2nd Amendment (for the elite)

[msgriff]

"Some could argue that those addicted to drugs are not "well regulated", or functioning properly."

What's the difference between being addicted to alcohol and being addicted to other substances? One is legal and the other isn't……

I've been sober for almost 5 years. I don't have a dog in this fight. Simply stating that just because the "government" has said one is ok to consume and own a gun but the other disqualifies ownership is bullsh!t.

But then again I hate the government and don't really care what they say.

A little over 100 years ago, enough people (or at least politicians) agreed with your position, and more. Enough so that the 18th Amendment was enacted

 

[Member 53328]

A little over 100 years ago, enough people (or at least politicians) agreed with your position, and more. Enough so that the 18th Amendment was enacted

I think people should be able to do as they wish as long as they aren't harming/damaging anyone other than themselves.

I'll leave it at that.

 

[Flopsweat]

"Well regulated" was not a term unique to the 2nd Amendment. A clock that functioned properly could be called "well regulated". There are other literary examples of the term and its usage from the era. Some Constitutional scholars have argued that the common use of "well regulated" in the 1700's would include the mental and moral fitness of a person regarding their 2nd Amendment rights. Those arguments are made as a reason to deny felons and the insane from possessing arms. Some could argue that those addicted to drugs are not "well regulated", or functioning properly.

A subordinate clause does not limit the main clause. It also is not the only reason or justification for the main clause. If every reason for a law were included, the subordinate clause would be so extensive as to be useless.

 

[msgriff]

A subordinate clause does not limit the main clause. It also is not the only reason or justification for the main clause. If every reason for a law were included, the subordinate clause would be so extensive as to be useless.

I believe that these points that I've mentioned could possibly be argued, if not at Hunter Biden's main trial, then potentially at any subsequent appeals. Either way, it will be interesting.

 

[Stomper]

Ah, I thought I saw ownership. I'm OK frankly with people drinking a beer while they're carrying. I'm not cool with them staggering around with a gun on their hip. I'm not sure that we have a great universal test, but a BAC of .15 or higher would be a concern to me. How you measure other drugs I haven't even looked into.

With a scale, DUH!

 

[L84Cabo]

A subordinate clause does not limit the main clause. It also is not the only reason or justification for the main clause. If every reason for a law were included, the subordinate clause would be so extensive as to be useless.

+1. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is the prefatory clause...which neither restricts nor expands the scope of the operative clause.

And once again, there are no historical analogues from the time of the founding that permanently remove a person's right to keep and bear arms because of addiction to any substances. The best they can come up with...maybe...are laws about not being armed WHILE intoxicated.

 

[Lilhigbee]

This is somewhat of a trick question, but where in the Constitution/Bill of Rights/Amendments does it state that murderers and other violent felons, or the insane, cannot own or possess arms?

Actually it's right there in the Fifth Amendment; "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" bold added) A trial conviction is "due process" and "liberty" could easily be construed to include possession of arms. It certainly allows for deprivation of life and property after conviction, no reason to think liberty in all its forms would be treated any differently.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Actually it's right there in the Fifth Amendment; "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" bold added) A trial conviction is "due process" and "liberty" could easily be construed to include possession of arms. It certainly allows for deprivation of life and property after conviction, no reason to think liberty in all its forms would be treated any differently.

On the other hand.. when a convict is released into society, they have most of the 10 rights except for 2A. There are other rights that they also lose such as jury duty, some employment rights, some parental custody/parental rights, housing rights (HUD/SEC8/other), social program rights (food stamps for example) ,the right to run for public office, and right to travel abroad.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

On the other hand.. when a convict is released into society, they have most of the 10 rights except for 2A. There are other rights that they also lose such as jury duty, some employment rights, some parental custody/parental rights, housing rights (HUD/SEC8/other), social program rights (food stamps for example) ,the right to run for public office, and right to travel abroad.

You forgot voting

 

[CamoDeafie]

You forgot voting

"Voting rights restored automatically upon release from prison in: The District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah." Emphasis added.

From

If I am convicted of a felony in Federal court, can I vote? | District of Nebraska

www.nep.uscourts.gov

Edit. Also, voting isn't in the10 Amendments of BOR. But the 2A is, and is apparently universally deprived for those who are convicted, for life. (Prohibited Persons class)

 

[The Heretic]

Hunter Biden judge agrees to drop old gun count after indictment replaces scuttled plea deal

A gun count that had been part of a collapsed plea deal in the Hunter Biden case was dismissed Wednesday as a judge signed off on a prosecution request. The order from U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika formally removes a gun-possession charge that has now been replaced by an unrelated...

news.yahoo.com

 

[ma96782]

Yep, back in the day, English Common Law required the death sentence for most all felonies- and misdemeanors were a lot more serious than they are today. "Transportation" to the Colonies, Barbados, or Oz was a way of not extracting a death sentence for relatively minor crimes and getting the offender out of society. Yessir, "felony" was dead serious then for sure.

LOL.

And yet.....Brandon is probably allowing many/some of them to cross the border without even knowing for sure who they really are.

Aloha, Mark