NRA sues Florida to block new gun law - CNN today

[cabse5]

Did you read what the founding fathers say about the Second amendment?


Did the read the Federalist papers that covers it?


The Federalist Papers



Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.


LINK

Yes. I know. Reread my posts on this subject. Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson, for examples, (not to mention antifederalists (and current conservatives)) thought the right to own a gun was an individual right but the first congress passed the second amendment as a militia right.

Who's opinion and motive is more important, here? Why, of course, the congress who passed the amendment. What's also important (although an incorrect interpretation) was the differing opinion of SCOTUS who remade the second into an individual right.

Natural rights are not a part of The Constitution, IMO. For example, which part of natural rights defines the three divisions of our government executive, judicial and legislative? What's written in state constitutions are not automatically a part of The Constitution. Need I mention that certain states and territories of the US are sanctuary areas and don't prosecute undocumented immigration.Need I mention a previous US constitution, for example, (Articles of Confederation) authorized each state to print their own money.

 

[minnie616]

you miss the point. if someone can be trusted to vote or operate massively destructive military equipment at 18, they are old enough to own a rifle. ...

Your argument is null and void.

The Florida law excemps those who served in the Miltary from the age restriction to buy a gun.

From :

Requires anyone buying firearms to be at least 21. Exceptions [/]are included for the purchase of rifles and shotguns by law enforcement and correctional officers, active duty military and all members of the Florida National Guard and United States Reserve Forces.

What Florida's new gun control and school safety law does

What Florida's new gun control and school safety law does

 

[cabse5]

Your argument is null and void.

The Florida law excemps those who served in the Miltary from the age restriction to buy a gun.

From :



What Florida's new gun control and school safety law does

What Florida's new gun control and school safety law does

SCOTUS will knock the Florida 21 year old to buy a gun law down. I mean, there's a precedent created by SCOTUS that the second amendment gives individual rights to own a gun in America, for crying out loud. The Florida law is going down.

 

[KevinKohler]

Your argument is null and void.

The Florida law excemps those who served in the Miltary from the age restriction to buy a gun.

From :



What Florida's new gun control and school safety law does

What Florida's new gun control and school safety law does

So, does the military impart a greater level of maturity and responsibility to 18 year olds?

 

[Manc Skipper]

WTF does that have to do with anything? its a stupid reaction to a case that is most notable due to the incompetence of the police

It's relevant to his argument that his "old" 50 year old law is immovably established. The country managed perfectly well without it for the 475 years since Columbus landed

 

[minnie616]

SCOTUS will knock the Florida 21 year old to buy a gun law down. I mean, there's a precedent created by SCOTUS that the second amendment gives individual rights to own a gun in America, for crying out loud. The Florida law is going down.

I doubt the Supreme Court will even hear the case ... there is nothing that refers to age in the 2ed.


The US has different age laws already.

 

[Manc Skipper]

So, does the military impart a greater level of maturity and responsibility to 18 year olds?

It enforces rigid discipline, which much of the intake are encountering for the first time.

 

[minnie616]

So, does the military impart a greater level of maturity and responsibility to 18 year olds?

It offers official training about guns and gun safety and many argue that the military will make a man out of a boy.

 

[KevinKohler]

It enforces rigid discipline, which much of the intake are encountering for the first time.

Is that, in your opinion, what it takes to be a responsible gun owner?

 

[KevinKohler]

It offers official training about guns and gun safety and many argue that the military will make a man out of a boy.

So does the Boy Scouts.

 

[apdst]

SCOTUS will knock the Florida 21 year old to buy a gun law down. I mean, there's a precedent created by SCOTUS that the second amendment gives individual rights to own a gun in America, for crying out loud. The Florida law is going down.

It's too bad the authors over-reached so bad. There are actually some good parts of the bill.

 

[KevinKohler]

I'll respond more fully to both of you. I don't disagree with either of you. I'd wager veterans are the safest gun owners there are.

Here's your problem.

What you're espousing is wrong. An 18 year old can be held fully liable in a court of law. No more protection or exceptions on account of being a child, on account of being naturally irresponsible. Yet...not responsible enough to legally own a gun? Unless through the military's?

Doesn't jive, guys. And won't stop someone who doesn't care about the law in the first place.

Face facts...the only way to stop people from getting guns, is to GET RID OF GUNS. Which, thus far, hasn't worked anywhere in the US it's been tried.

 

[minnie616]

I'll respond more fully to both of you. I don't disagree with either of you. I'd wager veterans are the safest gun owners there are.

Here's your problem.

What you're espousing is wrong. An 18 year old can be held fully liable in a court of law. No more protection or exceptions on account of being a child, on account of being naturally irresponsible. Yet...not responsible enough to legally own a gun? Unless through the military's?

Doesn't jive, guys. And won't stop someone who doesn't care about the law in the first place.

Face facts...the only way to stop people from getting guns, is to GET RID OF GUNS. Which, thus far, hasn't worked anywhere in the US it's been tried.

There is more to the Florida law than the 21 years of age before being able to buy a gun.

We need a multi faceceted solution.

Waiting till 21 is one part.

The Florida law does try to address the mental illness part .

From:

Allows judges to prohibit violent or mentally ill people from buying or possessing a firearm or any other weapon. If a law enforcement officer believes someone poses a danger to themselves or others by possessing a firearm, the officer can petition a court to have that person immediately surrender the firearm.

Allows law enforcement to seize firearms when a person has been detained under the “Baker Act.” Also prohibits someone who has been “adjudicated mentally defective” or “committed to a mental institution” from owning or possessing a firearm.

What Florida's new gun control and school safety law does

 

[MSgt]

You really should have read the 21st Amendment before you said that.

Um, I have.

- Before the Eighteenth, consuming alcohol was a given.
- The Eighteenth was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages.
- The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth; and ended national prohibition. It indeed established a person's Right to alcohol.

And how funny are TurtleDude and jimbo for upping your post. You shouldn't lead such people astray. They have a hard enough trouble with issues.

 

[MSgt]

your silly attempts of passive-aggressive support of gun control are inane. You apparently read something I never wrote when you spewed this nonsense in response

I don't know about passive aggression. I am very clear on the matter. Do you believe a 13-year old should be able to purchase weapons? I'm guessing you do not. Guess what? That's gun control. How about carry permits? Gun control. Your fear of "liberals" is why you can't see straight and have chosen to perceive the phrase, "gun control," as equating to stripping you of your guns. I think the problem here is that you have brought yourself to a place where you actually define yourself through your guns. And this is why the lot of you behave as if God wrote the Second Amendment on a tablet on Mount Sinai.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, it is. I don't know why people refuse this truth...

- The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was about Prohibition.
- The Twenty-first Amendment repealed prohibition and established that you do, indeed, have the Right to alcohol.

What is not in the Twenty-first Amendment is a prescription of age. Age is defined elsewhere. And like that Twenty-first Amendment, the Second Amendment also does not prescribe an age for when you can bear arms.

I also believe that you must be 21 to vote, as was historically the case. However, the difference here is that the Twenty-Sixth Amendment prescribed an age of 18 for voting due to the draft issue of the Vietnam War. There is no getting around an age argument. You have the Right, specifically at age 18, to vote. It is from this that people began to define adulthood at 18 in other areas. The Second Amendment need not apply.

And this issue is also like your Right to run your mouth from the First Amendment. Yet, libel laws, copyright laws, or the need for a license to protest, infringe on that Right, don't they? You people act as if God Himself handed down the Second Amendment and that no rules outside of criminal law may ever be applied.

Nope, there is no right to alcohol established in the 21A. The 21A (repealing of the 18A) merely left it up to the several states or to the people just as anything else that is not a constitutional federal (enumerated?) power - see 10A.

 

[apdst]

Um, I have.

- Before the Eighteenth, consuming alcohol was a given.
- The Eighteenth was a nationwide constitutional ban on the production, importation, transportation, and sale of alcoholic beverages.
- The Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth; and ended national prohibition. It indeed established a person's Right to alcohol.

And how funny are TurtleDude and jimbo for upping your post. You shouldn't lead such people astray. They have a hard enough trouble with issues.

I have:

Section 2

The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Which gave the control of alcohol transportation, importation and sales to the states.

 

[Bucky]

as long as there are criminals and big government control freaks, the second amendment is more important today than it ever was. Liberals want to repeal it because they hate the fact that the NRA called BS on their bogus claims that gun control is crime control.

The long relationship I have had is with mass shootings. My father lived through 20 U.S shooting before I was born. I have lived through over 100.

 

[Grand Mal]

SCOTUS will knock the Florida 21 year old to buy a gun law down. I mean, there's a precedent created by SCOTUS that the second amendment gives individual rights to own a gun in America, for crying out loud. The Florida law is going down.

Ever hear this joke punch line? "We already know what you are. Now we're just haggling over the price." You accept gun control already when you accept any age limit, and any prohibitions. That acceptance kind of disqualifies your relying on the 2nd. amendment anymore.

 

[MSgt]

Nope, there is no right to alcohol established in the 21A. The 21A (repealing of the 18A) merely left it up to the several states or to the people just as anything else that is not a constitutional federal (enumerated?) power - see 10A.

Where as the Eighteenth prohibited this. Hence, the Twenty-first Amendment giving the people back their Right to alcohol. Most states ratified quickly and passed out the beer. I don't understand the push back. It is a very clear issue.

 

[MSgt]

I have:



Which gave the control of alcohol transportation, importation and sales to the states.

In which most states ratified in the same year (1933), which gave the people back their Right to alcohol, whereas the Eighteenth had stripped it nationwide. Put another way, no Twenty-first, no Right to alcohol.

What's the point of you being obtuse over this?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Where as the Eighteenth prohibited this. Hence, the Twenty-first Amendment giving the people back their Right to alcohol. Most states ratified quickly and passed out the beer. I don't understand the push back. It is a very clear issue.

It is not a clear issue at all. Try to explain dry counties or blue (Sunday) laws - are they legal constituional rights free zones?

 

[MSgt]

It is not a clear issue at all. Try to explain dry counties or blue (Sunday) laws - are they legal constituional rights free zones?

A good argument, but it's just like other Rights. Each State applies its own laws and rules towards them. Some places require permits to demonstrate. Others do not. Gun carry permits are subject to individual state laws, which is why reciprocity between specific states exists. As for the alcohol, just go to the next county and have a beer. Buy your beer on Saturday. Before the Twenty-first, it was illegal nationwide, period. You did not have the Right by law, period. It wasn't about a Right before the Eighteenth. In 1933, it was established as a Right and handed to the states for ratification.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A good argument, but it's just like other Rights. Each State applies its own laws and rules towards them. Some places require permits to demonstrate. Others do not. Gun carry permits are subject to individual state laws, which is why reciprocity between specific states exists. As for the alcohol, just go to the next county and have a beer. Buy your beer on Saturday. Before the Twenty-first, it was illegal nationwide, period. You did not have the Right by law, period. It wasn't about a Right before the Eighteenth. In 1933, it was established as a Right and handed to the states for ratification.

Before the 18A there was no right to (or mention of) alcohol in the constitution. Alcohol, as most other products, were left up to the several states to regulate if they chose to do so. The 21A simply reverted to things as they were prior to the 18A.

To make matters even more confusing, marijuana was (and still is?) federally banned, yet some states have made it legal again. If there is a right to alcohol, as a recreational drug, with no mention of it in the constitution (your assertion) then there is also a right to any other recreational drug.

 

[MSgt]

Before the 18A there was no right to (or mention of) alcohol in the constitution. Alcohol, as most other products, were left up to the several states to regulate if they chose to do so. The 21A simply reverted to things as they were prior to the 18A.

To make matters even more confusing, marijuana was (and still is?) federally banned, yet some states have made it legal again. If there is a right to alcohol, as a recreational drug, with no mention of it in the constitution (your assertion) then there is also a right to any other recreational drug.

Exactly. Alcohol was as given as apple pie until it was legally stripped nationwide. This is why I argued that the Twenty-first translates into defining it as a Right, whereas the Eighteenth denied it.

This is really not that confusing. There is no mention of cars, crack cocaine, or passports in the Constitution. Yet laws and rules exist for each to address these topics because that is what moves society forward as technology is ever evolving. On an aside, this is exactly what is behind Islamic Revivalism, which declared that the traditional ulema was to blame for Muslim society's dismal condition in the nineteenth century because they stopped reinterpreting Islam around the thirteenth century. I digress. Anyway...

You have the Right to bear arms (no mention of age, weapon types, or state line mobility). Rules and laws were created upon the foundation of the Second Amendment in order to address the passage of time and the development of technology. This is the same for all the Amendments. There were no libel laws when the states ratified the Bill of Rights. The vagueness of the Constitution is why states (and national government) may prescribe their own minute interpretations of the general. And of course, technology will continue to present us with things that would not have been a consideration in the late seventeenth century. You have the Right to vote at age 18 because the Constitution declares the age, but it did not declare this until 1971 (Twenty-sixth). No state can can simply change that age to 17 or 21. But there is no age mention to bear arms. It is left to lawmakers to decide, which is why Florida can up it to 21 and still maintain the general Right to bear arms. Whether or not they succeed against the NRA's lawsuit is up to a judge. But I don't see how it violates the Constitution, anymore than not allowing a 13-year old the Right to bear arms does.

And giving the states the right to choose over the alcohol issue, whereas it was simply prohibited nation wide through the Eighteenth, left the details up to the states. Arguing between the Twenty-first and the states' ratification of it is splitting hairs. Between the Eighteenth and the Twenty-first, Americans did not have the Right, which used to be a given. These two Amendments, together, established it as a topic of Rights.