No class 3 licensee has become a mass shooter

[Rucker61]

And it’s been litigated: there is no such thing as an unfettered right.

2A doesn’t give you an unfettered right. Never has, never will.

The problem isn't just the litigation; it's that the Democrats ignore the litigation and SCOTUS.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

So why don't we make it a requirement for all gun owners to get a class 3 SOT, or license?

A $500 tax per year and a $200 tax every time you sell a firearm.

But you can own full auto weapons and sawed off shotguns.

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License

What is a Class 3 Firearms License and how do you get one? We walk you through what a Class 3 License is and how easy it is to get one.

gununiversity.com

I don't think it's the money so much as the extra paperwork.

If you ask a young person today what their greatest fear is, they'll tell you it's getting shot at school, work, theater, concert, etc. One day they'll be in charge and they are going to crack down on guns big time. So why not fix the mass shooter problem now?

Have any FFL holders ever been penalized for any shenanigans like the kind Proud Boys and Boogs are being nailed for?

 

[zsu2357]

="Aunt Antifa, post: 1072710906, member: 36561"]
No, I’m not going to jump through these silly rhetorical hoops.

TD didn't say anything about "rhetorical hoops."

Too many folks around here think that they’re hosting their own talkshow and the rest of us need to stick to their format.

And your format is what again? Oh that's right some sort of commonsense gun laws that does away with them.

He didn’t respond to a single point I made, so why do I owe him an exchange? You want good faith, offer some.

Post 29: TD asked you a valid question.
Post 30: you said no.
Post 32: TD replied to your no.
Post 33: Even though you sloughed off TDs question you take offense.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

The Supreme Court held:[46]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

DC v Heller, 2008.

If Mycroft can disagree with United States v. Miller, then I can disagree with DC v Heller.

 

[Rucker61]

If Mycroft can disagree with United States v. Miller, then I can disagree with DC v Heller.

Which part would you disagree with?

Interesting reading, perhaps:

Why United States v. Miller was so badly written - The Volokh Conspiracy

Before District of Columbia v. Heller, the 1939 decision United States v. Miller was the Supreme Court’s leading decision on the Second Amendment. Miller was, to put it mildly, obliquely written. As Michael O’Shea has detailed, the opinion seems mainly concerned with whether the gun in question...

volokh.com

 

[Manc Skipper]

What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

You forgot the Well Regulated Militia part of the equation.

 

[Rucker61]

You forgot the Well Regulated Militia part of the equation.

Once again:



The Supreme Court held:[46]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

DC v Heller

 

[Mycroft]

You forgot the Well Regulated Militia part of the equation.

That part is irrelevant.

 

[TurtleDude]

You forgot the Well Regulated Militia part of the equation.

It has absolutely nothing to do with modifying the negative restriction on the federal government

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Which part would you disagree with?

Interesting reading, perhaps:

Why United States v. Miller was so badly written - The Volokh Conspiracy

Before District of Columbia v. Heller, the 1939 decision United States v. Miller was the Supreme Court’s leading decision on the Second Amendment. Miller was, to put it mildly, obliquely written. As Michael O’Shea has detailed, the opinion seems mainly concerned with whether the gun in question...

volokh.com

I would disagree with this: "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

When a prefatory clause announces a purpose, the operative clause should be limited in scope to that purpose. Otherwise, what function does the prefatory clause serve?

"In order to accomplish X, apply rule Y" The only reason to use the prefatory clause "In order to accomplish X," is if the application of rule Y is limited in scope to accomplishing X.

Otherwise, why not just say "Apply rule Y," and avoid the useless prefatory clause altogether?

 

[TurtleDude]

I would disagree with this: "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

When a prefatory clause announces a purpose, the operative clause should be limited in scope to that purpose. Otherwise, what function does the prefatory clause serve?

"In order to accomplish X, apply rule Y" The only reason to use the prefatory clause "In order to accomplish X," is if the "application of rule Y" is limited in scope to accomplishing X.

Otherwise, why not just say "Apply rule Y," and avoid the useless prefatory clause altogether?

Early legal commentators (St George Tucker, Justice Worthy and Rawls) along with mid 19th Century court cases (Cruikshank for example)-ALL stated that the SECOND AMENDMENT was not seen by the founders as CREATING a right but MERELY recognizing a RIGHT that the Founders all believed existed since the dawn of time-a right that the NEW FEDERAL government was NEVER delegated ANY power to infringe upon. That right -according to the CRUIKSHANK Court -was not CREATED by the constitution but recognized by it.

That right was the right of self defense. Now, those who claim that the right is based on militia service IGNORE that important foundation: the right was seen as existing since the dawn of man. Now how can a right that the founders saw as existing from the dawn of man, require membership in a governmentally directed organization in order to vest, if the founders believed it existed PRIOR to the government they created?

The founders never gave the new government they created, any power to infringe on that right of self defense.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Early legal commentators (St George Tucker, Justice Worthy and Rawls) along with mid 19th Century court cases (Cruikshank for example)-ALL stated that the SECOND AMENDMENT was not seen by the founders as CREATING a right but MERELY recognizing a RIGHT that the Founders all believed existed since the dawn of time-a right that the NEW FEDERAL government was NEVER delegated ANY power to infringe upon. That right -according to the CRUIKSHANK Court -was not CREATED by the constitution but recognized by it.

That right was the right of self defense. Now, those who claim that the right is based on militia service IGNORE that important foundation: the right was seen as existing since the dawn of man. Now how can a right that the founders saw as existing from the dawn of man, require membership in a governmentally directed organization in order to vest, if the founders believed it existed PRIOR to the government they created?

The founders never gave the new government they created, any power to infringe on that right of self-defense.

I'm not terribly interested in second-guessing what was going through the heads of the Framers. The second amendment was prefaced with a clause stating that the purpose of the amendment was to equip a well-regulated militia. Accordingly, the amendment ought to be limited in scope to that purpose.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not terribly interested in second-guessing what was going through the heads of the Framers. The second amendment was prefaced with a clause stating that the purpose of the amendment was to equip a well-regulated militia. Accordingly, the amendment ought to be limited in scope to that purpose.

Not a single major academic supports that view. Not a single founder supported that view since the right was one of self defense. None of the controlling cases support that nonsense. You are lying when you said the purpose of the amendment was to equip a well regulated militia

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Not a single major academic supports that view. Not a single founder supported that view since the right was one of self defense. None of the controlling cases support that nonsense. You are lying when you said the purpose of the amendment was to equip a well regulated militia

DC vs Heller said that was the purpose.

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose."

It said that the operative clause was not limited in scope to the purpose announced by the prefatory clause, but it was quite clear that the prefatory clause announced a purpose, and that purpose was to equip a well-regulated militia.

 

[TurtleDude]

DC vs Heller said that was the purpose.

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose."

It said that the operative clause was not limited in scope to the purpose announced by the prefatory clause, but it was quite clear that the prefatory clause announced a purpose, and that purpose was to equip a well-regulated militia.

one of several but the underlying right-the one the founders thought they were guaranteeing, was the individual right of self defense.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

one of several but the underlying right-the one the founders thought they were guaranteeing, was the individual right of self defense.

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've read through it a few times, but I still can't find the words "self-defense." Maybe you could point out to me where in the 2nd Amendment the words "self-defense" can be found.

 

[TurtleDude]

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've read through it a few times, but I still can't find the words "self-defense." Maybe you could point out to me where in the 2nd Amendment the words "self-defense" can be found.

I sure can see the right of the people shall NOT BE INFRINGED. I don't see anything about the RIGHT OF THE MILITIA.

I cannot help it if you don't understand constitutional scholarship

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

I sure can see the right of the people shall NOT BE INFRINGED. I don't see anything about the RIGHT OF THE MILITIA.

I cannot help it if you don't understand constitutional scholarship

I see the words "well-regulated." In there. Do you think it was a typo, and they meant to say "unregulated?"

Instead of INFRINGING the right to bear arms, the States should REGULATE the right to bear arms. That way, the right to bear arms can be "WELL-REGULATED" without being INFRINGED.

 

[Rucker61]

I'm not terribly interested in second-guessing what was going through the heads of the Framers. The second amendment was prefaced with a clause stating that the purpose of the amendment was to equip a well-regulated militia. Accordingly, the amendment ought to be limited in scope to that purpose.

The Second Amendment cannot protect the arms of the militia.

 

[Rucker61]

I see the words "well-regulated." In there. Do you think it was a typo, and they meant to say "unregulated?"

Instead of INFRINGING the right to bear arms, the States should REGULATE the right to bear arms. That way, the right to bear arms can be "WELL-REGULATED" without being INFRINGED.

"Well regulated" in the Second Amendment modifies "militia". Congress was given the power to regulate the militia in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress was given no power in the Constitution to regulate the arms of the people.

The Second Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, was a further restriction on the power of the government. Nothing in the Bill of Rights gives more power to the government than was listed in the Constitution.

Given that the government has total power over the arms of the militia, the Second Amendment cannot protect the arms of the militia.

The constitutions of the various states indicate a individual rights viewpoint.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

"Well regulated" in the Second Amendment modifies "militia". Congress was given the power to regulate the militia in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Congress was given no power in the Constitution to regulate the arms of the people.

The Second Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, was a further restriction on the power of the government. Nothing in the Bill of Rights gives more power to the government than was listed in the Constitution.

Given that the government has total power over the arms of the militia, the Second Amendment cannot protect the arms of the militia.

The constitutions of the various states indicate a individual rights viewpoint.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Apparently the majority opinion in From DC vs Heller disagrees.

"The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) "

This means that the 2nd amendment was created precisely so that "the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved." Which is to say that it can and does protect the arms of a citizen's militia. I imagine some distinction is made between a citizen's Militia, and the National Guard who the 16th clause of Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress power over.

"Preserving the ideal of a citizen's militia" should then be the limiting scope of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Court Jester]

So why don't we make it a requirement for all gun owners to get a class 3 SOT, or license?

A $500 tax per year and a $200 tax every time you sell a firearm.

But you can own full auto weapons and sawed off shotguns.

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License

What is a Class 3 Firearms License and how do you get one? We walk you through what a Class 3 License is and how easy it is to get one.

gununiversity.com

I don't think it's the money so much as the extra paperwork.

If you ask a young person today what their greatest fear is, they'll tell you it's getting shot at school, work, theater, concert, etc. One day they'll be in charge and they are going to crack down on guns big time. So why not fix the mass shooter problem now?

In some states like California and NY this plan won't work anyway. Laws in many states are all about infringing on people's rights under the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Rucker61]

Apparently the majority opinion in From DC vs Heller disagrees.

"The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.(c) "

This means that the 2nd amendment was created precisely so that "the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved." Which is to say that it can and does protect the arms of a citizen's militia. I imagine some distinction is made between a citizen's Militia, and the National Guard who the 16th clause of Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress power over.

"Preserving the ideal of a citizen's militia" should then be the limiting scope of the 2nd amendment.

Given that that the president can federalize the militia, and Congress under their granted powers can disarm that militia, the arms of the militia cannot be protected by the Second Amendment.

The ideal of the citizen militia is protected by the citizens possessing the right to keep and bear arms outside the militia to form a militia if necessary to oppose a tyrannical government.

 

[AConcernedCitizen]

Given that that the president can federalize the militia, and Congress under their granted powers can disarm that militia, the arms of the militia cannot be protected by the Second Amendment.

The ideal of the citizen militia is protected by the citizens possessing the right to keep and bear arms outside the militia to form a militia if necessary to oppose a tyrannical government.

I agree, with one important distinction:

"The ideal of the citizen militia is protected by the citizens possessing the right to keep and bear arms outside the militia to form a well-regulated militia if necessary to oppose a tyrannical government."

Requiring a Class 3 permit would not prevent the formation of a Militia, it would merely help ensure that it was a well-regulated Militia.

 

[Rucker61]

I agree, with one important distinction:

"The ideal of the citizen militia is protected by the citizens possessing the right to keep and bear arms outside the militia to form a well-regulated militia if necessary to oppose a tyrannical government."

Requiring a Class 3 permit would not prevent the formation of a Militia, it would merely help ensure that it was a well-regulated Militia.

How would it help?