National WSJ: Why the Nation’s Gun Laws Are in Chaos

[DivCurlGrad72]

Full article here.

The solution to the chaos seems simple to me: shall not be infringed means most gun laws are unconstitutional. The original intent of the 2nd amendment was, in terms of firepower, and at a minimum applicable to small arms, parity between the people and the government. At this country's founding, the people had the same weapons as the government, and rights don't change with technology.

Read More

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Yeabut.....Just kidding...

It is important to remember what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
As in.....

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but only specific Arms and Arms only for certain purposes , shall not be infringed."

In the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment...there is no mention of just what Arms one may keep and bear or that one can only keep and bear Arms for limited uses.
Therefore , it seems clear to me at least...
That one is free to keep and bear whatever Arms one wishes to...or not ..as they desire.

Own whatever firearms you want...or don't own any...Just don't make that choice for others.

Unfortunately I do not make laws or interpret 18th century text.
Andy

 

[solv3nt]

I prefer bear arms, and if T-Rex still existed, small arms. Until the second coming of the lizard, I'll keep my bear arms.

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

I prefer bear arms, and if T-Rex still existed, small arms. Until the second coming of the lizard, I'll keep my bear arms.

T-Rex still exists: https://www.trex-arms.com/

 

[nehalemguy]

I love this quote from the article. It shows that the writer has a broad misunderstanding of what is going on in the lower courts.

"The result: Hundreds of gun cases litigated in recent months have become a free-for-all, with lower courts conflicted or confounded about how and where to draw limits on gun rights."

They may be conflicted and confounded, but it is because they are trying every gymnastic trick available to get around Bruen. A better word to use is "unwilling".

-E-

 

[Stomper]

Yeabut.....Just kidding...

It is important to remember what the 2nd Amendment does not say.
As in.....

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, but only specific Arms and Arms only for certain purposes , shall not be infringed."

In the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment...there is no mention of just what Arms one may keep and bear or that one can only keep and bear Arms for limited uses.
Therefore , it seems clear to me at least...
That one is free to keep and bear whatever Arms one wishes to...or not ..as they desire.

Own whatever firearms you want...or don't own any...Just don't make that choice for others.

Unfortunately I do not make laws or interpret 18th century text.
Andy

I prefer bear arms, and if T-Rex still existed, small arms. Until the second coming of the lizard, I'll keep my bear arms.

Better work on them forearms. Do you even lift to get swole, bruh?

 

[Diamondback]

I prefer bear arms, and if T-Rex still existed, small arms. Until the second coming of the lizard, I'll keep my bear arms.

My lizardkid would like a word... though ironically the tyrannoaur in this house is the one who gives the least to fear.

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

PS.....remember when?

 

[Rkangel]

I don't believe is chaotic. I believe it is calculated yet made to appear chaotic. Making it appear chaotic and/or inept allows them to better conceal their true intentions behind the noise.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Welp, the author of said article is obviously a lefty, given who he is writing for, it's not a surprise at all!

I don't understand, being the authors first paragraph, means he didn't even bother to actually READ the Bill of Rights nor did he bother to read the Federalist Papers which tell us EXACTLY what our founders were thinking and WHY certain things are a certain way, So, we cannot take this scribe serious, he doesn't understand because he doesn't WANT to!

The assertions that our B.o.R. doesn't account for changes in things like firearms technology or safety, or changing times, or societal need, or why we cannot interest balance our laws, even outside the 2nd, completely misses the intent of our founders! Following the lefts views, the Laws would be open to challenge before the ink was even dry, and somehow we would have to allow them to be challenged, which is why it was written as it was, and not how some folks choose to interpret it over time! The lefts assertions that they can no longer interest balance things, or some how imply a new need, is frustrating to them, exactly as it should be, and the way Bruen spells out EXACTLY how said challenges MUST be considered against the B.o.R, clears it up complexly! Having to look to our founding and ratification for analogs is proper and just, as our founding documents are fixed in time, as are the laws which govern all, so this misadventure of the left trying to square with a reality they do not agree with is a very good thing, and one would hope we could then start to focus on the real issues and not make gun control the only point of contention!

If you really want to cook their noodles, Heller/Bruen also applies to all the other B.o.R, you cannot interest balance against them to get your desired outcomes. And just wait, Chevron is about to get an epic smack down, forcing congress to legislate instead of hiding behind chevron in spelling out exact intent of every piece of legislation they draft! Idiots like (D)Chris Murphy, Mr. Gun Control, can no longer legislate from the bench, and our DipSh!t Commander in Chief and his Cuck Attorney General cannot simply employ a pen and phone to executive order our rights away!

Which brings us to Oregon, Cali, and Washington, the three states have thumbed their noses at SCOTUS and it's rulings, and are attempting to side step the B.o.R. and and Bruen, and force SCOTUS to take up even more draconian rulings to FORCE the states to toe the line, and while it will take a few years, the smack down will be epic and final!

Gun Control is now Toxic, as my good buddy @etrain16 always said, the left is just about to the point where any discussions against the 2nd effetely end any political asperations once and for all!

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

PS.....think about it. LOL.

 

[ma96782]

Aloha, Mark

 

[Martini_Up]

A well regulationed Militia, being necessary to the security of The State, the privilege of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed

This is how the 2A is now understood by many

 

[ma96782]

Or?

The 2nd Amendment according to the Liberals..…

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless some Politician says it's reasonable and makes common sense to them."

Aloha, Mark

PS.....and furthermore.....

The 1st Amendment according to the Liberals.....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless someone claims to be offended by your practice thereof."

 

[CamoDeafie]

Repeating again. A great many politicians, Judges, and voters seem to think 2A really means

"A well regulated (by laws) militia(military) being necessary for the security of a free State (government), the right of the People (Government) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed (unless Government says so) "

 

[Stomper]

Or?

The 2nd Amendment according to the Liberals..…

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, unless some Politician says it's reasonable and makes common sense to them."

Aloha, Mark

PS.....and furthermore.....

The 1st Amendment according to the Liberals.....

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless someone claims to be offended by your practice thereof."

I take umbrage with your prior posts…. if the government (or a "progressive") tells me I don't need an AR-15, that means I need THREE AR-15's… not one.

 

[Diamondback]

Bull, it means you need enough to arm your entire household... until you can build up to the entire neighborhood.

 

[Stomper]

Bull, it means you need enough to arm your entire household... until you can build up to the entire neighborhood.

Already have enough for the family (or an entire rifle-squad, plus 3-4 resupplies)….. Phuck the neighbors, they're all useless and will be my source of sandbags.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Full article here.

The solution to the chaos seems simple to me: shall not be infringed means most gun laws are unconstitutional. The original intent of the 2nd amendment was, in terms of firepower, and at a minimum applicable to small arms, parity between the people and the government. At this country's founding, the people had the same weapons as the government, and rights don't change with technology.

Did not read the article but I've been saying every since the bruen decision that because it eliminates the two step "social balancing", and because all the laws must be tested against laws that existed in 1791, almost all gun laws are potentially up for grabs to be overturned.

Fe, sept 2022:

Watching that extremely annoying four boxes attorney video guy, he said the judge in this case stated the date for historical precedent is 1791. That is huge if other judges continue to do that. 1791 is a lot earlier than 1934 if you get my drift. That's why I've been saying since the day of Bruen, that the date for what defines historical precedent is the most critical part. If it ends up being 1791 I don't see how the NFA or any other recent laws will stand. And it sounds like this judge just started to define it, 1791.

And July 2022:

...If so that would mean the test for "historical tradition" excludes any laws (such as the NFA) that were passed in the early 1900s? That would mean any new and existing laws would have to be tested to see if there was a historical tradition for it prior to the early 1900s.

HOLY MOLY! Is all I can say if that's the case. Oh and also, "Life is good!"

 

[CamoDeafie]

Did not read the article but I've been saying every since the bruen decision that because it eliminates the two step "social balancing", and because all the laws must be tested against laws that existed in 1791, almost all gun laws are potentially up for grabs to be overturned.

Fe, sept 2022:

And July 2022:

Yes but as has been made abundantly clear with certain District Court Judges (coughs Immergut coughs).. some are actively thumbing their noses and engaging in extreme mental gymnastics to keep the two part tests