Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Are Firearms Laws Constitutional?

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by Doubletap, Dec 13, 2008.

  1. Doubletap

    Doubletap Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    147
    OK.. I'm curious to see how others feel on this subject.. The Constitution clearly states that our right to "keep and bear arms" "shall not be infringed"..

    So..are laws dictating what we may own..when we can carry them..and who we can sell them to..under that statement of our God given..and constitutionally affirmed rights..constitutional?

    Simple as that.. No BS about what the Supremes say..we all know they've been wrong far more often than right.. I want an answer based soley on what the Constitution says..
     
  2. PhysicsGuy

    PhysicsGuy Corvallis, OR Resident Science Nut

    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    154
    The answer is: it depends on who you ask.
     
  3. ZeroRing

    ZeroRing 26th District, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    18
    Given the statement made in the first post, I guess I'd have to say they were Unconstitutional.

    But then again, I can see the merit in restricting the "rights" of felons, lunatics, etc.
     
  4. Doubletap

    Doubletap Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    147
    Yes.. It's a given..that as a convicted felon..or having been proven mentally ill..you forfeit certain rights..
     
  5. ZeroRing

    ZeroRing 26th District, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    18
    While I definitely agree with that statement... you have to admit, THOSE specific "exceptions" aren't listed in the text of the 2nd.
     
  6. Doubletap

    Doubletap Newberg Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,274
    Likes Received:
    147
    Agreed.. My point is..certain laws are..by the strictest examination of the Constitution..a clear violation of our rights.. For example..if the Government enacted laws which limited what you were allowed to say..who you were allowed to say it to..etc..that would be just as clear a violation of the the 1st amendment.. Which..by the way..is clearly the intent of the looming..leberal supported.."Fairness" doctrine..
     
  7. ZeroRing

    ZeroRing 26th District, WA Active Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Likes Received:
    18
    Yup. They'll use whatever language they feel they can get away with to reinstate that ridiculously mis-named "doctrine".

    Hopefully BHO's impending "rule" will result in the same thing that happened two years after "WJBC" was sworn in. A refocused Republican sweep of Congress.
     
  8. BUZO71

    BUZO71 Emerald Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    8
    by using the 2nd amendment only, unconstitutional. However, even as has been conceded, additional laws are required...
     
  9. fingolfen

    fingolfen Oregon Member

    Messages:
    749
    Likes Received:
    3
    While we have the right to free speech, slander and lies aren't protected speech... ditto on violent felons and firearms rights...

    Taking a fairly originalist tact to the Constitution (as opposed to anything the "4" who voted against Heller would say)

    So are background checks unconstitutional? Probably not.

    Are outright gun bans unconstitutional. Yes

    Are ammunition bans unconstitutional. Yes

    Are registration schemes unconstitutional. Probably yes.
     
  10. torpedoman

    torpedoman land of corrupt politicians Member

    Messages:
    764
    Likes Received:
    18
    the 2nd amendment was to enable the common man to stay as well armed as the army and the government. In plain language of the day it meant no restrictions of any kind. We had no problems until they restriced the ownership of full auto weapons, once that was done it has been a continual fight to keep them from adding more restrictions.What we need is a criminal justice system that actually works were criminals are locked up and executed in a timely manner.
     
  11. BUZO71

    BUZO71 Emerald Valley, Oregon New Member

    Messages:
    650
    Likes Received:
    8
    Actually, the 2nd amendment was not enabling, it was reiterating the rights we had acknowledged as our own. (Not to sharpshoot you Torpedo, just adding to your answer) In fact, that right was already in force here under colonial rule- that colonists were allowed to keep and bear arms for their protection.

    Actually, doing more research, I found we had problems long before the full auto restrictions going back to federalists and anti-federalists before the civil war.

    In the Heller case mentioned above, the Supreme court (like them or not) decided that the Second was an affirmation of the civilian to keep (own) and bear (carry) arm ( all weapons) for self defense.

    The Amendment DID NOT, according to the Court, give unfettered license to freely carry- allowing states to issue license, restrict carry in certain manners but said no one could keep a person from protecting themselves using weapons unless certain reasons prohibited it (i.e. Felons, Mentals).
     
  12. brandnew

    brandnew PNW Member

    Messages:
    64
    Likes Received:
    0
    Come on. Of course we're going to say that criminals ought not have firearms. The world would be a better place if all good people were competent with and owned firearms, and none of the bad people did. I'm not going to say this is "common sense" because I can't stand that BS phrase that everybody uses for their own agenda, but this is basic stuff here. And the most effective method we have found of depriving criminals access to firearms (or at least restricting to a degree) is by doing background checks.

    And no, there is no statement in the constitution saying "right to bear arms shall not be infringed, background check permitting" but we know this is a good idea. So as others have mentioned, there must be checks in place.

    I personally believe that the system would be much improved if there were permits for different levels of competency. As much as everybody loves to rag on California, I do think they got the handgun permit right. When I first moved there, I hated the idea. Then I took the class and I actually knew what I was doing. Now having moved back, I've seen people at the range not knowing WTF they're doing and putting other people in danger. It's not that they're bad people, it's just that they've never been properly taught.

    The bottom line is this. If you can't answer the simple questions on a handgun permit test and perform a safety demonstration with a pistol, you really shouldn't be handling them. Idiots with handguns and trailer-trash daddies who leave loaded shotguns laying around for their 8 year old to play with provide far too much fodder for the anti-gun group.

    If the first handgun permit were a background check and basic proficiency exam, then there would be no need for waiting periods. Any private party transfers could be done without an FFL over state lines as long as the card were presented. No paper trail, the government won't know how many guns you own, or what type, just that you are proficient and most likely own firearms. This isn't an issue for 99% of us who have a digital trail a mile long that the government is almost certainly keeping tabs on. Ever ordered from MidwayUSA? I'm sure Uncle Sam knows about it. Posted on a message board? That too.

    It would be just like a drivers license where you might get a motorcycle endorsement, here you would take a class to have access to machine guns and silencers. Then one for basic concealed carry. Then perhaps after a few years and another class you could be allowed to carry concealed in more "sensitive" places like schools for example so just like the standard CCW but less restrictive. Of course the price for the classes would have to be affordable or state provided.

    I know a lot of people cringe at the idea of a system like this but I really think it provides the least restrictions. People "way back before all these laws" may not have felt as restricted, but it's not like they had it easier. Ok, so I'm all for constructive criticism and harrumphs. Who's got input on this?
     
  13. spengo

    spengo GLORIOUS CASCADIA Active Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    22
    I tend to be very minarchist, or even anarchist. I don't think the federal government should have any say in the matter at all. Local laws are a different matter entirely though; county-specific gun laws are fine since that would reflect the needs of a much smaller group of people more closely.

    I do think people should go and learn basic firearm safety before making any purchases though, I am a little tired of the lack of trigger discipline and overall disregard for safety you often see at shooting spots.
     
  14. caliber bob

    caliber bob Yamhill County, OR. Member

    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    3
    But what a better way to keep guns/firearms out of criminals hand then to allow the lawabiding citizens like ourselves have the ones we want. Criminals aren't affraid of cops, atf, etc. . . they are affraid of big bubba in the prison. Government is selfish plain and simple.

    That's how I feel:D
     
  15. caliber bob

    caliber bob Yamhill County, OR. Member

    Messages:
    393
    Likes Received:
    3
    That is perfect!!! That is the best way to say what I and many others feel I'm sure:worship: