Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

[The Mark]

Has that part of the Constitution been completed? If not then some assumptions have to be made in order to propose & duiscus anything.

Agreed.

I'm just pointing out that depending what we decide on in terms of what, if anything, will take the place of the SCOTUS...will change how this applies.

 

[sangha]

I know. That was my point. Certain assumptions have to be made in order to discuss any of this right now.

Ahh, OK. I had the impression you were not fully aware of what had taken place so far and I wanted to let you know.

And yeah, certain assumptions will have to be made. Some people may vote for things based on assumptions only to see later voters fail to fulfill those assumptions. When that happens, people can propose amendments to that which has already passed. It's not the optimal situation, but I don't see any way around it. If you have any suggestions on how to address the problem, PM me.

 

[Jerry]

Agreed.

I'm just pointing out that depending what we decide on in terms of what, if anything, will take the place of the SCOTUS...will change how this applies.

And then we'll have something else to talk about. Pointing it out here & now detracts from the present conversation.

 

[The Mark]

And then we'll have something else to talk about. Pointing it out here & now detracts from the present conversation.

My point is that it's a point to keep in mind when considering this.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If there was going to be a Bill of Rights, that would be a good text.

My point was that, as many of the original convention members argued, a Bill of Rights is redundant and gives the federal government an excuse to go beyond it's limited powers. Because if the federal government followed it's limited powers in the first place, it wouldn't be violating rights.

well in my opinion the federal constitution should have a bill of rights, and it should be enforceable against states. there is nothing sacred or holy about a state legislature. the state's rights meme is old and doesn't account for modern communication and philosophy.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A class III license is a regulation. Do you support such a regulation if it impedes on my right to purchase any type of weapon without restrictions? Also, the obvious reason those weapons are rarely used in criminal behavior is because they are rare due to regulations.

and automatic weapons are not practical for criminal use.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

What difference does it make? Why can't either have no restrictions because it is my right to bear arms and any restrictions is considered an infringement.

to me it makes a difference, I have no problem with man portable machine guns like select fire AR-15s or AKM type rifles, being readily available, I have no problem with regulating crew served weapons like the Mod 19 or the M2 .50 machine gun.

that's why I wrote this article with the dividing line being man portable...

Yes, there was a problem with machine guns before the government decided to restrict them by having a national registration on them. That is besides the point. They too are inherently dangerous. Since when does the Constitution say we have to restrict based on individual target vs group if it has to do with defense btw?

No there wasn't, the image of gangstas with tommy guns hosing down crowds of people are an invention of Hollywood based off of a small handful of incidents. it was not common place, the Tommy gun weighed ten pounds and the BAR favored by Bonnie Parker weighed 16, they suck to tote around. most mobsters who carried guns carried revolvers or the .45 pistol in shoulder holsters. John Dillinger carried a .38 super 1911 style pistol.

really machine gun related crime was rare before the NFA was passed, and really it was passed so that the Bureau of Prohibition would have something to do when alcohol was re-legalized.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Honestly, I don't want every random person to be able to get hold of machine guns. It's bad enough as it is.

I think handguns with limited magazines are plenty for self-defense.

Sure, and I get to the decide the limit of my handgun, and I like the 17 rounds in my glock.

seriously, what is your arbitrary limit for handgun magazines, if it's 10 then do you want someone to go to prison over 11?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It's not really off topic because I'm exploring the reason we may need restrictions. If someone can give me a good reason why restrictions are not needed I will put that as part of our right to bear arms with no government interference.

I clearly delineated avenues of regulation in the RKBA article I wrote.

 

[paddymcdougall]

Sure, and I get to the decide the limit of my handgun, and I like the 17 rounds in my glock.

seriously, what is your arbitrary limit for handgun magazines, if it's 10 then do you want someone to go to prison over 11?

If you haven't killed the intruder(s) with your first 10 bullets, not like more are going to help.

If someone is bypassing gun regulations, then they should be subject to whatever penalties are prescribed by the law. For an illegal magazine, my guess would be a first offense would just be a fine, but would depend on the jurisdiction.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If you haven't killed the intruder(s) with your first 10 bullets, not like more are going to help.

If someone is bypassing gun regulations, then they should be subject to whatever penalties are prescribed by the law. For an illegal magazine, my guess would be a first offense would just be a fine, but would depend on the jurisdiction.

unless you're attacked by multiple attackers. and since in most cases shot to hit ratio is 25% and since most pistol shots don't kill the first shot, if attacked by two people you need at least 15,

so ok, prison for 11 when the limit is ten, you will tie up the criminal justice system, house people at a cost of 30,000 dollars a year, cost the economy the defendants wages and taxes, over a standard capacity magazine, when no reputable study has found such laws to be effective anywhere, and even in most of Europe standard magazines are legal.

please do some reading.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

well in my opinion the federal constitution should have a bill of rights, and it should be enforceable against states. there is nothing sacred or holy about a state legislature. the state's rights meme is old and doesn't account for modern communication and philosophy.

I don't believe in states rights, but state powers. So I have no problem from preventing states from violating rights. Our current Constitution has a list of prohibitions on the states. I would add to it.

However, my point still remains, that if the federal government stays within its boundaries it has no ability to violate rights to begin with.

 

[Master PO]

I don't believe in states rights, but state powers. So I have no problem from preventing states from violating rights. Our current Constitution has a list of prohibitions on the states. I would add to it.

However, my point still remains, that if the federal government stays within its boundaries it has no ability to violate rights to begin with.

excellent!:applaud:agree

this is the precise argument of Hamilton and Madison of why a bill of rights was not needed.

if federal government powers do not concern the life liberty and property of the people, then it is not possible for the federal government to violate rights of the people.

 

[The Mark]

If you haven't killed the intruder(s) with your first 10 bullets, not like more are going to help.

If someone is bypassing gun regulations, then they should be subject to whatever penalties are prescribed by the law. For an illegal magazine, my guess would be a first offense would just be a fine, but would depend on the jurisdiction.

The only restrictions on increasingly capable firearms should be increasingly stringent requirements for competence and responsibility.

For example if you demonstrate the competence to operate your own personal M2 Browning for the purposes of whale hunting (or whatever you might need an M2 browning to hunt...perhaps elephants?), but then go and start firing long bursts of .50 BMG into the air, your right to operate your own personal M2 browning should be quickly taken away (and you should be arrested for reckless endangerment of any nearby houses and/or airplanes, or whatever.)

On the other hand, if you have your personal airsoft M2 browning replica (yes, that is a thing) and proceed to launch a large number of pellets into the air, you most likely will face little or no competence requirement or consequences.

 

[paddymcdougall]

unless you're attacked by multiple attackers. and since in most cases shot to hit ratio is 25% and since most pistol shots don't kill the first shot, if attacked by two people you need at least 15,

so ok, prison for 11 when the limit is ten, you will tie up the criminal justice system, house people at a cost of 30,000 dollars a year, cost the economy the defendants wages and taxes, over a standard capacity magazine, when no reputable study has found such laws to be effective anywhere, and even in most of Europe standard magazines are legal.

please do some reading.

I'm doubtful any legal system would throw people in prison for years for having a magazine one bullet over the maximum. Are you exaggerating a bit to make your point?

 

[The Mark]

excellent!:applaud:agree

this is the precise argument of Hamilton and Madison of why a bill of rights was not needed.

if federal government powers do not concern the life liberty and property of the people, then it is not possible for the federal government to violate rights of the people.

I suppose it comes down to whether you are willing to allow enough leeway for the states, locals, and people of the country to determine what laws, if any, will govern their rights.

Personally I think it reasonable to codify a few basic rights, much like the bill of rights did.

Unless you're arguing that we should focus exclusively on punishing behavior that harms others, rather than codifying what harmful behavior is disallowed and reacting to that?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I'm doubtful any legal system would throw people in prison for years for having a magazine one bullet over the maximum. Are you exaggerating a bit to make your point?

Well I dunno, They almost threw Shaneen Allan in prison for 5 years in New Jersey for crossing from pennslyvania with a PA CCW license that NJ doesn't recognize, and the worst offending states on gun restrictions, new jersey being the prime example, have mandatory minimum sentences.

 

[Master PO]

I suppose it comes down to whether you are willing to allow enough leeway for the states, locals, and people of the country to determine what laws, if any, will govern their rights.

Personally I think it reasonable to codify a few basic rights, much like the bill of rights did.

Unless you're arguing that we should focus exclusively on punishing behavior that harms others, rather than codifying what harmful behavior is disallowed and reacting to that?

the bill of rights are restrictions only on the federal government, they only recognizes rights.....no right has ever been codified, because that would make them positive rights

rights recognized are negative rights.

 

[The Mark]

the bill of rights are restrictions only on the federal government, they only recognizes rights.....no right has ever been codified, because that would make them positive rights

rights recognized are negative rights.

Let me rephrase then - I personally think it reasonable to codify protection from governmental interference for a few specified rights, much like the bill of rights did.


Edit: Obviously a person or group of persons (not government) might endeavor to prevent the exercise of a right to another person or group of persons.

How would this be handled, if the codified protections for rights only to prevent governmental interference?

 

[Master PO]

I suppose it comes down to whether you are willing to allow enough leeway for the states, locals, and people of the country to determine what laws, if any, will govern their rights.

Personally I think it reasonable to codify a few basic rights, much like the bill of rights did.

Unless you're arguing that we should focus exclusively on punishing behavior that harms others, rather than codifying what harmful behavior is disallowed and reacting to that?

since the federal government was not delegated authority into the personal life's of the people......it could not violate rights of the people....because it had no power.

power which concern the personal life's of the people, are going to be powers which are numerous...not few.

but it is to be remembered.... the federal government is granted the power by the JUDICIAL branch of government to protect rights of Citizens of states , from violations of the states, ...but congress is not granted such powers.

 

[Jerry]

well in my opinion the federal constitution should have a bill of rights, and it should be enforceable against states. there is nothing sacred or holy about a state legislature. the state's rights meme is old and doesn't account for modern communication and philosophy.

It should be enforcable against the Fed, too.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It should be enforcable against the Fed, too.

absolutely

 

[Master PO]

Let me rephrase then - I personally think it reasonable to codify protection from governmental interference for a few specified rights, much like the bill of rights did.

well the bill of rights are restrictions placed squarely on government, by constitutional law....

do you believe by creating federal law [codify]....u.s. code, this is going to stop rights violations.

if they violate rights via supreme law, then laws of lower standing is not going to stop them.

only by limiting their powers and keeping them out of the personal life's of the people, will stop their violations as the Hamilton and Madison stated.

 

[The Mark]

well the bill of rights are restrictions placed squarely on government, by constitutional law....

do you believe by creating federal law [codify]....u.s. code, this is going to stop rights violations.

if they violate rights via supreme law, then laws of lower standing is not going to stop them.

only by limiting their powers and keeping them out of the personal life's of the people, will stop their violations as the Hamilton and Madison stated.

Yet some form of protection against persons who wish to violate other person's rights must exist, or we won't have a society worth speaking of.

I am reminded of a somewhat fanciful governmental system imagined by a science fiction author, wherein few laws existed beyond something like "do not harm another person without their knowing consent".

Basically it was then up to the courts to determine who was harmed and who was at fault, who compensated who and how much.

It seems like this would be prone to abuse by poor judicial officials, however.

 

[Master PO]

Yet some form of protection against persons who wish to violate other person's rights must exist, or we won't have a society worth speaking of.

I am reminded of a somewhat fanciful governmental system imagined by a science fiction author, wherein few laws existed beyond something like "do not harm another person without their knowing consent".

Basically it was then up to the courts to determine who was harmed and who was at fault, who compensated who and how much.

It seems like this would be prone to abuse by poor judicial officials, however.

we have state governments which concern themselves with the life liberty and property of the people, ..when a person believes his rights to be violated by state or local, he takes his case to a state court, if he feels he has not received justice he can take it to a federal court, and even to the USSC court.

but it is not a power of congress to fix rights violations by legislation, but by federal court decisions.


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.