A compromise to gun free zones.

[Rucker61]

the supreme court did

Not so far. Cruikshank affirmed that it's an right not dependent upon the Second Amendment; Miller affirmed that it's an individual right. A 1982 Senate report reaffirmed that it's an individual right.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You claim that WMDs fall under the protection of the Second Amendment isn't supported. It's your opinion.

All arms are covered under the 2nd Amendment, from pocket knives to nulcear warheads. Limitations are fine as long as they don't undermine the RKBA, which the ban on WMDs does not, and so the ban on WMDs is valid.

 

[Rucker61]

All arms are covered under the 2nd Amendment,

Interesting claim]

from pocket knives to nulcear warheads. Limitations are fine as long as they don't undermine the RKBA, which the ban on WMDs does not, and so the ban on WMDs is valid.

Who gets to define "undermine"?

 

[Wayne Jr]

Who gets to define "undermine"?

Dictionaries, best I know. I guess I don't know what you're asking here. Do you mean "who determines whether or not a given limitation undermines the right"? The answer to that would be...you, me, voters, elected reps, judges....basically, we society "define" what is undermining. That's the case of every right in every topic.

 

[Rucker61]

Dictionaries, best I know. I guess I don't know what you're asking here. Do you mean "who determines whether or not a given limitation undermines the right"? The answer to that would be...you, me, voters, elected reps, judges....basically, we society "define" what is undermining. That's the case of every right in every topic.

If everyone hot to decide that would be anarchy. Our society has given that ability to the Courts. Unfortunately SCOTUS decisions on 2A infringement limitations are roundly ignored by state legislatures and lower courts. I'm looking forward to those infringements being put to bed.

 

[Rich2018]

I haven't flesh out all the details, but I've been thinking of a compromise for gun free zones if eliminating them altogether isn't possible. For starters allow off duty police officers to carry. I don't see any reason to bar the same people from carrying that if in uniform would be allowed. Second, for citizens wanting to carry in federally and state recongized gun free zones, offer something like an endorsement on their CCW permits. In order to get this endorsement, one has to pass the same firearms course that law enforcement goes through. For carrying on planes, the requirement can be passing an air marshal course. For those not wanting to carry in gun free zones can have a regular CCW permit. So, thoughts?

How about this compromise:

Make the entire USA a gun free zone.

Ban all privately owned firearms.

 

[TurtleDude]

How about this compromise:

Make the entire USA a gun free zone.

Ban all privately owned firearms.

only after the country has been purged of all criminals and gun banners. Until that happens, people need to be well armed.

 

[Wayne Jr]

How about this compromise:

Make the entire USA a gun free zone.

Ban all privately owned firearms.

Just make the whole world a gun free zone. No one can have any guns. Not civilians, not police, not military. No one. That should work, right?

 

[TurtleDude]

Just make the whole world a gun free zone. No one can have any guns. Not civilians, not police, not military. No one. That should work, right?

he wants the government and criminals to face no armed opposition. its funny but big government advocates tend to enable criminals.

 

[Wayne Jr]

Who gets to define "undermine"?

Our society has given that ability to the Courts.

I'm not sure why you were asking since you seem to already know.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm not sure why you were asking since you seem to already know.

I want to know your opinion. That's a vital piece of information for the next steps in the discussion. Your deciders were a lot different than mine, whivh shows me how differently we think.

 

[zsu2357]

=Rich2018;1069149338]How about this compromise:

Make the entire USA a gun free zone.

In other words make the USA one big criminal enablement zone is what you mean.

Ban all privately owned firearms.

To bad only the law abiding would comply. A good many would become criminals overnight.

 

[Maccabee]

How about this compromise:

Make the entire USA a gun free zone.

Ban all privately owned firearms.

That isn't a compromise at all.

 

[Wayne Jr]

I want to know your opinion.

The answer to "who decides" is not an opinion, it's a fact. Your question doesn't provide the information you want.

My opinion on "who decides" is that I don't have an opinion on who decides. There is a system already in place, and while I may have an opinion about that system, my opinion is not that system.

 

[Rucker61]

The answer to "who decides" is not an opinion, it's a fact. Your question doesn't provide the information you want.

My opinion on "who decides" is that I don't have an opinion on who decides. There is a system already in place, and while I may have an opinion about that system, my opinion is not that system.

You gave a whole list of deciders, then agreed it was SCOTUS. That fact is essential to understanding your mindset. You want those groups to be deciders.

 

[Wayne Jr]

You gave a whole list of deciders, then agreed it was SCOTUS. That fact is essential to understanding your mindset. You want those groups to be deciders.

SCOTUS is included, sure, but it doesn't stop with SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled that women do not have the right to vote, so We The People wrote our elected officials who penned an amendment.

It's the whole society collectively. That's who decides.

Anyway, if we're done with the entry-level civics lesson, can we get back on topic?

 

[Rucker61]

SCOTUS is included, sure, but it doesn't stop with SCOTUS. The Supreme Court ruled that women do not have the right to vote, so We The People wrote our elected officials who penned an amendment.

It's the whole society collectively. That's who decides.

Anyway, if we're done with the entry-level civics lesson, can we get back on topic?

The state of Colorado voted to not allow gay marriage. We have gay marriage. How did that popular vote work out?

Sure, I'll discuss any part of gun control you wish.

 

[Wayne Jr]

The state of Colorado voted to not allow gay marriage. We have gay marriage. How did that popular vote work out?

See? It all works together.

Sure, I'll discuss any part of gun control you wish.

You had originally chimed in about my post stating that limits were acceptable as long as they didn't undermine the RKBA. We could pick up there, you could ask who gets to define some other random word, or we could take a different direction. Your call.

 

[Rucker61]

See? It all works together.


You had originally chimed in about my post stating that limits were acceptable as long as they didn't undermine the RKBA. We could pick up there, you could ask who gets to define some other random word, or we could take a different direction. Your call.

My position is that any new law cannot violate the protections affirmed in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, even though some states do try to.

 

[Wayne Jr]

My position is that any new law cannot violate the protections affirmed in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, even though some states do try to.

Funny thing about that...

In Miller, SCOTUS ruled that only weapons suitable for militia service were protected. That's why the SBS ban was held and the defendant imprisoned. This 'protection' would logically ban all subcompact handguns, from the Beretta Nano to the S&W 642 j-frame.

I think it's your turn to provide a definition by sourcing a complete list of said protections.

 

[Rucker61]

Funny thing about that...

In Miller, SCOTUS ruled that only weapons suitable for militia service were protected. That's why the SBS ban was held and the defendant imprisoned. This 'protection' would logically ban all subcompact handguns, from the Beretta Nano to the S&W 642 j-frame.

I think it's your turn to provide a definition by sourcing a complete list of said protections.

By taking Miller SCOTUS acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. They were also wrong in stating that short barreled shotguns and by extension short barreled rifled and suppressors have no military use, as they are currently military issue. Additionally the military has issued compact handguns like the Glock 19 and CZ P01 and smaller handguns like the Colt N1903/1908 for general officers and the snub nosed S&W model 12. In any case, Heller affirmed a more extensive protection.

 

[Wayne Jr]

By taking Miller SCOTUS acknowledged that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. They were also wrong in stating that short barreled shotguns and by extension short barreled rifled and suppressors have no military use, as they are currently military issue. Additionally the military has issued compact handguns like the Glock 19 and CZ P01 and smaller handguns like the Colt N1903/1908 for general officers and the snub nosed S&W model 12. In any case, Heller affirmed a more extensive protection.

I'm still waiting for you to publish the complete list of protections.

 

[jet57]

I haven't flesh out all the details, but I've been thinking of a compromise for gun free zones if eliminating them altogether isn't possible. For starters allow off duty police officers to carry. I don't see any reason to bar the same people from carrying that if in uniform would be allowed. Second, for citizens wanting to carry in federally and state recongized gun free zones, offer something like an endorsement on their CCW permits. In order to get this endorsement, one has to pass the same firearms course that law enforcement goes through. For carrying on planes, the requirement can be passing an air marshal course. For those not wanting to carry in gun free zones can have a regular CCW permit. So, thoughts?

:roll:


What part of "gun free zone" are you having difficulty understanding? It's a penalty enhancer, like using a gun in a robbery.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm still waiting for you to publish the complete list of protections.

There isn't a complete list. That's not how the Constitution works. It restricts the powers of the federal government.

 

[Wayne Jr]

There isn't a complete list.

So make one.

Compose the list, cite your sources for each item, and offer it to various gun groups/forums for review. Amend as necessary.

This will not only clarify your understanding of what is, and isn't protected, but will spur side discussion revealing more information.