Where and why would YOU put limits on RKBA?

[dantodd]

I think if you read the Heller opinions carefully you will find that SCOTUS has upheld the 2nd as an individual right regardless of any militia connection. It all has to do with centuries of precident in English common law.

You are right.

Your militia arguments are moot.

This is wrong. The prefatory clause defines a compelling interest for the government associated with the pre-existing right.

[dantodd]

Nope. If the perp hurts somebody, lock him up and throw away the key. Otherwise leave him the **** alone.

So no laws against negligent behavior such as driving while intoxicated or discharging weapons in populated ares such as target practice on the sidewalk of a residential street?

I am a bit surprised but it's good to know what you think.

[dantodd]

OK....I have read many of your posts and some have a level of merit. Others are....I'm at a loss for an adjective.

I'm not sure what you mean by "at a loss for an adjective" I will assume it means you either don't understand them or you find them objectionable. If it is the former please feel free to ask for clarification, if the latter please feel free to rebut specific assertions or engage in a discussion of them.

The 2nd Amendment says exactly what it means and was carefully written as a protection for the people AGAINST the government...IT, IN NO WAY, authorizes the government to arm or control the militia.

I must have missed something, who arms, calls up and issues orders to the militias today? I'm not arguing the constitutionality of it but merely the state of the law today. If you want to educate yourself look up The Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act shortly thereafter.

"A well regulated militia" (The able-bodied civilian population, which is sufficiently armed and proficient with it's weapons)

"being necessary to the security a free state" (Which is ultimately needed for the protection of its own freedom)

"the right of the people" (the RIGHT of each individual citizen)

to keep and bear arms (To own and carry such weapons that are equal to those of the government)

Those seem close enough re-phrasings.

shall not be infringed (SHALL...NOT...BE...INFRINGED ... [Interfered with, incumbered, stopped, blocked, MADE DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE TO EXERCISE)

That is the 2nd Amendment. It was important enough to be selected and enumerated as an absolute right that was to be GUARANTEED to the individual. It was designed for the people AGAINST the government. It's that simple.

Here is where you run into a problem. There is no such thing as an absolute right. None. If you can name one absolute right I would very much like to hear it.

There IS NO valid Constitutional argument for registration.

Do you not think that if this were true the NRA, CGF, SAF etc. would have challenged the existing registration laws? The only thing that I have heard from these people is that registration would be constitutional. I am not sure if ALL forms of registration would pass strict scrutiny, I suspect that small arms could successfully be argued immune from registration because of their non-militia use.

[yellowfin]

Do you not think that if this were true the NRA, CGF, SAF etc. would have challenged the existing registration laws? The only thing that I have heard from these people is that registration would be constitutional. I am not sure if ALL forms of registration would pass strict scrutiny, I suspect that small arms could successfully be argued immune from registration because of their non-militia use.

That's also because they have to pick an argument that can win right now with the way things are. Pushing 50 state Vermont style just isn't going to win until we're way far ahead of where we are. That's going to take a generation or two if for no other reason than to get the people and the judiciary used to it. The judiciary simply isn't used to gun rights winning if for no other reason than inertia of the long standing status quo. The experience of judges and lawyers is pre-Heller plus lots of US v. Crackhead and US v. Bank robber paired with far left law teachers and anti gun campuses and big cities. They have lived in an opposite reality from 40 state Shall Issue and Montana/New Hampshire/Alabama gun culture simply because the recent generation is lower % gun owner than the previous five generations who actively didn't fight the pro 2nd Amendment fight to a large extent.

[USAFTS]

...I must have missed something, who arms, calls up and issues orders to the militias today? I'm not arguing the constitutionality of it but merely the state of the law today. If you want to educate yourself look up The Militia Act of 1903 and the National Defense Act shortly thereafter.

"...who arms, calls up and issues orders to the militias today?"

Based upon the Constitution or based upon various ACTs that were passed outside the Constitution with nonexistant authority?

You can attempt to argue the authority all day but it does not change the fact that is authority stolen from the states and the people...and is not Constitutionally supported.

This is the problem. When the government can ignore the the Constitution and pass laws, unchallenged, granting different branches the authority to control the states and the people...we are forced to pick our battles.

[dantodd]

That's also because they have to pick an argument that can win right now with the way things are.

I don't believe this is why there has been no challenge to registration nationwide. I believe, that while bad policy, it is constitutional.


I search for some insight from CGF boardmembers and found this.

...I suggest you read the Militia Act of 1792 to understand where people are coming from on this.

States and the Federal government made lists of guns and gunowners at the time of the founding. They considered the 2A to be protection against seizure.

ETA: From the same thread:

McDonald contains a complaint about re-registration. Re-registration is likely unconstitutional, but, as you can see here, lots of the right people aren't sure that registration is unconstitutional.

[USAFTS]

(Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442)

[dantodd]

“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

(Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442)

I'm not sure of the relevance of Shelby in this case, it has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. If you are merely pointing out that unconstitutional acts are not protected nor are they binding, ok.

If are are simply stating that you feel any registration would be unconstitutional and that you are in disagreement with some of the best minds in firearms law and litigation so be it.

[dasmi]

Limits? Pretty simple.

Arms is traditionally defined as those able to be carried by a single person, or borne by his arms. If a person can't pick it up and carry it reasonably, I don't consider it an arm. It's ordnance. Also the accessories and munitions associated with such arm are treated as arms.

With that out of the way...

There are two types of people that should not be legally armed. If you are in a correctional facility serving a sentence or fleeing justice, you have no RKBA. If you are outside a department of correction facility and are not a fugitive from justice, you are a free person and should have the RKBA.

No permits, no licenses, no background checks, no FFLs needed for interstate commerce, no waiting period, no records, no taxes-rights should be tax free. This applies to fully automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, suppressors, etc.

No carry zones? Simple. The sterile areas of correctional facilities (ie if a prisoner has access to the area, no weapons) and private property. Government property should be legal to carry a firearm. The taxpayers paid for it, that means the public owns it and it's public property.

Basically revert gun laws back to the way they were before 1934 and leave them the hell alone.

What he said.

[DocSkinner]

I think the mind set (of the limiters) here is the real issue driving this type of debate. And that they forget what a dangerous precedent they are setting.

The United States was specifically founded on freedom and liberty. A direct counter to what most of the people here were (and still are) fleeing - countries where you must have permission to do anything. You can only do what is specifically allowed. The U.S. was founded on the opposite principle - you should be able to do whatever you want, and we will limit the behaviors (acts) that pose a clear danger to others either physically, or through the infringement of the other's rights and/or to society.

It isn't about what other's THINK you need or should have (things), its about you having what you want that you obtain legally (things), and do not use to harm others/society (USE/behavior with those things).

so it is currently "well you don't really NEED guns, so we can limit them, and make a list in case we decide you aren't allowed to have them"

but is has been "you don't really need to think for yourself, so communism is bad, and we will make a list of those that appear to hold those beliefs, just in case, of course"

" You don't really need to be able to read anything you want. Books contain dangerous ideas, and you don't really need books, so we will make lists of those you are allowed and not allowed to read and own, whether or not you ever use or may use that information in a dangerous way is irrelevant."

You don't really need to drink alcohol, so we will just ban that.

you don't really need all that privacy, as if you aren't doing anything bad, it can't hurt you. So unwarranted wiretaps are fine.

You don't really need open internet access, so we will decide what sites are safe for you and block the rest.

You don't really need a car that goes faster than 70 mph. so we will restrict those cars...

In fact, you don't really need to own cars. They kill tons of people and so pose a clear threat to society.

In fact Bath tubs do as well, so unless you can show a specific reason why you NEED a bathtub (more deaths than by firearms), houses will only have showers.

You don't really need more than one religion...

You don't really need public radio. or private radio, particularly those dangerous talk shows.

you don't "really need"...

And that is why the Constitution(s) were written the way they were. They were written to give people freedom, not to restrict and limit their freedoms based upon what a few might think is necessary. It is about society based on "why shouldn't you if you do it safely" instead of a "prove to us why you NEED that".

This seems like such an easy one to those that don't feel like THEY need a gun. If they don't feel THEY need one, why should anyone else need a gun? But now start substituting whatever for the word gun in the above.

[DocSkinner]

...and why and ask me questions about that rather than simply accusing me of talking in "BS loops" or being incapable of making a point. If you don't REALLY want to discuss my thoughts on it then simply ignore my posts. I usually assume that someone who takes the time to respond to my posting wants to discuss its content, if you merely want to scream at me for not holding your exact belief please just say so and try to not put words in my mouth at the same time. If you do that I won't feel the need to reply in order to correct things that you inaccurately attribute to me.

you make my point precisely - everyone is asking why and asking questions, which returns the same answers from you, which aren't actually answers, but repeats of what you had already stated. Hence, a circle! Not aggressive at all, just callin'em like I see them. which in this case was "I am just going to keep repeating what I said until you understand it" so quite on the other hand I would say it was you limiting "discussion" in this case. If you can't stand people calling them as they see them and disagreeing with YOU, maybe it isn't the other person that (only) has a problem? I never felt you really addressed any of the responders, as in explaining why their point was wrong, invalid, etc. WHich is much harder than just resetting the point, simply rephrasing your same answers, and trying to apply a little Socratic trickery to get people to follow you down your chosen path.

The Socratic method only works on those that don't have an opinion, or can not tell when they are being lead down a road of slight errors to eventually reach a point that when you look back, can not be truly supported, but appears to have been reached soundly (Lawyer, eh?). Law of probabilities in making a chain of slightly incorrect assumptions: if each is mostly (say ~70%) accurate, and relies on other equally correct statements, you are already below chance (.49%) of it being true after the second assumption. After three links you are actually at almost a 70% chance of being wrong, and have only a 34% chance of being correct. And it only get worse from there...

The chains are easy to spot - they usually start: "well, IF X..." and "but, IF..." and when they do, I start calculating the accumulation of error... Socratic method is a great tool for teacher and indoctrinating into a belief of thought path. It is the antithesis of a true discussion.