US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun bans

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Goobieman said:

Does anyone have an argument -against- incorporation?

Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a slew of arguments, none of them logical.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

FWIW, this was the case we discussed in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...o-law-banning-handguns-city-upheld-court.html

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Ikari said:

I don't see how the Bill of Rights is not applicable to the States. When the States signed on to the Republic, they accepted the Bill of Rights. Those rights have been specifically reserved by the People. It's like saying the federal government can't infringe on free speech, but if I want to say something I'd need the proper permit from the State government. It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Goobieman said:

Thats what the 14th amendment does -- officially applies the BoR to the actions of the states.

Click to expand...

The first paragraph to the 14th Amendment essentially says that no state shall make laws that take away the rights given to the people by the Constitution. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the strictest sense of the word as we've done with the "natural born citizen" issue from Articel 2, Section 1 to the Constitution, then the states cannot restrict the people from owning firearms of any kind be it a pistol, a shotgun, a high powered riffle, or a bazooka!

However, I would hope that people and politicians would look at the issue of gun control from a more reasonable standpoint as it is clear that owning such firearms as high powered riffles or bazookas would not be prudent in today's society where the need for self-protection is concerned.

Grim17 said:

Based on the current members of the SCOTUS, I think they will strike down bans against handgun ownership, which is consistent with the bill of rights.

Strong regulation is necessary, especially in inner cities, but banning them violates our rights.

Click to expand...

I think ultimately, this is what the SCOTUS will rule in favor of. But here again, the problem is this:

What firearms would reasonably constitute weaponry used in today's "militia" that would not violate the people's right to bear arms in the event of hostilities invoked upon the people by its government or from an enemy from outside our nation's boarders or from an individual (or individuals) who wishes to do harm to a person, his/her family or property?

Click to expand...

Of course, the other side of this debate is:

Is it even necessary for the people to bear arms for the sake of self-protection against all enemies, foreign or domestic, considering that the very nature of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the people of the several states the right to bear arms against foreign enemies when called upon to do so by our government in forming a militia to protect the nation?

Click to expand...

We have the National Guard to do that for us now. Thus, it could be argued that the people no longer need to take up arms for that reason. I doubt one would have any success making such an argument, but they could try. The issue with the 2nd Amendment, IMO, really isn't resticting people from buying firearms, but rather controlling what firearms they buy. It's just not reasonable for the people to own certain types of firearms, i.e., assault riffles and such, for self-protection or even for sport (hunting or hobbyist/collectors). The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want. But here's the rub...

If a militia would use an AK-47, would it not then be permissable for the people to have the right to own same?

Click to expand...

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real puzzlers here:

What firearms would be deemed "reasonable" for individuals owners for self-protection or in the event one is called to help form a militia group?

Click to expand...

Again, I think the argument could be made that the people would no longer be called upon to form a militia. We have other agencies to do that for the several states (National Guard) and the nation (Armed Services). The only reasonable question that remains in present day is "Who can own what type of firearm for what purpose?"

In answering this question, I think it's important that the states lay the foundation for gun control laws that enact tougher restrictions against (or ban the sale of same altogether) the purchase of certain types of weapons from the common, everyday consumer. I don't think you can do it at the federal level without amending or abolishing the 2nd Amendement. This is something the states must do, but perhaps with alittle clarification from the fed or the SCOTUS.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

The first paragraph to the 14th Amendment essentially says that no state shall make laws that take away the rights given to the people by the Constitution. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the strictest sense of the word as we've done with the "natural born citizen" issue from Articel 2, Section 1 to the Constitution, then the states cannot restrict the people from owning firearms of any kind be it a pistol, a shotgun, a high powered riffle, or a bazooka!

However, I would hope that people and politicians would look at the issue of gun control from a more reasonable standpoint as it is clear that owning such firearms as high powered riffles or bazookas would not be prudent in today's society where the need for self-protection is concerned.



I think ultimately, this is what the SCOTUS will rule in favor of. But here again, the problem is this:



Of course, the other side of this debate is:



We have the National Guard to do that for us now. Thus, it could be argued that the people no longer need to take up arms for that reason. I doubt one would have any success making such an argument, but they could try. The issue with the 2nd Amendment, IMO, really isn't resticting people from buying firearms, but rather controlling what firearms they buy. It's just not reasonable for the people to own certain types of firearms, i.e., assault riffles and such, for self-protection or even for sport (hunting or hobbyist/collectors). The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want. But here's the rub...



That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real puzzlers here:

Again, I think the argument could be made that the people would no longer be called upon to form a militia. We have other agencies to do that for the several states (National Guard) and the nation (Armed Services). The only reasonable question that remains in present day is "Who can own what type of firearm for what purpose?"

In answering this question, I think it's important that the states lay the foundation for gun control laws that enact tougher restrictions against (or ban the sale of same altogether) the purchase of certain types of weapons from the common, everyday consumer. I don't think you can do it at the federal level without amending or abolishing the 2nd Amendement. This is something the states must do, but perhaps with alittle clarification from the fed or the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

There's very little difference between all of this and all the typical "justifications" of gun control given throughout the years, save that you give some acknowledgment that the Supreme Court recognizes the 2A to protect an individual, not a state's, right.

As such, like it or not (and you obviously do not), none of this matters; the right is protected, and it can't be "reasoned" away. These may be arguments for abolishing the 2A (though I disagree with them), but they are not arguments which should -- or can -- be taken into account when applying the 2A to the states. It protects what it protects, regardless.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Orius said:

I used to be one of them. I think uncontrolled arms isn't necessarily a good thing. Just because someone can afford their own nuclear silo does not mean they should get one. If it infringes upon public safety en mass, then it's not a weapon people should have.

But scaling down to the more practical level... I don't see anything wrong with bearing arms. I do think registration should be mandatory though, mostly for criminal investigation purposes.

Click to expand...

If you can get all of the criminal gun owners to register their guns, I'll register mine.... until then...

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Crunch said:

If you can get all of the criminal gun owners to register their guns, I'll register mine.... until then...

Click to expand...

...you'll ignore laws requiring you to register your guns, thus committing a felony (depending on your location)?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

The first paragraph to the 14th Amendment essentially says that no state shall make laws that take away the rights given to the people by the Constitution. If we are to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the strictest sense of the word as we've done with the "natural born citizen" issue from Articel 2, Section 1 to the Constitution, then the states cannot restrict the people from owning firearms of any kind be it a pistol, a shotgun, a high powered riffle, or a bazooka!

However, I would hope that people and politicians would look at the issue of gun control from a more reasonable standpoint as it is clear that owning such firearms as high powered riffles or bazookas would not be prudent in today's society where the need for self-protection is concerned.



I think ultimately, this is what the SCOTUS will rule in favor of. But here again, the problem is this:



Of course, the other side of this debate is:



We have the National Guard to do that for us now. Thus, it could be argued that the people no longer need to take up arms for that reason. I doubt one would have any success making such an argument, but they could try. The issue with the 2nd Amendment, IMO, really isn't resticting people from buying firearms, but rather controlling what firearms they buy. It's just not reasonable for the people to own certain types of firearms, i.e., assault riffles and such, for self-protection or even for sport (hunting or hobbyist/collectors). The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want. But here's the rub...



That, ladies and gentlemen, is the real puzzlers here:

Again, I think the argument could be made that the people would no longer be called upon to form a militia. We have other agencies to do that for the several states (National Guard) and the nation (Armed Services). The only reasonable question that remains in present day is "Who can own what type of firearm for what purpose?"

In answering this question, I think it's important that the states lay the foundation for gun control laws that enact tougher restrictions against (or ban the sale of same altogether) the purchase of certain types of weapons from the common, everyday consumer. I don't think you can do it at the federal level without amending or abolishing the 2nd Amendement. This is something the states must do, but perhaps with alittle clarification from the fed or the SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

The purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't for people to keep guns for hunting and shooting cans, it's to keep our government in line... great big PERIOD here.

With that in mind, citizens in good standing have to be able to keep and bear arms equal to what the government has, or the intention of the founders goes right out the window.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

We have the National Guard to do that for us now. Thus, it could be argued that the people no longer need to take up arms for that reason. I doubt one would have any success making such an argument, but they could try. The issue with the 2nd Amendment, IMO, really isn't resticting people from buying firearms, but rather controlling what firearms they buy. It's just not reasonable for the people to own certain types of firearms, i.e., assault riffles and such, for self-protection or even for sport (hunting or hobbyist/collectors). The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want. But here's the rub...

Click to expand...

Oh, and on this point . . .

You're arguing that an assault rifle would have no place in militia service?

Seriously?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Crunch said:

With that in mind, citizens in good standing have to be able to keep and bear arms equal to what the government has, or the intention of the founders goes right out the window.

Click to expand...

So the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect your right to deploy nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your backyard?

Something about that seems a little off.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Harshaw said:

There's very little difference between all of this and all the typical "justifications" of gun control given throughout the years, save that you give some acknowledgment that the Supreme Court recognizes the 2A to protect an individual, not a state's, right.

As such, like it or not (and you obviously do not), none of this matters; the right is protected, and it can't be "reasoned" away. These may be arguments for abolishing the 2A (though I disagree with them), but they are not arguments which should -- or can -- be taken into account when applying the 2A to the states. It protects what it protects, regardless.

Click to expand...

I don't necessarily have a problem with people owning firearms...just the type(s) of firearms they own, the quantity and how irresponsible some people are with them. Other than that, I think it's a person's choice to determine if they need self-protection. I just don't think one needs an assault riffle to do it. A 357 Magnium, 9mm handgun and/or a small caliber riffle should be plenty.

Just my opinion...

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

I don't necessarily have a problem with people owning firearms...just the type(s) of firearms they own, the quantity and how irresponsible some people are with them. Other than that, I think it's a person's choice to determine if they need self-protection. I just don't think one needs an assault riffle to do it. A 357 Magnium, 9mm handgun and/or a small caliber riffle should be plenty.

Just my opinion...

Click to expand...

Yes, well, individual opinions about other people's options don't mean much when it comes to a Constitutionally-protected right. That's kind of the point of protecting it.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

RightinNYC said:

...you'll ignore laws requiring you to register your guns, thus committing a felony (depending on your location)?

Click to expand...

There are no laws here that requier me to register my guns.... yet.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Harshaw said:

Oh, and on this point . . .

You're arguing that an assault rifle would have no place in militia service?

Seriously?

Click to expand...

No. I was merely attempting to look at both sides of the weapons coin where "militia -v- the people's right to bear arms" equate to weapons that would ordinarily be issued to members of a militia group acting on behalf of the state. In that sense, it is reasonable to assume that the common man would be allowed under the 2nd Amendment to own the same type(s) of weapons as would be required of a militia group. However, a reasonable person wouldn't need to own an M-16 or an AK-47. It's overkill for the purposes of self-protection or even for sport. But I can see it for a gun enthusiast (collector). This is part of the problem with the 2nd Amendement/gun control debate. "Hey, don't take away my right to bear arms" -v- "Don't take away my guns, period!" (Crunch's argument)

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

RightinNYC said:

So the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect your right to deploy nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your backyard?

Something about that seems a little off.

Click to expand...

ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t. 2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that 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." In Kentucky, a statute "to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has been declared to be unconstitutional; 2 Litt. R. 90; while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and constitutional. 3 Blackf. R. 229. Vide Story, Const. Sec. 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen, 176; 1 Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125.

Source: Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856)

Click to expand...

Definition of Arms from dictionary.net

Take it up with the constitution, or change it.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Harshaw said:

Yes, well, individual opinions about other people's options don't mean much when it comes to a Constitutionally-protected right. That's kind of the point of protecting it.

Click to expand...

Hence, the reason for stricter gun control laws in every state.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

No. I was merely attempting to look at both sides of the weapons coin where "militia" -v- the people's right to bear arms equal to that which would ordinarily be issued to members of a militia would be required to possess.

In that sense, it is reasonable to assume that the common man would be allowed under the 2nd Amendment to own the same type(s) of weapons as would be required of a militia group. However, a reasonable person wouldn't need to own an M-16 or an AK-47. It's overkill for the purposes of self-protection or even for sport. But I can see it for a gun enthusiast (collector). This is part of the problem with the 2nd Amendement/gun control debate. "Hey, don't take away my right to bear arms" -v- "Don't take away my guns, period!" (Crunch's argument)

Click to expand...

It's not my argument, it's what the constitution says.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

No. I was merely attempting to look at both sides of the weapons coin where "militia" -v- the people's right to bear arms equal to that which would ordinarily be issued to members of a militia would be required to possess.

In that sense, it is reasonable to assume that the common man would be allowed under the 2nd Amendment to own the same type(s) of weapons as would be required of a militia group. However, a reasonable person wouldn't need to own an M-16 or an AK-47. It's overkill for the purposes of self-protection or even for sport. But I can see it for a gun enthusiast (collector). This is part of the problem with the 2nd Amendement/gun control debate. "Hey, don't take away my right to bear arms" -v- "Don't take away my guns, period!" (Crunch's argument)

Click to expand...

As a fundamental right, any restriction would have to pass strict scrutiny -- it would have to be a compelling state interest, and it would have to be narrowly tailored to serve ONLY that interest. The "reasonable man" standard doesn't apply.

Now, there would be a compelling state interest in preventing the private ownership of nukes, and it's not hard to restrict that and only that.

But just saying "he doesn't need that gun to protect his home" or "why does he need that many guns?" do NOT cut it.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

Hence, the reason for stricter gun control laws in every state.

Click to expand...

You are right.... I think all this shooting with one hand should be banned.... the improved Weaver stance should be mandatory nation wide. :mrgreen:

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

RightinNYC said:

So the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect your right to deploy nuclear-tipped ICBMs in your backyard?

Something about that seems a little off.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is that the population can overthrow the government if it ever became to corrupt or fascist and to be able to defend this county against a armed invasion, that means the people having the same access to the same weapons as the government does. If the government does not want average citizens having nukes the the government itself should not have nukes. 2nd amendment opponents especially liberals from NewYork who do not mind anti-2nd amendment laws always like to use extremes like biological weapons and nukes in a discussion about 2nd amendment rights.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Harshaw said:

As a fundamental right, any restriction would have to pass strict scrutiny -- it would have to be a compelling state interest, and it would have to be narrowly tailored to serve ONLY that interest. The "reasonable man" standard doesn't apply.

Now, there would be a compelling state interest in preventing the private ownership of nukes, and it's not hard to restrict that and only that.

But just saying "he doesn't need that gun to protect his home" or "why does he need that many guns?" do NOT cut it.

Click to expand...

Again, it's just my opinion. From my point of view, firearms possession has gotten out of hand. It's as one poster said, "Just because you can get it doesn't mean you should own it."

I don't own a gun. Never saw the need to have one. The neighborhoods where I've lived over the course of my adult life have all been relatively safe. Should ever the need arise that I feel I should get one, I'm sure my Constitution (as well as state) right will still be there. But I seriously doubt I'll find a need to own an AK-47. The guy next in line might, but that's his choice and his right.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Crunch said:

There are no laws here that requier me to register my guns.... yet.

Click to expand...

Most states do not have laws requiring firearms registrations.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

Again, it's just my opinion. From my point of view, firearms possession has gotten out of hand. It's as one poster said, "Just because you can get it doesn't mean you should own it."

I don't own a gun. Never saw the need to have one. The neighborhoods where I've lived over the course of my adult life have all been relatively safe. Should ever the need arise that I feel I should get one, I'm sure my Constitution (as well as state) right will still be there. But I seriously doubt I'll find a need to own an AK-47. The guy next in line might, but that's his choice and his right.

Click to expand...

Then what did you mean by this?

The very nature of a militia group would likely restrict certain weapons on the grounds of functionality alone. Therefore, I can't see the rational of allowing the people to own any type of weapon they want.

Click to expand...

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Objective Voice said:

Harshaw said:

Yes, well, individual opinions about other people's options don't mean much when it comes to a Constitutionally-protected right. That's kind of the point of protecting it.

Click to expand...

Hence, the reason for stricter gun control laws in every state.

Click to expand...

How does that follow? What reason, and how does what I wrote demonstrate this reason?

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

Crunch said:

Definition of Arms from dictionary.net

Take it up with the constitution, or change it.

Click to expand...

I have no clue what you think that means.

jamesrage said:

One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment is that the population can overthrow the government if it ever became to corrupt or fascist and to be able to defend this county against a armed invasion, that means the people having the same access to the same weapons as the government does. If the government does not want average citizens having nukes the the government itself should not have nukes.

Click to expand...

I think this is an absurd and illogical conclusion. Along with nukes, I'm assuming we don't want average citizens to have missile defenses, F-16s, tanks, etc. Using your logic, the government should get rid of all those things.

Do you actually think that's a good idea, or is it just one of those things that sounds really cool on paper until you think about it?

2nd amendment opponents especially liberals from NewYork who do not mind anti-2nd amendment laws always like to use extremes like biological weapons and nukes in a discussion about 2nd amendment rights.

Click to expand...

Yea, it's called "taking an argument to its logical conclusion." If you tried it, you would end up realizing the absurdity of your position before others had to point it out.

Re: US Supreme Court agrees to decide whether Second Amendment forbids local handgun

RightinNYC said:

I think this is an absurd and illogical conclusion. Along with nukes, I'm assuming we don't want average citizens to have missile defenses, F-16s, tanks, etc. Using your logic, the government should get rid of all those things.

Click to expand...

I could care less if average citizens has those things. If they have a place to park those things then I have no problem with it.

Do you actually think that's a good idea, or is it just one of those things that sounds really cool on paper until you think about it?

Click to expand...

I have no faith that the government will not turn on the people. So yes those are good things because a government is less likely to turn on its citizens if the government knows the citizens can take them out. If there is ever a armed invasion I would feel alot better knowing that I had the means to defend my loved ones and property.