Lock & Load time for Romney @ NRA

[fd15k]

I would hope not, yet I really never hear of any challenges against a law's constitutionality unless someone was "harmed" by it. The "harm" lends weight to the challenge, yet with 2A cases, the jurists seem to respond as if an evil person is trying to get out of being punished.

Your sentence structure is strange. I am telling you there are 2 ways how you can challenge validity of a law: appeal a conviction, or file civil a complaint. It is indeed good to be able to show damages in certain cases, but it's not always necessary. In any case, you can see the list of 2A-related federal challenges here <broken link removed> , and note how many of them are not criminal cases.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Your sentence structure is strange. I am telling you there are 2 ways how you can challenge validity of a law: appeal a conviction, or file civil a complaint. It is indeed good to be able to show damages in certain cases, but it's not always necessary. In any case, you can see the list of 2A-related federal challenges here <broken link removed> , and note how many of them are not criminal cases.

The only valid anti weapon (not just guns) laws that are valid are the following

1) Prohibiting the truly insane from ownership/use

2) Prohibiting the criminally violent from possession

All other gun laws are unconstitutional on their face and require no interpretation

 

[JimmyS1985]

Romney extended the Assault Weapons Ban in his state of Massachusetts after it expired in 2004. As far as gun rights are concerned, I trust Romney about as far as I can throw him. He suddenly fell in love with guns, AFTER he decided he wasn't going to be a Republican in a blue state like Massachusetts and instead be a runner for President on the Republican ticket. Romney was AGAINST GUNS BEFORE HE WAS FOR THEM! King Flip Flop!

Also since Obama DIDN'T drastically raise federal taxes on ammunition and firearms on the federal level, Im starting to think that run on ammunition between 2009 and today was a lot of hocus pocus to dupe people into buying more ammo and guns than they actually needed.

Obama has been in office for what, almost 3 and a half years? I fired a Uzi with a 32 round magazine at my local firing range, if this were Clinton's presidency at the same time, I don't know if I would of been able to fire that gun with that kind of magazine capacity. Outside of gun lovers like ourselves, I don't think gun control is a major issue in politics these days, even after high profile shootings like Virgnia Tech and Tucson Arizona.

 

[Kevatc]

Romney extended the Assault Weapons Ban in his state of Massachusetts after it expired in 2004. As far as gun rights are concerned, I trust Romney about as far as I can throw him. He suddenly fell in love with guns, AFTER he decided he wasn't going to be a Republican in a blue state like Massachusetts and instead be a runner for President on the Republican ticket. Romney was AGAINST GUNS BEFORE HE WAS FOR THEM! King Flip Flop!

Also since Obama DIDN'T drastically raise federal taxes on ammunition and firearms on the federal level, Im starting to think that run on ammunition between 2009 and today was a lot of hocus pocus to dupe people into buying more ammo and guns than they actually needed.

Obama has been in office for what, almost 3 and a half years? I fired a Uzi with a 32 round magazine at my local firing range, if this were Clinton's presidency at the same time, I don't know if I would of been able to fire that gun with that kind of magazine capacity. Outside of gun lovers like ourselves, I don't think gun control is a major issue in politics these days, even after high profile shootings like Virgnia Tech and Tucson Arizona.

Yep.

Can't wait to hear the "but .... but ... but ... apocalypse ..... OMG!!!" Ted Nugent crowd chime in.

 

[MikeSettles]

Your sentence structure is strange. I am telling you there are 2 ways how you can challenge validity of a law: appeal a conviction, or file civil a complaint. It is indeed good to be able to show damages in certain cases, but it's not always necessary. In any case, you can see the list of 2A-related federal challenges here <broken link removed> , and note how many of them are not criminal cases.

I used "harmed" where many litigations use "injured". I firmly believe that the courts wish to restrict 2A as much as they can by such pronouncements as this from the 6th Circuit in 2009: "whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use." 2A doesn't authorize anything: It guarantees a preexisting right. The best way to explain it is to quote a state judge from Georgia (Nunn v. State, 1846) regarding an effort to regulate guns at that time: "Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution and void, which contravenes this right."
Yet these judges continue to use the excuse that because 2A (or SCOTUS) doesn't specifically authorize "assault weapons" (or whatever else is being restricted), it's ok for them to be banned. Compare the court's tendencies with respect to 2A against their pronouncements about 1A: Very little restriction of anything 1A, with NO support for preemptive statutes; lots of support for preemptive statutes which (IMO) violate 2A.
"Shall not be infringed" is NOT ambiguous!

 

[Blitzkrieg]

ARMS is pretty clear too and goes way beyond firearms

Trouble for the tyrants is if we had them, tyranny would be a more dangerous profession

 

[fd15k]

I used "harmed" where many litigations use "injured". I firmly believe that the courts wish to restrict 2A as much as they can by such pronouncements as this from the 6th Circuit in 2009: "whatever the individual right to keep and bear arms might entail, it does not authorize an unlicensed individual to possess unregistered machine guns for personal use." 2A doesn't authorize anything: It guarantees a preexisting right. The best way to explain it is to quote a state judge from Georgia (Nunn v. State, 1846) regarding an effort to regulate guns at that time: "Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution and void, which contravenes this right."
Yet these judges continue to use the excuse that because 2A (or SCOTUS) doesn't specifically authorize "assault weapons" (or whatever else is being restricted), it's ok for them to be banned. Compare the court's tendencies with respect to 2A against their pronouncements about 1A: Very little restriction of anything 1A, with NO support for preemptive statutes; lots of support for preemptive statutes which (IMO) violate 2A.
"Shall not be infringed" is NOT ambiguous!

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on many counts. For starters, whatever semantics you choose to use, it can be seen as an authorization. Let's say 2A is a restriction on the government to regulate certain activities. Thus, it can be rephrased as "2A is an explicit authorization for certain activities". Then, citing a 1846 case doesn't help you either - 2A only restricted Federal government before 1868. In fact ENTIRE Constitution before 1868 had no individual provisions to apply against the states. If a state wanted to rape you every Saturday morning, they could. Finally, after incorporation in 2010 we had had quite a few decisions that upheld 2A protections to higher standards (strict and intermediate scrutiny), thus your statement that courts collectively seek to bend you over doesn't hold to factual evidence. Oh, and your view in regards to 1A vs 2A is also misguided. For one, 1A had been incorporated for quite a while, and courts had plenty of opportunities to establish the framework for dealing with related cases. Also, 1A is not unlimited just like the 2A, but due to nature of activities that fall under 2A it receives more attention from the policy makers.

"Shall not be infringed" does not matter, it's just a phrase. What matters is the entire political and legal context of its application. And it really didn't look good until 2008-2010. Enjoy your re-invented freedoms now

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That's a lot of mumbo jumbo that has no bearing on the original intent. The BORS are enumerated individual personal rights

Lawyers can and do twist everything that is good and right. At these times I reference Jefferson's comments about watering the tree of Liberty with blood of tyrants of all sorts so that we can revive the poor nearly dead thing

 

[MikeSettles]

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on many counts. For starters, whatever semantics you choose to use, it can be seen as an authorization. Let's say 2A is a restriction on the government to regulate certain activities. Thus, it can be rephrased as "2A is an explicit authorization for certain activities". Then, citing a 1846 case doesn't help you either - 2A only restricted Federal government before 1868. In fact ENTIRE Constitution before 1868 had no individual provisions to apply against the states. If a state wanted to rape you every Saturday morning, they could. Finally, after incorporation in 2010 we had had quite a few decisions that upheld 2A protections to higher standards (strict and intermediate scrutiny), thus your statement that courts collectively seek to bend you over doesn't hold to factual evidence. Oh, and your view in regards to 1A vs 2A is also misguided. For one, 1A had been incorporated for quite a while, and courts had plenty of opportunities to establish the framework for dealing with related cases. Also, 1A is not unlimited just like the 2A, but due to nature of activities that fall under 2A it receives more attention from the policy makers.

"Shall not be infringed" does not matter, it's just a phrase. What matters is the entire political and legal context of its application. And it really didn't look good until 2008-2010. Enjoy your re-invented freedoms now

So by your logic, the Thirteenth Amendment (Section 1) "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whenever the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" (ratified in 1865) still doesn't have any authority, because it hasn't been "incorporated". I hold that the states, on ratification of the federal Constitution (or upon joining the Union as States) agreed to abide by said Constitution. "Incorporation" was mumbo-jumbo cooked up by SCOTUS in 1876 - sad that succeeding courts didn't nullify it as a legal concept. No guts.

Otherwise, you are just plain wrong.

 

[fd15k]

So by your logic, the Thirteenth Amendment (Section 1) "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for a crime whenever the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction" (ratified in 1865) still doesn't have any authority, because it hasn't been "incorporated". I hold that the states, on ratification of the federal Constitution (or upon joining the Union as States) agreed to abide by said Constitution. "Incorporation" was mumbo-jumbo cooked up by SCOTUS in 1876 - sad that succeeding courts didn't nullify it as a legal concept. No guts.

Otherwise, you are just plain wrong.

Unlike the first 9 Amendments, 13th specifically indicates its jurisdiction and reach. We simply wouldn't need the 14th, if the first 9 automatically restricted state and local governments "upon joining the Union".

 

[MikeSettles]

Unlike the first 9 Amendments, 13th specifically indicates its jurisdiction and reach. We simply wouldn't need the 14th, if the first 9 automatically restricted state and local governments "upon joining the Union".

"The right of the people . . ." doesn't denote jurisdiction and reach???

Article IV, Section 2. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Article VI. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

[MikeSettles]

Unlike the first 9 Amendments, 13th specifically indicates its jurisdiction and reach. We simply wouldn't need the 14th, if the first 9 automatically restricted state and local governments "upon joining the Union".

For a jurisdiction to ignore/fail to enforce a law doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I've seen it many times: Instead of enforcing existing law/regulation; they enact another one, which just adds to the mess.

 

[fd15k]

"The right of the people . . ." doesn't denote jurisdiction and reach???

Article IV, Section 2. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

Article VI. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court established a precedent on whether the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments.

Barron v. Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MikeSettles]

So Justice Marshall ignored Articles IV and VI; Ignored the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (intent). What else is new?

 

[fd15k]

So Justice Marshall ignored Articles IV and VI; Ignored the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers (intent). What else is new?

My point was that until the 14th Amendment 2A did not restrict the states. Your beliefs neither change the current legal framework, or the historic application. And that's what I usually argue on this board - reality, not the beliefs.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

My point was that until the 14th Amendment 2A did not restrict the states. Your beliefs neither change the current legal framework, or the historic application. And that's what I usually argue on this board - reality, not the beliefs.

The entire BORs applied to the states from day one.. it is a set of inalienable rights and items like the 4th amendment were enshrined in almost every state's own constitution.. and respected in all

The 14th amendment simply redefined who would be a full US citizen

 

[Jamie6.5]

The entire BORs applied to the states from day one.. it is a set of inalienable rights and items like the 4th amendment were enshrined in almost every state's own constitution.. and respected in all

The 14th amendment simply redefined who would be a full US citizen

Not exactly. In 1833, the SCOTUS denied that the feds had the power to enforce the BoR within a state. It was reversed in 1868 by the 14thA.

So, first they did apply, then they didn't. Then thanks to the Due Process clause of the 14thA, and the doctrine of selective incorporation, the courts have decreed that they once again apply.

All the more reason not to give obama another chance at a SCOTUS nominee. We could end up with another John Marshall on the court, and have to start all over.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Not exactly. In 1833, the SCOTUS denied that the feds had the power to enforce the BoR within a state. It was reversed in 1868 by the 14thA.

So, first they did apply, then they didn't. Then thanks to the Due Process clause of the 14thA, and the doctrine of selective incorporation, the courts have decreed that they once again apply.

All the more reason not to give obama another chance at a SCOTUS nominee. We could end up with another John Marshall on the court, and have to start all over.

Contrary to what most believe the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of our liberties.. WE THE PEOPLE are

 

[Jamie6.5]

Contrary to what most believe the SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of our liberties.. WE THE PEOPLE are

Well, since neither you nor I was around in 1833, Americans had to put up with that crap for 3 decades.
One has to wonder if the Civil War would have taken place if the Marshall court hadn't ruled the way they did in '33.

 

[soberups]

The fact of the matter is that our next President will be one of the two political prostitutes that is able to secure his party's nomination.

The question we need to ask ourselves is...."which political prostitute is likely to do the least amount of harm to our 2nd Amendment rights during the 4 years that he will occupy the white house?"

As gun owners, we simply do not have any "good" choices. Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination and he is not going to be elected as a write in candidate, so those who vote for him as a matter of "principle" need to honestly ask themselves whether they are helping or hurting their 2nd Amendment rights by doing so.

As I see it, our 2nd Amendment rights will be less threatened by the political prostitute that the NRA is paying than by the political prostitute that the Brady Foundation is paying. Thats pretty much what the whole mess boils down to....an excercise in damage control. Hold your nose and vote for the least worst option, and start asking your fellow Republicans why we cant seem to get a worthwhile cadidate to choose.