How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199:2834]

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yep. Those restrictions have been extended to the states as well, yet the federal and state gov'ts have passed all sorts of gun control laws and most of them survived SCOTUS challenges. Again you mix up words - the 1st amendment, not the 2nd amendment, says "Congress shall make no law to..." but that now applies to the states as well.

you will note it states....congress shall make not law...is emboldened



That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

you will note it states....congress shall make not law...is emboldened



That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.

The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

The last bolded statement is true, however the gov't could (not to say that it would) place such a burden that the number of citizens able to overcome it would be significantly reduced. For example it is outright illegal to open carry a handgun in the state of Texas and a concealed carry permit is available for about $240. That essentially makes carrying a handgun, In Texas, into a state issued privilege in exchange for a fee.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The last bolded statement is true, however the gov't could (not to say that it would) place such a burden that the number of citizens able to overcome it would be significantly reduced. For example it is outright illegal to open carry a handgun in the state of Texas and a concealed carry permit is available for about $240. That essentially makes carrying a handgun, In Texas, into a state issued privilege in exchange for a fee.

but you forget, the bill of rights was created for the federal government ....not the states, ..state laws concerning firearms depended on its constitution, ......if i am correct there are 11 state constitutions now , that do not have a right to bare arms.

as far as the federal government it has NO authority what so ever over the people.......the constitution itself states it has authority over only 4 classes of people and they must violate a delegated power of government or commit treason......other then that no delegated powers of government have anything to do with the personal life's of the people.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

but you forget, the bill of rights was created for the federal government ....not the states, ..state laws concerning firearms depended on its constitution, ......if i am correct there are 11 state constitutions now , that do not have a right to bare arms.

as far as the federal government it has NO authority what so ever over the people.......the constitution itself states it has authority over only 4 classes of people and they must violate a delegated power of government or commit treason......other then that no delegated powers of government have anything to do with the personal life's of the people.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The bill of rights applies to all levels of government, not just the federal government.

Bill of rights legal definition of Bill of rights. Bill of rights synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[Master PO]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The bill of rights applies to all levels of government, not just the federal government.

Bill of rights legal definition of Bill of rights. Bill of rights synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

currently it does becuase of the USSC ....however the founders meant to to only apply to the federal government.


The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [federal] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

the founders were clear the federal government [congress] in not to be involved in the life, liberty and property of the people.

 

[PTPLauthor]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

I think you are wrong. If you read the second along with the 9th and the 10th as well as the entire body of the main document, you cannot come up with any valid argument that the federal government was empowered with regulating small arms. If the founders were to come back and run the country today, gun controllers would be hanging for treason

The Ninth Amendment doesn't apply to this situation.

The way I see it, the Tenth Amendment is a waste of parchment. The Constitution was already a limit on the powers of the Federal Government, so there wasn't a need to put the Tenth in. I tend to agree with the Supreme Court in Sprague when they said that the Tenth added nothing to the Constitution.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Unfortunately, that is not true. Had the amendment been worded better then perhaps that would have been true. I am sure that Haymarket has told you, at least 100 times, that shall not be infringed is way fuzzier than shall not be abridged or denied. That single word in the 2A, more so than any other, allows for all manner of "reasonable restrictions" to pass SCOTUS muster.

actually that is not true. the FDR administration had to conjure up a delegation of power and that was with the commerce clause and the USSC-operating under the threat of a court packing scheme allowed such nonsense. Its all dishonest and the Justices all know that but Scalia has admitted, its been around too long to overturn. actually infringed is more expansive a restriction than denied.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What does not today's kind of welfare have to do with self-defense and regulating it?

What does militia control of the militia currently employed by the federal government have to do with self-defense and regulating it?

It doesn't. Its a specious argument.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Yep. Those restrictions have been extended to the states as well, yet the federal and state gov'ts have passed all sorts of gun control laws and most of them survived SCOTUS challenges. Again you mix up words - the 1st amendment, not the 2nd amendment, says "Congress shall make no law to..." but that now applies to the states as well.

only the NFA survived USSC.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The bill of rights applies to all levels of government, not just the federal government.

Bill of rights legal definition of Bill of rights. Bill of rights synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

that is not exactly true. Only those rights incorporated by the 14th Amendment. and before the 14th amendment that was not try at all.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The Ninth Amendment doesn't apply to this situation.

The way I see it, the Tenth Amendment is a waste of parchment. The Constitution was already a limit on the powers of the Federal Government, so there wasn't a need to put the Tenth in. I tend to agree with the Supreme Court in Sprague when they said that the Tenth added nothing to the Constitution.

well given both the court and the federal government ignore the restrictions contained in the body of the constitution you might have a point but for Lopez. Do you agree with it because you think that the limits imposed on the government should be violated-as the Democratic Party started doing in the New Deal era or because its merely is superfluous

explain your ninth amendment claim It was a major area of interest pre Heller. With Heller, it sort of fell by the wayside

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Really!?!?!?!? I have never heard that claim. Could you please post a legal decision where it says that?

Amendments modify the thing they are amending.

The constitution was amended to read: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Unfortunately, that is not true. Had the amendment been worded better then perhaps that would have been true. I am sure that Haymarket has told you, at least 100 times, that shall not be infringed is way fuzzier than shall not be abridged or denied. That single word in the 2A, more so than any other, allows for all manner of "reasonable restrictions" to pass SCOTUS muster.

What do you consider "infringed" to mean? I would think it means violated or denied.

 

[TurtleDude]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What do you consider "infringed" to mean? I would think it means violated or denied.

interfered with

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The Constitution was already a limit on the powers of the Federal Government, so there wasn't a need to put the Tenth in.

Actually the constitution is the means by which the federal government was given power over us. The constitution doesn't limit the federal government, it institutes the federal government.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

interfered with

In either case, the constitution codifies the fact that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. Any federal action that prevents people from keeping and bearing arms would deny, violate, or interfere with this right.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

actually that is not true. the FDR administration had to conjure up a delegation of power and that was with the commerce clause and the USSC-operating under the threat of a court packing scheme allowed such nonsense. Its all dishonest and the Justices all know that but Scalia has admitted, its been around too long to overturn. actually infringed is more expansive a restriction than denied.

It took quite a lot of constitutional tinkering to get even the right to vote from being "reasonably restricted". Some still consider even the presenting of a valid, state issued, photo ID to be an undue discriminatory burden for the right to vote yet will accept all manner of hoops to jump through, including large fees, to carry a handgun.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

that is not exactly true. Only those rights incorporated by the 14th Amendment. and before the 14th amendment that was not try at all.

Equal protection of the law could easily be used to remove many "state's rights" claims as we are seeing with SSM mandates, yet not (yet) with the 2A.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What do you consider "infringed" to mean? I would think it means violated or denied.

That is exactly what I mean by "the haymarket problem"; infringed does not necessarily include abridged so anything short of an outright ban of all guns to all citizens is not a complete denial of the 2A right. The word infringed is what keeps giving us "resonable restrictions" like the Brady bill, CHLs and CCW permits.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

What does not today's kind of welfare have to do with self-defense and regulating it?

What does militia control of the militia currently employed by the federal government have to do with self-defense and regulating it?

I do not know what you mean by "today's kind of welfare". Could you elaborate on that please?

The militia is all the people. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16 provides for Congressional powers over the militia.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

The militia is all the people. Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 16 provides for Congressional powers over the militia.

And the second amendment forbids the federal government from violating the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

how is the general welfare, connected with firearms.

What laws intended to improve life for Americans would not be in the general welfare? It is such a wide term that it could cover nearly all manner of legislation intended to have a positive impact on citizens.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

nothing about firearms regulation.

If that is the conclusion you make from reading Paragraph 16, then you truly are the living breathing textbook example of the adage THERE ARE NONE SO BLIND AS THEY WHO WILL NOT SEE. The specific language has to do with the arms the militia has and the governments ability to organize them and discipline them. And that also covers a huge amount of ground.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

is not part of the US Constitution and was never ratified as such. It is irrelevant and has no more legal force of law than used Charmin.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

Amendments modify the thing they are amending.

The constitution was amended to read: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As I suspected - you CANNOT come up with any decision or legal opinion supporting your claim. Thank you.

 

[haymarket]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

And the second amendment forbids the federal government from violating the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

You have already been corrected many times by others as well as myself that the Second Amendment applies to the state governments and local governments. And those governments do indeed prohibit, ban and outlaw firearms ownership for many people.

 

[Federalist]

Re: How Do YOU Interpret The 2nd Amendment? [W:199]

You have already been corrected many times by others as well as myself that the Second Amendment applies to the state governments and local governments. And those governments do indeed prohibit, ban and outlaw firearms ownership for many people.

Okay, but I was discussing the limits that the 2nd places upon the federal government. It forbids the federal government from denying the people the right to keep and bear arms.