H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

[TurtleDude]

That is my view of the plain language.

There is support for it in the courts -- guns have been banned from private possession or ownership in different ways in many jurisdictions in various ways, and as far as I am aware, the courts have not struck such laws down as unconstitutional.

The DC Court of appeals just held that the DC handgun ban violates the constitution and the right is an individual one not a collective one

basing your opinion on what are often statist or outcome based politically generated decisions by flawed judges and repeated by other judges bound by precedent is not a sound position to argue upon. the fact is that there is no rational argument that the constitution either delegates the power to regulate the natural right of bearing arms to the federal government or to claim that the second only applies to the national guard.

that the FDR administration had to create this power using taxes and the commerce clause pretty much proves that and the gun haters have never addressed 9th and Tenth amendment arguments

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is my view of the plain language.

Oh.
Well, so what?
Why should anyone buy into that interpretation when all you offer as ssupport is "that's how I see its plain meaning"?

There is support for it in the courts

Such as?
When did the SCotUS post a decision that supports your argument.

Please note too that just a few weeks ago, the Circuit Court of Appeals for DC ruled exactly the opposite of what you;re arguing.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am certainly against any gun ban, but the Govt has every right to ban weapons capable of mass destruction.

there is no absolute right for an individual right to keep and bear arms.

is this based on an honest evaluation of the constitution or your mistaken interpretation of what some courts and the clinton administration said

please show me where the federal government has the POWER to ban small arms

 

[M14 Shooter]

You stated:

Registration is prior restraint, and thus, an infringement on the right to arms.
The right to arms shall not be infringed.

When was it determined that the 2nd Amendment means the Govt cannot require registration?

By whom?

How?

Never.

It HAS, however, ruled innumerable times that prior restraint, in regards to other rights, does indeed violate the Constitution.

Please tell me how or why those ruiling shold not apply to the right to arms, and that the concept of prior restraint, as illustrated through gun regustration, is not an infringement on the right to arms.

 

[Iriemon]

Never.

Right.

It HAS, however, ruled innumerable times that prior restraint, in regards to other rights, does indeed violate the Constitution.

Depends upon the restraint.

Please tell me how or why those ruiling shold not apply to the right to arms, and that the concept of prior restraint, as illustrated through gun regustration, is not an infringement on the right to arms.

See text of second amendment.

 

[Iriemon]

Oh.
Well, so what?
Why should anyone buy into that interpretation when all you offer as ssupport is "that's how I see its plain meaning"?

Why should anyone buy into yours? I'm entitled to my opinion, which IMO is well founded, as much as anyone else.

Such as?
When did the SCotUS post a decision that supports your argument.

Please note too that just a few weeks ago, the Circuit Court of Appeals for DC ruled exactly the opposite of what you;re arguing.

So file a lawsuit to get what you think are your rights.

 

[Iriemon]

The DC Court of appeals just held that the DC handgun ban violates the constitution and the right is an individual one not a collective one

If it is upheld on appeal that will be the law.

basing your opinion on what are often statist or outcome based politically generated decisions by flawed judges and repeated by other judges bound by precedent is not a sound position to argue upon. the fact is that there is no rational argument that the constitution either delegates the power to regulate the natural right of bearing arms to the federal government or to claim that the second only applies to the national guard.

and basing your opinion on what are often statist or outcome based politically generated decisions not supported by judges repeated by other judges bound by precedent is not a sound position to argue upon. the fact is that there is no rational argument that the constitution either prohibits the Government from regulating private possession of weapons when they are not kept pursuant to a well regulated militia or the equivalent.

that the FDR administration had to create this power using taxes and the commerce clause pretty much proves that and the gun haters have never addressed 9th and Tenth amendment arguments

So file a lawsuit and address it. All but two SC judges have been appointed by Republicans, it should be an easy case.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why should anyone buy into yours? I'm entitled to my opinion, which IMO is well founded, as much as anyone else.

If your opinion were "well-founded", you couid offer more support for your opinion than 'its my opinion'.

So file a lawsuit to get what you think are your rights.

I see -- you can't tell me when the SCotUS posted a decision that supports your argument.
Thank you.

 

[Iriemon]

is this based on an honest evaluation of the constitution or your mistaken interpretation of what some courts and the clinton administration said

please show me where the federal government has the POWER to ban small arms

Show me the federal government has the POWER to ban private possession of nuclear weapons and I'll show your where it has the power to ban small arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If it is upheld on appeal that will be the law.

Its the law, unless overturned.

 

[Iriemon]

If your opinion were "well-founded", you couid offer more support for your opinion than 'its my opinion'.

I did.

I see -- you can't tell me when the SCotUS posted a decision that supports your argument.
Thank you.

And I see you can't tell me any SC decision that supports yours.

Thank you too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Show me the federal government has the POWER to ban private possession of nuclear weapons and I'll show your where it has the power to ban small arms.

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" in the context of the 2nd, and as such, the protection of the 2nd amendment do not apply.

 

[Iriemon]

Its the law, unless overturned.

It is not the law of the land. In any event, it has been appealed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I did.

"It is the plain meaning of the text" isnt support for your opinion, its simply a restatement of your opinion. As such, you havent offered any support for your opinion.

And I see you can't tell me any SC decision that supports yours.

You claimed that the courts supported your decision.
I did not.

Did you lie, or are you simply wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not the law of the land, or even the Circuit. It is just the decision in one case by the district court at this time.
In any event, it has been appealed.

And --unless it is overturned-- it will remain the law.

Court decisions stand as law until they are reversed -- If it were NEVER appealed, it would STILL be the law.

 

[Iriemon]

"It is the plain meaning of the text" isnt support for your opinion, its simply a restatement of your opinion. As such, you havent offered any support for your opinion.

I don't feel like looking up other sources. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine.

You claimed that the courts supported your decision.
I did not.

Did you lie, or are you simply wrong?

As you confirmed, courts have not struck down gun control laws. That supports my position.

Though, as Turtledude pointed out, a recent DC decision did just that. The lower court apparently ruled the 2d Amendment was not an individual right. The Appellate court (2-1 decision) apparently held it was an individual right, which can be regulated like other rights. We shall see.

 

[Iriemon]

And --unless it is overturned-- it will remain the law.

Court decisions stand as law until they are reversed -- If it were NEVER appealed, it would STILL be the law.

Only in the DC Circuit.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Show me the federal government has the POWER to ban private possession of nuclear weapons and I'll show your where it has the power to ban small arms.

Nuclear weapons are not "arms" in the context of the 2nd, and as such, the protection of the 2nd amendment do not apply.

OK, you agree the Govt has the POWER to ban private possession of nuclear weapons. The same source of that power gives it the power to regulate private possession of guns.

Your argument is that the second amendment forbids the Govt from exercising that power as to weapons for individuals.

I disagree with your argument.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't feel like looking up other sources. If you disagree with my opinion, that's fine.

You're willing to make the argument, but you arent willing to supoort it.
Noted.

But one has to wonder why you dont 'feel like' looking up other sources when you're MORE that willing to look up sources that supports your other arguments here...

As you confirmed, courts have not struck down gun control laws. That supports my position.

On the contrary -- the DC ban was struck down just last month.

You claimed that the courts supported your decision.
You have not posted any decision to that end.
Did you lie, or are you simply wrong?

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK, you agree the Govt has the POWER to ban private possession of nuclear weapons. The same source of that power gives it the power to regulate private possession of guns.

Your argument is that the second amendment forbids the Govt from exercising that power as to weapons for individuals.

I disagree with your argument.

You diagree wholly on the basis that its your opinion that the amendment says what you say it says. :roll:

 

[Iriemon]

is this based on an honest evaluation of the constitution or your mistaken interpretation of what some courts and the clinton administration said

We've discussed this before. Your view of individual gun ownership rights makes the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," superfluous. IMO, if that language was not intended to have significance, the would not have added it in, and the amendment would have read: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".

Unless you are going to take the position that the drafters of the first amendment added words like "well regulated militia" for the hell of it with no intended meaning or effect, an interpretation of the amendment which does not give effect to the first part of the phrase is unsupported.

Also, IMO, the addition of the language makes sense. I doubt the founding father wanted loons, or criminals, or, heaven forbid, black folk, to have guns. But conditioning the right to possession and keep weapons to a "well regulated" militia, it was a way to effect gun control as to who had access to these weapons.

 

[Iriemon]

You're willing to make the argument, but you arent willing to supoort it.
Noted.

LMFAO! Noted I've supported it more than you supported your opinion!

But one has to wonder why you dont 'feel like' looking up other sources when you're MORE that willing to look up sources that supports your other arguments here...

Been there done that in other thread, don't have the inclination or time to do it now.

On the contrary -- the DC ban was struck down just last month.

You claimed that the courts supported your decision.
You have not posted any decision to that end.
Did you lie, or are you simply wrong?

On that I was wrong, I was unaware of the decision. As apparently you were since you did not raise in when I asked you about court cases supporting your position.

 

[Iriemon]

You diagree wholly on the basis that its your opinion that the amendment says what you say it says. :roll:

I dsagree that what the amendment says is my opinion. What the amendment says is fact:

"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."

I disagree what is your opinion about what the language means based on my opinion of language means, based on the language. As well as the facts that courts have not struck down gun laws. If they agree with your position, that would not have happened. But maybe they will with the recent DC decision.

 

[M14 Shooter]

LMFAO! Noted I've supported it more than you supported your opinion!

You've said you dont feel like looking up supprt for it, so thus far, all youv'e said is that "its my opinion based on the plain reading of the amendment".

That is, your support is that "it says what i think it says becauyse ti says what I think it says."

When you have more than that, let me know.

Been there done that in other thread, don't have the inclination or time to do it now.

Or... you know you can't.
Given that you DO take the time end effort elsewhere, I can only presume that's the case...
You can, of course, prove me wrong.

On that I was wrong, I was unaware of the decision. As apparently you were since you did not raise in when I asked you about court cases supporting your position.

I see.

So, just to be clear -- there ARE court decision that support MY position and, at the same time, oppose yours.

Right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I disagree what is your opinion about what the language means based on my opinion of language means, based on the language.

Yes. Your support for your opinion is: your opinion. :roll:

As well as the facts that courts have not struck down gun laws. If they agree with your position, that would not have happened.

You have already admitted that there -are- court decision that do strike down gun control laws based on the 2nd -- and by doing so, those decisions necessarily support my position, and necesarily oppose yours.