, and some you can't. Some you can have class III weapons, some you can't. Most people have accepted that, I personally see no issue with someone wanting a SBR, SBS, or class III. I see the acceptable level of restriction set against the ownership of high explosives, WOMD, missiles, anti-air, etc. Those are excessive in the use of defending ones property, IMO. Some will still disagree. I feel that I should be able to defend my property with a fully automatic rifle if I so desired. I don't believe defending my property requires an ICBM, because in the defense of my property I'd obviously cause mass casualties to innocents. That's how I define it.
A so-called "high cap" magazine ban is unconstitutional at any level.
On edit: FWIW you may see around that people will claim that the general govt is passing gun control under the general welfare cause, that in itself is an incorrect path. The Preamble is not binding, just like the table of contents of a book doesn't tell the whole story. Then you'll see them try to pass laws under the Commerce Clause. That would be an acceptable path, however there is legislation in many states that can void that as well. The states are writing laws that say as long as the parts/guns are manufactured IN THAT STATE, the Feds can't touch them. Nothing has left the state, and nothing was brought into the state, therefore the State has the right to regulate as it sees fit. There has been no intra-state trade going on that would be subject to general government regulation.
Realize that most, if not all, legal gun owners only want to be able to protect their property and defend their family and themselves. We are not looking to start a war or harm innocent people. I personally am subject to constant FBI background checks and I am subject to mandatory drug testing and psychological examinations as a condition of my employment. I am not, nor will I ever be, a threat to an innocent person. I will however use lethal force to defend my family if it is required.
I have spent over five hours this weekend filling out witness slips and briefs pertaining to laws in my State. It's what I do on my free time. Everyone should do so, no matter what your stance is. This is our country, not any politicians. They work for us.
This was well written and an interesting take. Credit where it is due.
Having said that Mo IS a GOP heavy state is it not? Just because these two reps have proposed this, do you think this has a fair shot at passage?
Also given this a state proposal for that state it seems to put in to conflict of states rights vs. federal powers does it not?
Given your Libertarian thinking(at least as I read you) , I was curious what your thoughts were on this sort of broader aspect.
I do not believe it will pass. However the mere attempt, knowing that it will not, is inflammatory.
I see no conflict of a states rights issue v fed. The General government has no authority according to the Constitution to enact gun control laws. Those issues are in fact left to the states. All Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional in the eyes of Libertarians and Constitutionalists. Art 1 Sec VIII spells out exactly what the General government may do. Remember the Constitution wasn't written as a guide for what the people can do, it was a guide for what the General government can or cannot do.
That being said the State has the right to create gun control laws that do not infringe. What's the level of infringement? Can that be defined? The phrase "shall not" implies that it cannot. Unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that the State can create certain restrictions. That's why some states you can own a suppressor, and some you can't. Some you can have class III weapons, some you can't. Most people have accepted that, I personally see no issue with someone wanting a SBR, SBS, or class III. I see the acceptable level of restriction set against the ownership of high explosives, WOMD, missiles, anti-air, etc. Those are excessive in the use of defending ones property, IMO. Some will still disagree. I feel that I should be able to defend my property with a fully automatic rifle if I so desired. I don't believe defending my property requires an ICBM, because in the defense of my property I'd obviously cause mass casualties to innocents. That's how I define it.
A so-called "high cap" magazine ban is unconstitutional at any level.
On edit: FWIW you may see around that people will claim that the general govt is passing gun control under the general welfare cause, that in itself is an incorrect path. The Preamble is not binding, just like the table of contents of a book doesn't tell the whole story. Then you'll see them try to pass laws under the Commerce Clause. That would be an acceptable path, however there is legislation in many states that can void that as well. The states are writing laws that say as long as the parts/guns are manufactured IN THAT STATE, the Feds can't touch them. Nothing has left the state, and nothing was brought into the state, therefore the State has the right to regulate as it sees fit. There has been no intra-state trade going on that would be subject to general government regulation.
Realize that most, if not all, legal gun owners only want to be able to protect their property and defend their family and themselves. We are not looking to start a war or harm innocent people. I personally am subject to constant FBI background checks and I am subject to mandatory drug testing and psychological examinations as a condition of my employment. I am not, nor will I ever be, a threat to an innocent person. I will however use lethal force to defend my family if it is required.
I have spent over five hours this weekend filling out witness slips and briefs pertaining to laws in my State. It's what I do on my free time. Everyone should do so, no matter what your stance is. This is our country, not any politicians. They work for us.
pardon my ignorance, I fail to see how you can reconcile the bolded statements.Not looking to pick. Just looking to learn. On its face, what you wrote is contradictory
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Better start building those prisons and digging those graves. We will not comply.
What? Are you serious? Who says something like this?
Are you saying you'll fight to the death to preserve your right to keep your assault rifles? You'll shoot someone's father if, in the line of duty, they seek to seize your weapon? Your really cool gun is that important to you?
How noble and dignified. Wow.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
pardon my ignorance, I fail to see how you can reconcile the bolded statements.Not looking to pick. Just looking to learn. On its face, what you wrote is contradictory
I thought I was fairly clear. The State can do what it needs to do as long as it does not infringe upon a person's right to defend themselves. The State can regulate trade within the state, the Federal Government cannot tell a state what to do, in this case, as long as the State keeps it in it's borders and doesn't bring outside States into the transaction (for lack of a better word).
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Better start building those prisons and digging those graves. We will not comply.
What? Are you serious? Who says something like this?
Are you saying you'll fight to the death to preserve your right to keep your assault rifles? You'll shoot someone's father if, in the line of duty, they seek to seize your weapon? Your really cool gun is that important to you?
How noble and dignified. Wow.
I'm not going to explain it when you want to try to bait me into an argument. It's more than a cool gun. It's about freedom. And yes if you think that the entire gun owning population is going to just turn them all in because of a group of tyrants demands so then yes, start digging graves and building prisons.
Unconstitutional laws are not laws. The enemies are the politicians that create such laws.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Better start building those prisons and digging those graves. We will not comply.
What? Are you serious? Who says something like this?
Are you saying you'll fight to the death to preserve your right to keep your assault rifles? You'll shoot someone's father if, in the line of duty, they seek to seize your weapon? Your really cool gun is that important to you?
How noble and dignified. Wow.
I'm not going to explain it when you want to try to bait me into an argument. It's more than a cool gun. It's about freedom. And yes if you think that the entire gun owning population is going to just turn them all in because of a group of tyrants demands so then yes, start digging graves and building prisons.
Unconstitutional laws are not laws. The enemies are the politicians that create such laws.
You couldn't explain it if you tried because your line of thought is ridiculous. It is about freedom: the freedom to go to school in the morning without getting gunned down by a down-and-out-loser with a badass gun that he took from the closet. The group of tyrants you speak of are looking to safeguard your country from its next disaster- hardly hostility.
And you are wrong: this is about cool guns and, worse yet, supporting a general paranoia that borders on the edge of lunacy.
pardon my ignorance, I fail to see how you can reconcile the bolded statements.Not looking to pick. Just looking to learn. On its face, what you wrote is contradictory
I thought I was fairly clear. The State can do what it needs to do as long as it does not infringe upon a person's right to defend themselves. The State can regulate trade within the state, the Federal Government cannot tell a state what to do, in this case, as long as the State keeps it in it's borders and doesn't bring outside States into the transaction (for lack of a better word).
the state is saying it will regulate the trade of a particular weapon. the ability of a person in that state to protect home person and family isnt diminished for them not being allowed this type, style or class of weapon. They have the right (the state) to define such, do they not?
I still cant get past the "a well regulated militia"start of the 2nd amendment. Nor do I believe I should . Since the courts have effectively changed the intended original meaning of the right(note: as I understand it) , then its up to congress to move to further amend this amendment , keeping inline with court OPINION. Keeping in mind that opinion changes. As evidenced by recent rulings on this.
Here is a definition of "regulated" I got from wiki. I will research a bit more for a period definiton.
Regulation may refer to the following:
1.A process of the promulgation, monitoring, and enforcement of rules, established by primary and/or delegated legislation.
2.A written instrument containing rules having the force of law.
Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility. Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, contractual obligations that bind many parties (for example, "insurance regulations" that arise out of contracts between insurers and their insureds), self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation, third-party regulation, certification, accreditation or market regulation. In its legal sense regulation can and should be distinguished from primary legislation (by Parliament of elected legislative body) on the one hand and judge-made law on the other.[1]
Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. In this way, regulations can be seen as implementation artifacts of policy statements. Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics.
if we can agree this is a reasonable difinition of the that word , then it directly contradicts the "shall not be infriged" part of the second, doesnt it? My preference is to read an amendment in its entirety on its face. While I'm no legal scholar I believe that is where many legal decision derive from?
I'm curious, where do you stand again on backround checks ? I dont recall.
edit, I found a dictionary site that appears to have a facts only nonbiased istory of the second and courts rulings realted to this. Whats your take on what I found?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The subject matter and unusual phrasing of this amendment led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have long been decided by the Supreme Court.
Firearms played an important part in the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.
In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that "a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that
the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.
Pennsylvania was not alone in its express discouragement of a standing (professional) army. Many of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected standing armies, preferring instead the model of a citizen army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense. According to Framers such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason of Virginia a standing army was susceptible to tyrannical use by a power-hungry government.
At the first session of Congress in March 1789, the Second Amendment was submitted as a counterweight to the federal powers of Congress and the president. According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states. The Revolutionary War had, after all, been fought in large part by a citizen army against the standing armies of England.
The precise wording of the amendment was changed two times before the U.S. Senate finally cast it in its present form. As with many of the amendments, the exact wording proved critical to its interpretation.
In 1791 a majority of states ratified the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. In its final form, the amendment presented a challenge to interpreters. It was the only amendment with an opening clause that appeared to state its purpose. The amendment even had defective punctuation; the comma before shall seemed grammatically unnecessary.
Legal scholars do not agree about this comma. Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative words of the amendment are "[a] well regulated Militia … shall not be infringed." Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words of the sentence are "the right of the people to … bear arms … shall not be infringed." Under this reading, the first part of the sentence is the rationale for the absolute, personal right of the people to own firearms. Indeed, the historical backdrop—highlighted by a general disdain for professional armies—would seem to support this theory.
Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that "a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing."
The Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitution's meaning, and it has defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. This interpretation first came in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875). In Cruikshank, approximately one hundred persons were tried jointly in a Louisiana federal court with felonies in connection with an April 13, 1873, assault on two African–American men. One of the criminal counts charged that the mob intended to hinder the right of the two men to bear arms. The defendants were convicted by a jury, but the circuit court arrested the judgment, effectively overturning the verdict. In affirming that decision, the Supreme Court declared that "the second amendment means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886), Herman Presser was charged in Illinois state court with parading and drilling an unauthorized militia in the streets of Chicago in December 1879, in violation of certain sections of the Illinois Military Code. One of the sections in question prohibited the organization, drilling, operation, and parading of militias other than U.S. troops or the regular organized volunteer militia of the state. Presser was tried by the judge, convicted, and ordered to pay a fine of $10.
On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Presser argued, in part, that the charges violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court disagreed and upheld Presser's conviction. The Court cited Cruikshank for the proposition that the Second Amendment means only that the federal government may not infringe on the right of states to form their own militias. This meant that the Illinois state law forbidding citizen militias was not unconstitutional. However, in its opinion, the Court in Presser delivered a reading of the Second Amendment that seemed to suggest an absolute right of persons to bear arms: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States," and "states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms."
Despite this generous language, the Court refused to incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, states may not abridge the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities of citizens are listed in the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is part. Presser had argued that states may not, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge the right to bear arms. The Court refused to accept the argument that the right to bear arms is a personal right of the people. According to the Court, "The right to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship."
The Presser opinion is best understood in its historical context. The Northern states and the federal government had just fought the Civil War against Southern militias unauthorized by the federal government. After this ordeal, the Supreme Court was in no mood to accept an expansive right to bear arms. At the same time, the Court was sensitive to the subject of federal encroachment on States' Rights.
Private MilitiasPrivate militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments. Private militias have been formed by individuals in America since the colonial period. In fact, the Revolutionary War against England was fought in part by armies comprising not professional soldiers but ordinary male citizens.
Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.
In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.
Many private militias are driven by the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment. Under this view, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms for Self-Defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government—when a government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect," or take up arms against it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.
Some people have disagreed with the Supreme Court's definition of tyranny. Many of these people label the state and federal governments as tyrannical based on issues such as taxes and government regulations. Others cite governments ponsored racial and ethnic Integration as driving forces in their campaign against the federal and state governments. Many of these critics have formed private militias designed to resist perceived government oppression.
Some private militias have formed their own government. The legal problems of these private militias are generally unrelated to military activities. Instead, any criminal charges usually arise from activities associated with their political beliefs. The Freemen of Montana is one such militia. This group denied the legitimacy of the federal government and created its own township called Justus. The Freemen established its own court system, posted bounties for the arrest of police officers and judges, and held seminars on how to challenge laws its members viewed as beyond the scope of the Constitution. According to neighbors, the group also established its own common-law court system and built its own jail for the imprisonment of trespassers and government workers, or "public hirelings."
In the 1990s, the Freemen came to the attention of federal prosecutors after members of the group allegedly wrote worthless checks and money orders to pay taxes and to defraud banks and credit card companies. One Freeman had also allegedly threatened a federal judge, and some had allegedly refused to pay taxes for at least a decade.
In March 1996, law enforcement officials obtained warrants for the arrest of many of the Freemen. However, remembering the violence that occurred when officials attempted to serve arrest warrants on another armed group in Waco, Texas, in 1993, law enforcement authorities did not invade the Freemen's 960-acre ranch in Jordan, Montana. Although the Freemen constituted an armed challenge to all government authority, its beliefs and its military activities were not illegal, and most of its members were charged with nonviolent crimes, such as Fraud and related conspiracy. Two men were also charged with threatening public officials. In addition, several Freemen faced charges of criminal syndicalism, which is the advocacy of violence for political goals.
Further readings
Amar, Akhil Reed. 2002. "Second Thoughts." Law and Contemporary Problems 65 (spring).
Barry, Monica Sue. 1996. "Stockpiling Weapons: Can Private Militias Receive Protection under the First and Second Amendments?" Thomas Jefferson Law Review 18 (spring).
Hardaway, Robert, Elizabeth Gormley, and Bryan Taylor. 2002. "The Inconvenient Militia Clause of the Second Amendment: Why the Supreme Court Declines to Resolve the Debate over the Right to Bear Arms." St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary 16 (winter).
Cross-references
Dennis v. United States.
Several decades later, the Supreme Court ignored the contradictory language in Presser and cemented a limited reading of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939), defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged in federal court with unlawful transportation of firearms in violation of certain sections of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 (ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236–1240 [26 U.S.C.A. § 1132 et seq.]). Specifically, Miller and Layton had transported shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long, without the registration required under the act.
The district court dismissed the indictment, holding that the act violated the Second Amendment. The United States appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and sent the case back to the trial court. The Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment was fashioned "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of … militia forces."
The Miller opinion confirmed the restrictive language of Presser and solidified a narrow reading of the Second Amendment. According to the Court in Miller, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own a firearm unless the possession or use of the firearm has "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
The legislative measures that inspire most Second Amendment discussions are Gun Control laws. Since the mid-nineteenth century, state legislatures have been passing laws that infringe a perceived right to bear arms. Congress has also asserted the power to regulate firearms. No law regulating firearms has ever been struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Second Amendment.
Historically, the academic community has largely ignored the Second Amendment. However, gun control laws have turned many laypersons into scholars of the Second Amendment's history. The arguments for a broader interpretation are many and varied. Most center on the Original Intent of the Framers. Some emphasize that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as granting an unconditional personal right to bear arms for defensive and sporting
purposes. Others adhere to an insurrection theory, under which the Second Amendment not only grants the personal right to bear arms, it gives citizens the right to rebel against a government perceived as tyrannical.
In response to these arguments, supporters of the prevailing Second Amendment interpretation maintain that any right to bear arms should be secondary to concerns for public safety. They also point out that other provisions in the Constitution grant power to Congress to quell insurrections, thus contradicting the insurrection theory. Lastly, they argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with a changing society and that the destructive capability of semiautomatic and automatic firearms was not envisioned by the Framers.
In response to the last argument, critics maintain that because such firearms exist, it should be legal to use them against violent criminals who are themselves wielding such weapons.
In the 2000s, federal courts continue to revisit the scope and detail of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In particular federal courts have recast much of the debate as one over whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective" right or an "individual" right to bear arms. If the Second Amendment protects only a collective right, then only states would have the power to bring a legal action to enforce it and only for the purpose of maintaining a "well-regulated militia." If the Second Amendment protects only an individual right to bear arms, then only individuals could bring suit to challenge gun-control laws that curb their liberty to buy, sell, own, or possess firearms and other guns.
Not surprisingly, courts are conflicted over how to resolve this debate. In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the original intent of the Founding Fathers supported an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Nordyke v. King, 319 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2003). Although no court has concluded that the original intent underlying the Second Amendment supports a claim for both an individual- and a collective rights based interpretation of the right to bear arms, the compelling historical arguments marshaled on both sides of the debate would suggest that another court faced with the same debate may reach such a conclusion.
Further readings
Amar, Akhil Reed. 1992. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal 101 (April).
Becker, Edward R. 1997. "The Second Amendment and Other Federal Constitutional Rights of the Private Militia." Montana Law Review 58 (winter).
Bogus, Carl T., ed. 2000. The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms. New York: New Press.
Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. 1994. Guns in the United States. New York: Watts.
Dunlap, Charles J., Jr. 1995. "Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment." Tennessee Law Review 62 (spring).
Hanson, Freya Ottem. 1998. The Second Amendment: The Right to Own Guns. Springfield, N.J.: Enslow.
Hook, Donald D. 1992. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Washington, D.C.: Second Amendment Foundation.
Hoppin, Jason. 2003. "Ninth Circuit Upholds Controversial Ruling on Second Amendment." Legal Intelligencer (May 8).
——. 2003. "Second Amendment Fight Steals Show in Gun Ban Case: Panel Enters Fray over Individual Rights." San Francisco Recorder (February 19).
McAffee, Thomas B. 1997. "Constitutional Limits on Regulating Private Militia Groups." Montana Law Review 58 (winter).
Cross-references
Gun Control.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
edited February 2013
Holy copy and paste, Batman!
I'm on my phone but I'll touch on the "well-regulated" part. Many legal scholars note that at the time the Bill of Rights was written that the phrase means nothing more than "to make regular". In other words to have some organization.
pardon my ignorance, I fail to see how you can reconcile the bolded statements.Not looking to pick. Just looking to learn. On its face, what you wrote is contradictory
I thought I was fairly clear. The State can do what it needs to do as long as it does not infringe upon a person's right to defend themselves. The State can regulate trade within the state, the Federal Government cannot tell a state what to do, in this case, as long as the State keeps it in it's borders and doesn't bring outside States into the transaction (for lack of a better word).
the state is saying it will regulate the trade of a particular weapon. the ability of a person in that state to protect home person and family isnt diminished for them not being allowed this type, style or class of weapon. They have the right (the state) to define such, do they not?
I still cant get past the "a well regulated militia"start of the 2nd amendment. Nor do I believe I should . Since the courts have effectively changed the intended original meaning of the right(note: as I understand it) , then its up to congress to move to further amend this amendment , keeping inline with court OPINION. Keeping in mind that opinion changes. As evidenced by recent rulings on this.
Here is a definition of "regulated" I got from wiki. I will research a bit more for a period definiton.
Regulation may refer to the following:
1.A process of the promulgation, monitoring, and enforcement of rules, established by primary and/or delegated legislation.
2.A written instrument containing rules having the force of law.
Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility. Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, contractual obligations that bind many parties (for example, "insurance regulations" that arise out of contracts between insurers and their insureds), self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation, third-party regulation, certification, accreditation or market regulation. In its legal sense regulation can and should be distinguished from primary legislation (by Parliament of elected legislative body) on the one hand and judge-made law on the other.[1]
Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. In this way, regulations can be seen as implementation artifacts of policy statements. Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics.
if we can agree this is a reasonable difinition of the that word , then it directly contradicts the "shall not be infriged" part of the second, doesnt it? My preference is to read an amendment in its entirety on its face. While I'm no legal scholar I believe that is where many legal decision derive from?
I'm curious, where do you stand again on backround checks ? I dont recall.
You're actually wrong, mickeyrat. And I have trouble concealing my irritation with folks who can't fathom the notion of antiquated speech, particularly as relates to our constitution. But here it is for you, http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html, and you can fin the same on plenty of non gun sites. You can find multiple other colonial uses of the same phrase "we'll regulated" and ALL it has to do with is THE PROPER DISCIPLINE of troops.
It isn't referring to regulations. It isn't referring to written laws concerning such. It is a simple antiquated phrase that was used with regularity to indicate that something was in ship shape. It means to have a militia that is fit to fight. That is why the words make sense together. It is the ONLY way the amendment even has a meaning. The need for properly disciplined troops being paramount to liberty, citizens must own guns so they can train. You can't have a well regulated militia made of a bunch of irregular soldiers (ie. common folk. Citizens. Farmers) unless those irregulars are given EVERYDAY access to guns for firing. For training. For maintaining their discipline so they could be "we'll regulated" when the time for their need came. ... And please don't cop to the next lame depravation, which would be to tell us all that such need dissappeared win the creation of the regular army. ... Which was actually part of the fear that induced the writers to include such a clause. . . The need to counter an ill advised federal army. The need for states to secure their liberty, either against foreign aggression OR federal agitation.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Comments
no.
"This Dad from Sandy Hook tells legislative hearing how corrupt and unconstitutional are proposed gun control laws"
Whomever wrote the atrocity on the english language above has no right to whine about legislators who "flunked American History."
From your article:
"However, they're (Federal Authorities) also investigating him for possible gun smuggling, tax evasion and violating importation laws.
Court documents reveal federal agents were watching Adams for years and that some documentation was missing "to determine to whom Adams [was] selling or exporting his firearms."
The guns were also not properly marked possibly to make the guns more valuable and to avoid paying high import taxes, investigators alleged.
However, a bigger concern is that no markings on the guns and missing documents mean the guns are not traceable by law enforcement."
...
Yeah... he hasn't been charged... yet. But, the investigation isn't completed, either. Let's wait until we find out about the weapons and whether or not he was smugglng guns, evading taxes and selling illegal guns to criminals before we weigh in on our, "It's Hitler all over again' rants.
Hail, Hail!!!
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Balls.
I was coming here to post that, too.
The government took away our ability to own arms that could stop a tyrannical government a long time ago.
People who are so in favor of preserving the 2nd amendment don't realize it's already meaningless.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I hate that when people hear gun control, people automatically assume "take away guns." It just means to make laws to make sure gun safety is ensured.
I don't get how people hate the new laws regarding universal background checks. It seems common sense to me. If you are not mentally unstable and have no criminal past and show you can be responsible, you deserve a gun.
Personally, I don't trust anyone with a gun. I am not saying we should not have guns, but in the end, it is our emotions that get the best of us. If we are extremely angry and we have a gun, it is an easy ticket out of that situation.
But America is at a point where we can't live with or without guns. So the best we can do is try to limit the number of deaths as best we can in a cooperative, non-political way. We need to realize that the safety of Americans is important and we should do what we can to ensure Americans are safe.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
I know it was a long. long time ago... but, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina... people were looting and firing shots at news helicopters.
Are you telling me that you believe having a lot of guns in that state of anarchy is a good idea?
I know you are going to try to counter about taking the guns from 'law abiding' citizens... to which I argue that looting is not abiding the law. Taking guns away from them was probably a good thing.
Hail, Hail!!!
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I think i heard somewhere on the internets that someone read an E-Mail that said it must have been Obama because only Obama want to take away our guns.
Hail, Hail!!!
Except that they are...
Read pending Missouri legislation.
Further search of state database shows these related to firearms. Found within "firearms and fireworks. Not seeing what you suggest is happening. All kinds of progun legislation. Many directed at the federal government related to firearms.
http://house.mo.gov/billreport.aspx?sel ... 013&code=R
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
Better start building those prisons and digging those graves. We will not comply.
Your post above seemed to suggest an outright ban on all firearms and confiscation as a result. Guess I misunderstood.
Having said that Mo IS a GOP heavy state is it not? Just because these two reps have proposed this, do you think this has a fair shot at passage?
Also given this a state proposal for that state it seems to put in to conflict of states rights vs. federal powers does it not?
Given your Libertarian thinking(at least as I read you) , I was curious what your thoughts were on this sort of broader aspect.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
This
It most likely will not pass. Just like Obama's proposals. People are/were freaking out because he wants assault rifle bans, but since the GOP control the Congress, it most likely won't pass.
You can spend your time alone, redigesting past regrets, oh
or you can come to terms and realize
you're the only one who can't forgive yourself, oh
makes much more sense to live in the present tense - Present Tense
Of which nobody has a definition. An assault weapon is about as general as can be. It could mean anything.
I'll answer your other questions when I get to a computer.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I do not believe it will pass. However the mere attempt, knowing that it will not, is inflammatory.
I see no conflict of a states rights issue v fed. The General government has no authority according to the Constitution to enact gun control laws. Those issues are in fact left to the states. All Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional in the eyes of Libertarians and Constitutionalists. Art 1 Sec VIII spells out exactly what the General government may do. Remember the Constitution wasn't written as a guide for what the people can do, it was a guide for what the General government can or cannot do.
That being said the State has the right to create gun control laws that do not infringe. What's the level of infringement? Can that be defined? The phrase "shall not" implies that it cannot. Unfortunately the SCOTUS has ruled that the State can create certain restrictions. That's why some states you can own a suppressor, and some you can't. Some you can have class III weapons, some you can't. Most people have accepted that, I personally see no issue with someone wanting a SBR, SBS, or class III. I see the acceptable level of restriction set against the ownership of high explosives, WOMD, missiles, anti-air, etc. Those are excessive in the use of defending ones property, IMO. Some will still disagree. I feel that I should be able to defend my property with a fully automatic rifle if I so desired. I don't believe defending my property requires an ICBM, because in the defense of my property I'd obviously cause mass casualties to innocents. That's how I define it.
A so-called "high cap" magazine ban is unconstitutional at any level.
On edit: FWIW you may see around that people will claim that the general govt is passing gun control under the general welfare cause, that in itself is an incorrect path. The Preamble is not binding, just like the table of contents of a book doesn't tell the whole story. Then you'll see them try to pass laws under the Commerce Clause. That would be an acceptable path, however there is legislation in many states that can void that as well. The states are writing laws that say as long as the parts/guns are manufactured IN THAT STATE, the Feds can't touch them. Nothing has left the state, and nothing was brought into the state, therefore the State has the right to regulate as it sees fit. There has been no intra-state trade going on that would be subject to general government regulation.
Realize that most, if not all, legal gun owners only want to be able to protect their property and defend their family and themselves. We are not looking to start a war or harm innocent people. I personally am subject to constant FBI background checks and I am subject to mandatory drug testing and psychological examinations as a condition of my employment. I am not, nor will I ever be, a threat to an innocent person. I will however use lethal force to defend my family if it is required.
I have spent over five hours this weekend filling out witness slips and briefs pertaining to laws in my State. It's what I do on my free time. Everyone should do so, no matter what your stance is. This is our country, not any politicians. They work for us.
For some waging war against the government will be a dream come true. Sad.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
This was well written and an interesting take. Credit where it is due.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
What? Are you serious? Who says something like this?
Are you saying you'll fight to the death to preserve your right to keep your assault rifles? You'll shoot someone's father if, in the line of duty, they seek to seize your weapon? Your really cool gun is that important to you?
How noble and dignified. Wow.
I thought I was fairly clear. The State can do what it needs to do as long as it does not infringe upon a person's right to defend themselves. The State can regulate trade within the state, the Federal Government cannot tell a state what to do, in this case, as long as the State keeps it in it's borders and doesn't bring outside States into the transaction (for lack of a better word).
I'm not going to explain it when you want to try to bait me into an argument. It's more than a cool gun. It's about freedom. And yes if you think that the entire gun owning population is going to just turn them all in because of a group of tyrants demands so then yes, start digging graves and building prisons.
Unconstitutional laws are not laws. The enemies are the politicians that create such laws.
Thank you.
You couldn't explain it if you tried because your line of thought is ridiculous. It is about freedom: the freedom to go to school in the morning without getting gunned down by a down-and-out-loser with a badass gun that he took from the closet. The group of tyrants you speak of are looking to safeguard your country from its next disaster- hardly hostility.
And you are wrong: this is about cool guns and, worse yet, supporting a general paranoia that borders on the edge of lunacy.
I still cant get past the "a well regulated militia"start of the 2nd amendment. Nor do I believe I should . Since the courts have effectively changed the intended original meaning of the right(note: as I understand it) , then its up to congress to move to further amend this amendment , keeping inline with court OPINION. Keeping in mind that opinion changes. As evidenced by recent rulings on this.
Here is a definition of "regulated" I got from wiki. I will research a bit more for a period definiton.
Regulation may refer to the following:
1.A process of the promulgation, monitoring, and enforcement of rules, established by primary and/or delegated legislation.
2.A written instrument containing rules having the force of law.
Regulation creates, limits, or constrains a right, creates or limits a duty, or allocates a responsibility. Regulation can take many forms: legal restrictions promulgated by a government authority, contractual obligations that bind many parties (for example, "insurance regulations" that arise out of contracts between insurers and their insureds), self-regulation by an industry such as through a trade association, social regulation (e.g. norms), co-regulation, third-party regulation, certification, accreditation or market regulation. In its legal sense regulation can and should be distinguished from primary legislation (by Parliament of elected legislative body) on the one hand and judge-made law on the other.[1]
Regulation mandated by a state attempts to produce outcomes which might not otherwise occur, produce or prevent outcomes in different places to what might otherwise occur, or produce or prevent outcomes in different timescales than would otherwise occur. In this way, regulations can be seen as implementation artifacts of policy statements. Common examples of regulation include controls on market entries, prices, wages, development approvals, pollution effects, employment for certain people in certain industries, standards of production for certain goods, the military forces and services. The economics of imposing or removing regulations relating to markets is analysed in regulatory economics.
if we can agree this is a reasonable difinition of the that word , then it directly contradicts the "shall not be infriged" part of the second, doesnt it? My preference is to read an amendment in its entirety on its face. While I'm no legal scholar I believe that is where many legal decision derive from?
I'm curious, where do you stand again on backround checks ? I dont recall.
edit, I found a dictionary site that appears to have a facts only nonbiased istory of the second and courts rulings realted to this. Whats your take on what I found?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona ... endmentThe Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The subject matter and unusual phrasing of this amendment led to much controversy and analysis, especially in the last half of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, the meaning and scope of the amendment have long been decided by the Supreme Court.
Firearms played an important part in the colonization of America. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, European colonists relied heavily on firearms to take land away from Native Americans and repel attacks by Native Americans and Europeans. Around the time of the Revolutionary War, male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces. Firearms were also used in hunting.
In June 1776, one month before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Virginia became the first colony to adopt a state constitution. In this document, the state of Virginia pronounced that "a well regulated Militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State." After the colonies declared their independence from England, other states began to include the right to bear arms in their constitution. Pennsylvania, for example, declared that
the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The wording of clauses about bearing arms in late-eighteenth-century state constitutions varied. Some states asserted that bearing arms was a "right" of the people, whereas others called it a "duty" of every able-bodied man in the defense of society.
Pennsylvania was not alone in its express discouragement of a standing (professional) army. Many of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected standing armies, preferring instead the model of a citizen army, equipped with weapons and prepared for defense. According to Framers such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts and George Mason of Virginia a standing army was susceptible to tyrannical use by a power-hungry government.
At the first session of Congress in March 1789, the Second Amendment was submitted as a counterweight to the federal powers of Congress and the president. According to constitutional theorists, the Framers who feared a central government extracted the amendment as a compromise from those in favor of centralized authority over the states. The Revolutionary War had, after all, been fought in large part by a citizen army against the standing armies of England.
The precise wording of the amendment was changed two times before the U.S. Senate finally cast it in its present form. As with many of the amendments, the exact wording proved critical to its interpretation.
In 1791 a majority of states ratified the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment. In its final form, the amendment presented a challenge to interpreters. It was the only amendment with an opening clause that appeared to state its purpose. The amendment even had defective punctuation; the comma before shall seemed grammatically unnecessary.
Legal scholars do not agree about this comma. Some have argued that it was intentional and that it was intended to make militia the subject of the sentence. According to these theorists, the operative words of the amendment are "[a] well regulated Militia … shall not be infringed." Others have argued that the comma was a mistake, and that the operative words of the sentence are "the right of the people to … bear arms … shall not be infringed." Under this reading, the first part of the sentence is the rationale for the absolute, personal right of the people to own firearms. Indeed, the historical backdrop—highlighted by a general disdain for professional armies—would seem to support this theory.
Some observers argue further that the Second Amendment grants the right of insurrection. According to these theorists, the Second Amendment was designed to allow citizens to rebel against the government. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying that "a little rebellion every now and then is a good thing."
The Supreme Court makes the ultimate determination of the Constitution's meaning, and it has defined the amendment as simply granting to the states the right to maintain a militia separate from federally controlled militias. This interpretation first came in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1875). In Cruikshank, approximately one hundred persons were tried jointly in a Louisiana federal court with felonies in connection with an April 13, 1873, assault on two African–American men. One of the criminal counts charged that the mob intended to hinder the right of the two men to bear arms. The defendants were convicted by a jury, but the circuit court arrested the judgment, effectively overturning the verdict. In affirming that decision, the Supreme Court declared that "the second amendment means no more than that [the right to bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 6 S. Ct. 580, 29 L. Ed. 615 (1886), Herman Presser was charged in Illinois state court with parading and drilling an unauthorized militia in the streets of Chicago in December 1879, in violation of certain sections of the Illinois Military Code. One of the sections in question prohibited the organization, drilling, operation, and parading of militias other than U.S. troops or the regular organized volunteer militia of the state. Presser was tried by the judge, convicted, and ordered to pay a fine of $10.
On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Presser argued, in part, that the charges violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Court disagreed and upheld Presser's conviction. The Court cited Cruikshank for the proposition that the Second Amendment means only that the federal government may not infringe on the right of states to form their own militias. This meant that the Illinois state law forbidding citizen militias was not unconstitutional. However, in its opinion, the Court in Presser delivered a reading of the Second Amendment that seemed to suggest an absolute right of persons to bear arms: "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States," and "states cannot … prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms."
Despite this generous language, the Court refused to incorporate the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, passed in 1868, states may not abridge the Privileges and Immunities of citizens of the United States. The privileges and immunities of citizens are listed in the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is part. Presser had argued that states may not, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, abridge the right to bear arms. The Court refused to accept the argument that the right to bear arms is a personal right of the people. According to the Court, "The right to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship."
The Presser opinion is best understood in its historical context. The Northern states and the federal government had just fought the Civil War against Southern militias unauthorized by the federal government. After this ordeal, the Supreme Court was in no mood to accept an expansive right to bear arms. At the same time, the Court was sensitive to the subject of federal encroachment on States' Rights.
Private MilitiasPrivate militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments. Private militias have been formed by individuals in America since the colonial period. In fact, the Revolutionary War against England was fought in part by armies comprising not professional soldiers but ordinary male citizens.
Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.
In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.
Many private militias are driven by the insurrection theory of the Second Amendment. Under this view, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms for Self-Defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government—when a government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect," or take up arms against it.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a qualified rejection of the insurrection theory. According to the Court in Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494, 71 S. Ct. 857, 95 L. Ed. 1137 (1951), "[W]hatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a 'right' to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change." Scholars have interpreted this to mean that as long as the government provides for free elections and trials by jury, private citizens have no right to take up arms against the government.
Some people have disagreed with the Supreme Court's definition of tyranny. Many of these people label the state and federal governments as tyrannical based on issues such as taxes and government regulations. Others cite governments ponsored racial and ethnic Integration as driving forces in their campaign against the federal and state governments. Many of these critics have formed private militias designed to resist perceived government oppression.
Some private militias have formed their own government. The legal problems of these private militias are generally unrelated to military activities. Instead, any criminal charges usually arise from activities associated with their political beliefs. The Freemen of Montana is one such militia. This group denied the legitimacy of the federal government and created its own township called Justus. The Freemen established its own court system, posted bounties for the arrest of police officers and judges, and held seminars on how to challenge laws its members viewed as beyond the scope of the Constitution. According to neighbors, the group also established its own common-law court system and built its own jail for the imprisonment of trespassers and government workers, or "public hirelings."
In the 1990s, the Freemen came to the attention of federal prosecutors after members of the group allegedly wrote worthless checks and money orders to pay taxes and to defraud banks and credit card companies. One Freeman had also allegedly threatened a federal judge, and some had allegedly refused to pay taxes for at least a decade.
In March 1996, law enforcement officials obtained warrants for the arrest of many of the Freemen. However, remembering the violence that occurred when officials attempted to serve arrest warrants on another armed group in Waco, Texas, in 1993, law enforcement authorities did not invade the Freemen's 960-acre ranch in Jordan, Montana. Although the Freemen constituted an armed challenge to all government authority, its beliefs and its military activities were not illegal, and most of its members were charged with nonviolent crimes, such as Fraud and related conspiracy. Two men were also charged with threatening public officials. In addition, several Freemen faced charges of criminal syndicalism, which is the advocacy of violence for political goals.
Further readings
Amar, Akhil Reed. 2002. "Second Thoughts." Law and Contemporary Problems 65 (spring).
Barry, Monica Sue. 1996. "Stockpiling Weapons: Can Private Militias Receive Protection under the First and Second Amendments?" Thomas Jefferson Law Review 18 (spring).
Hardaway, Robert, Elizabeth Gormley, and Bryan Taylor. 2002. "The Inconvenient Militia Clause of the Second Amendment: Why the Supreme Court Declines to Resolve the Debate over the Right to Bear Arms." St. John's Journal of Legal Commentary 16 (winter).
Cross-references
Dennis v. United States.
Several decades later, the Supreme Court ignored the contradictory language in Presser and cemented a limited reading of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S. Ct. 816, 83 L. Ed. 1206 (1939), defendants Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged in federal court with unlawful transportation of firearms in violation of certain sections of the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934 (ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236–1240 [26 U.S.C.A. § 1132 et seq.]). Specifically, Miller and Layton had transported shotguns with barrels less than 18 inches long, without the registration required under the act.
The district court dismissed the indictment, holding that the act violated the Second Amendment. The United States appealed. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and sent the case back to the trial court. The Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment was fashioned "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of … militia forces."
The Miller opinion confirmed the restrictive language of Presser and solidified a narrow reading of the Second Amendment. According to the Court in Miller, the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own a firearm unless the possession or use of the firearm has "a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
The legislative measures that inspire most Second Amendment discussions are Gun Control laws. Since the mid-nineteenth century, state legislatures have been passing laws that infringe a perceived right to bear arms. Congress has also asserted the power to regulate firearms. No law regulating firearms has ever been struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Second Amendment.
Historically, the academic community has largely ignored the Second Amendment. However, gun control laws have turned many laypersons into scholars of the Second Amendment's history. The arguments for a broader interpretation are many and varied. Most center on the Original Intent of the Framers. Some emphasize that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as granting an unconditional personal right to bear arms for defensive and sporting
purposes. Others adhere to an insurrection theory, under which the Second Amendment not only grants the personal right to bear arms, it gives citizens the right to rebel against a government perceived as tyrannical.
In response to these arguments, supporters of the prevailing Second Amendment interpretation maintain that any right to bear arms should be secondary to concerns for public safety. They also point out that other provisions in the Constitution grant power to Congress to quell insurrections, thus contradicting the insurrection theory. Lastly, they argue that the Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with a changing society and that the destructive capability of semiautomatic and automatic firearms was not envisioned by the Framers.
In response to the last argument, critics maintain that because such firearms exist, it should be legal to use them against violent criminals who are themselves wielding such weapons.
In the 2000s, federal courts continue to revisit the scope and detail of the Second Amendment right to bear arms. In particular federal courts have recast much of the debate as one over whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective" right or an "individual" right to bear arms. If the Second Amendment protects only a collective right, then only states would have the power to bring a legal action to enforce it and only for the purpose of maintaining a "well-regulated militia." If the Second Amendment protects only an individual right to bear arms, then only individuals could bring suit to challenge gun-control laws that curb their liberty to buy, sell, own, or possess firearms and other guns.
Not surprisingly, courts are conflicted over how to resolve this debate. In United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the original intent of the Founding Fathers supported an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in Nordyke v. King, 319 F.3d 1185 (9th Cir. 2003). Although no court has concluded that the original intent underlying the Second Amendment supports a claim for both an individual- and a collective rights based interpretation of the right to bear arms, the compelling historical arguments marshaled on both sides of the debate would suggest that another court faced with the same debate may reach such a conclusion.
Further readings
Amar, Akhil Reed. 1992. "The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment." Yale Law Journal 101 (April).
Becker, Edward R. 1997. "The Second Amendment and Other Federal Constitutional Rights of the Private Militia." Montana Law Review 58 (winter).
Bogus, Carl T., ed. 2000. The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms. New York: New Press.
Dolan, Edward F., and Margaret M. Scariano. 1994. Guns in the United States. New York: Watts.
Dunlap, Charles J., Jr. 1995. "Revolt of the Masses: Armed Civilians and the Insurrectionary Theory of the Second Amendment." Tennessee Law Review 62 (spring).
Hanson, Freya Ottem. 1998. The Second Amendment: The Right to Own Guns. Springfield, N.J.: Enslow.
Hook, Donald D. 1992. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Washington, D.C.: Second Amendment Foundation.
Hoppin, Jason. 2003. "Ninth Circuit Upholds Controversial Ruling on Second Amendment." Legal Intelligencer (May 8).
——. 2003. "Second Amendment Fight Steals Show in Gun Ban Case: Panel Enters Fray over Individual Rights." San Francisco Recorder (February 19).
McAffee, Thomas B. 1997. "Constitutional Limits on Regulating Private Militia Groups." Montana Law Review 58 (winter).
Cross-references
Gun Control.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I'm on my phone but I'll touch on the "well-regulated" part. Many legal scholars note that at the time the Bill of Rights was written that the phrase means nothing more than "to make regular". In other words to have some organization.
It isn't referring to regulations. It isn't referring to written laws concerning such. It is a simple antiquated phrase that was used with regularity to indicate that something was in ship shape. It means to have a militia that is fit to fight. That is why the words make sense together. It is the ONLY way the amendment even has a meaning. The need for properly disciplined troops being paramount to liberty, citizens must own guns so they can train. You can't have a well regulated militia made of a bunch of irregular soldiers (ie. common folk. Citizens. Farmers) unless those irregulars are given EVERYDAY access to guns for firing. For training. For maintaining their discipline so they could be "we'll regulated" when the time for their need came. ... And please don't cop to the next lame depravation, which would be to tell us all that such need dissappeared win the creation of the regular army. ... Which was actually part of the fear that induced the writers to include such a clause. . . The need to counter an ill advised federal army. The need for states to secure their liberty, either against foreign aggression OR federal agitation.
If I opened it now would you not understand?