Constitutional restrictions on gunsd?

disneydude said:

You're missing the point Ikari....you are asking me to take at a minimum, a one year law school course, and reduce it to a paragraph post.
Just like I would never expect to learn how to plumb a house in a one paragraph post, I certainly would never expect anyone to understand Constitutional analysis in one.

As far as your second contention. The way our government was set up was for there to be three distinct branches of government, each with checks and balances. The SCOTUS has exactly the level of power that was intended at the inception of our system.

Click to expand...

Then do us all a favor and go somewhere else, so we can have a discussion about a very simple right... the right to keep and bear arms without Government infringement.

BTW… the constitution is very simple and anyone with a GED can read it and understand it… it only gets complicated when the SC and lawyers get involved to distort what was written for their own dishonest purposes.

disneydude said:

[...] The SCOTUS has exactly the level of power that was intended at the inception of our system.

Click to expand...

No. Judicial review was implemented after the inception (and not through any amendment process). Its power was expanded after the initial ratification/implementation under chief justice marshal.

Madison himself, the "father of the constitution" even switched over to the anti-federalist side once he realized how the document could be abused under a loose interpretation and used to grotesquely expand federal power, which he adamantly opposed.

(I guarantee that if judicial review would have been initially stated in section III, very few, if any, states would have ratified it)

Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

Kandahar said:

How are you defining "arms"?



Well, obviously the use of ANY kind of weapon is a "clear and present danger." I think possession might or might not be...depending on the type of weapon. Surely the really heavy stuff like bombs, grenade launchers, etc. would be a clear and present danger, since they have no legitimate purpose and can cause mass destruction at any moment. The same is somewhat true (to a lesser extent) for certain types of guns...it's just a question of where you draw the line.



I'm just saying that each right is different. Traditionally the courts have been more lenient with certain rights than others, so I don't think just substituting the restrictions on free speech for the restrictions on arms would fly in a court of law.

Click to expand...

You are missing to whole point of the 2nd amendment... it is not for hunting or target practice.... it is for the citizens of this country to protect themselves from an abusive Government, so it only follows that as citizens, we have the right to arm ourselves as the Government does.

Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

Goobieman said:

Given the topic (Constitutional restrictions on guns), there's no need to consider cannon-armed merchentmen.

Click to expand...

I thought we were talking about the 2nd ammendment... "to keep and bear arms"

Re: Constitutional restrictions on guns?

Crunch said:

I thought we were talking about the 2nd ammendment... "to keep and bear arms"

Click to expand...

See: Topic header

Harshaw said:

Yes. Any prior restraint is inherently an infringement. That, too, is settled Constitutional law -- apart from just being obvious.

Click to expand...

Naturally, it it not lost on the OP that prior restraint is a concept developed through the jurisprudence aurrounding 1st amendment...

Regarding the supposed complexity of interpreting the Constitution:

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves
back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it,
[instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to
William Johnson)

Click to expand...

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87, date still being sought)

Click to expand...

I oppose prior restraint in all but the most extreme of circumstances, which would be things like WMDs which have no use other than the mass destruction of large populations.

Efforts to ensure that those legally buying arms are "peaceable citizens" are not repugnant to me as long as they are reasonable and not overly burdensome. The NICS check, which usually takes 20 minutes and is done to ensure that the buyer is not a convicted felon and has not been involuntarily committed, is somewhat acceptible. A slightly more in-depth background check to purchase heavier battlefield weapons (Browning .50MG, mortars, explosives, etc) would be a compromise I could tolerate.

Any law-abiding citizen should be able to go armed anywhere that the general public may openly go, or into any place that does not have an overwhelmingly compelling security intrest against it (ie jails, prisons, courtrooms). Any place that bans citizens from entering armed should be legally and financially liable for their safety from violence while they are there.

I'd consider anything more than that to be an infringement.

Goshin said:

I oppose prior restraint in all but the most extreme of circumstances, which would be things like WMDs which have no use other than the mass destruction of large populations.

Click to expand...

Why then do you not find background checks unacceptable?
They are a very clear form of prior restraint.