• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is how the Second Amendment should be Interpreted! Florida HB 1205

Captain Adverse

Classical Liberal Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2013
Messages
20,230
Reaction score
28,000
Location
Mid-West USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I came across a video discussing how a Florida State Representative seeks to pass a bill properly protecting the right as the Second Amendment should be interpreted.

It led me to seek out the actual text, link below:

(a) The following federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations shall be considered infringements on the people's right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art I of the State Constitution, within the state including:

1. Any tax, levy, fee, or stamp imposed on firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition, not common to all other goods and services, which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

2. Any registering or tracking of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

3. Any registering or tracking of the owners of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition which might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens.

4. Any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens.

5. Any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

(b) All federal acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations, regardless if enacted before or after this section, which infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and s. 8, Art I of the State Constitution shall be invalid in the state, shall not be recognized by the state, shall be specifically rejected by the state, and shall be considered void and of no effect in the state.

HB 1205 (2021) - Protection of Constitutional Firearms Rights | Florida House of Representatives (myfloridahouse.gov)

IMO this perfectly explains how the right to keep and bear arms should be understood and preserved nationally.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of American citizens currently own firearms. The number of persons committing crimes using a gun occurs within a very small percentage of that number, while the subset of those committing what the media label "mass shootings" is a tiny fraction of that general crimes percentage.

I do not own a firearm. I haven't owned one in decades. Not since I served 2 years in law enforcement, after a 10 year period of service in combat arms specialties in the US Army.

Yet I strongly support this right for reasons stated in other threads on gun control.

IMO Americans should embrace this right as listed in our Bill of Rights, second only to those Freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment which the 2nd was designed to allow an armed citizenry to protect.

IMO anyone who support efforts to either disarm the common citizenry, or reduce access to effective arms from said citizenry is either a traitor to our essential liberties, or short-sighted sheep being lead astray by those who seek to control them.
 
Last edited:
IMO anyone who seeks to either disarm the common citizenry, or reduce access to effective arms from said citizenry is either a traitor to our essential liberties, or simply dreaming fool.

Considering it was your side that invaded the Capitol on 1/06, that's a hell of a brazen statement to make.
 
Considering it was your side that invaded the Capitol on 1/06, that's a hell of a brazen statement to make.
what a ridiculous attempt to derail his thread with a moronic "guilt by association" bit of idiocy. He didn't support the lawless rioting by a small minority of Trump voters so why try to claim they were "his side" or that the second amendment turns on what a few people you think are supporters did? Should we smear you with the deaths and rioting that was caused by leftwing agitators over the hysterics following the death of George Floyd?
 
what a ridiculous attempt to derail his thread with a moronic "guilt by association" bit of idiocy. He didn't support the lawless rioting by a small minority of Trump voters so why try to claim they were "his side" or that the second amendment turns on what a few people you think are supporters did? Should we smear you with the deaths and rioting that was caused by leftwing agitators over the hysterics following the death of George Floyd?

I'm so sorry that you're offended by the truth, but when someone on the Right makes a brazen comment such as this:

IMO anyone who support efforts to either disarm the common citizenry, or reduce access to effective arms from said citizenry is either a traitor to our essential liberties, or short-sighted sheep being lead astray by those who seek to control them.

which was the exact kind of rhetoric used by the 1/06 insurrectionists, it is alarming. :oops:
 
I'm so sorry that you're offended by the truth, but when someone on the Right makes a brazen comment such as this:



which was the exact kind of rhetoric used by the 1/06 insurrectionists, it is alarming. :oops:
you cannot dispute his points, so you try to derail his argument with guilt by association nonsense. I guess since Mao and Stalin were big fans of disarming citizens, that means all you gun banners supported the genocide that Mao and Stalin visited on unarmed subjects? Of course not, but that is what you are doing
 
you cannot dispute his points, so you try to derail his argument with guilt by association nonsense. I guess since Mao and Stalin were big fans of disarming citizens, that means all you gun banners supported the genocide that Mao and Stalin visited on unarmed subjects? Of course not, but that is what you are doing

Man you really are having a hard time getting this.

Not all trump supporters invaded the Capitol--most didn't--but most of the Capitol invaders were trump supporters. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

The OP writer foolishly enabled that exact kind of rhetoric with his very poor choice of words.
 
Man you really are having a hard time getting this.

Not all trump supporters invaded the Capitol--most didn't--but most of the Capitol invaders were trump supporters. The evidence for this is overwhelming.

The OP writer foolishly enabled that exact kind of rhetoric with his very poor choice of words.

wrong again-you are trying to avoid discussing his take on the second by trying to diminish it by claiming people you don't like , have raised similar arguments.
 
It would be interesting to see what happens if several states enact laws such as this. There is no doubt that they'd be challenged and I'm not sure that if half a dozen or so states were dealing with similar challenges hos SCOTUS could avoid having them dropped on their doorstep. The question then would be whether the Roberts court would hear it or not. Roberts appears to HATE taking up direct Constitutional challenges but he does have his name on McDonald and Heller so...
 
I came across a video discussing how a Florida State Representative seeks to pass a bill properly protecting the right as the Second Amendment should be interpreted.

It led me to seek out the actual text, link below:



HB 1205 (2021) - Protection of Constitutional Firearms Rights | Florida House of Representatives (myfloridahouse.gov)

IMO this perfectly explains how the right to keep and bear arms should be understood and preserved nationally.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of American citizens currently own firearms. The number of persons committing crimes using a gun occurs within a very small percentage of that number, while the subset of those committing what the media label "mass shootings" is a tiny fraction of that general crimes percentage.

I do not own a firearm. I haven't owned one in decades. Not since I served 2 years in law enforcement, after a 10 year period of service in combat arms specialties in the US Army.

Yet I strongly support this right for reasons stated in other threads on gun control.

IMO Americans should embrace this right as listed in our Bill of Rights, second only to those Freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment which the 2nd was designed to allow an armed citizenry to protect.

IMO anyone who support efforts to either disarm the common citizenry, or reduce access to effective arms from said citizenry is either a traitor to our essential liberties, or short-sighted sheep being lead astray by those who seek to control them.
I share your sentiment.
 
It would be interesting to see what happens if several states enact laws such as this. There is no doubt that they'd be challenged and I'm not sure that if half a dozen or so states were dealing with similar challenges hos SCOTUS could avoid having them dropped on their doorstep. The question then would be whether the Roberts court would hear it or not. Roberts appears to HATE taking up direct Constitutional challenges but he does have his name on McDonald and Heller so...
There are state legislators in a Republican majority and a Republican governor are fighting back in several fronts in regard to what the Democrats are up to in D.C.. Even the Republican majorities in state congresses with a Democrat governor are fighting back. It is like they are growing a spine and it is a beautiful thing to see.
A lot of things not just the 2nd Amendment are headed to the Supreme Court. The 64,000 dollar question is will be which John Roberts shows up.
 
Considering it was your side that invaded the Capitol on 1/06, that's a hell of a brazen statement to make.
Irrelevant; did your handlers instruct you to derail the thread? What an interesting avatar, the vapid slut Kamala "Laughing Hyena" Harris, who couldn't be bothered to do her job, except the jobs she gave Willie Brown.
 
Last edited:
I'm so sorry that you're offended by the truth, but when someone on the Right makes a brazen comment such as this:



which was the exact kind of rhetoric used by the 1/06 insurrectionists, it is alarming. :oops:
The truth is you don't understand natural rights like self defense or private property. Your handlers are clearly leaving you uneducated on the topic.
 
I came across a video discussing how a Florida State Representative seeks to pass a bill properly protecting the right as the Second Amendment should be interpreted.

It led me to seek out the actual text, link below:



HB 1205 (2021) - Protection of Constitutional Firearms Rights | Florida House of Representatives (myfloridahouse.gov)

IMO this perfectly explains how the right to keep and bear arms should be understood and preserved nationally.

Tens if not hundreds of millions of American citizens currently own firearms. The number of persons committing crimes using a gun occurs within a very small percentage of that number, while the subset of those committing what the media label "mass shootings" is a tiny fraction of that general crimes percentage.

I do not own a firearm. I haven't owned one in decades. Not since I served 2 years in law enforcement, after a 10 year period of service in combat arms specialties in the US Army.

Yet I strongly support this right for reasons stated in other threads on gun control.

IMO Americans should embrace this right as listed in our Bill of Rights, second only to those Freedoms listed in the 1st Amendment which the 2nd was designed to allow an armed citizenry to protect.

IMO anyone who support efforts to either disarm the common citizenry, or reduce access to effective arms from said citizenry is either a traitor to our essential liberties, or short-sighted sheep being lead astray by those who seek to control them.



Does this idiocy pass as some kind of scholarly legislation? Do they not teach the supremacy clause in Florida? Florida is late to the game with this trend of GOP states passing stupid laws like this... Kansas passed theirs in 2013 and two idiots in Kansas believed them... Here is the result...

“I was just collateral damage in this dispute between the state and federal government,” Kettler said after the ruling. Cox and his attorney could not be reached for comment.

The Kansas Legislature and the Kansas governor basically “sold this kid down the river with a law they knew full well was not going to be able to thwart the federal government,” said Ian Clark, the attorney who represented Kettler at trial. “That is the sadness of all this — they basically made Jeremy and Shane their guinea pigs.”


 
Does this idiocy pass as some kind of scholarly legislation? Do they not teach the supremacy clause in Florida? Florida is late to the game with this trend of GOP states passing stupid laws like this... Kansas passed theirs in 2013 and two idiots in Kansas believed them... Here is the result...

“I was just collateral damage in this dispute between the state and federal government,” Kettler said after the ruling. Cox and his attorney could not be reached for comment.

The Kansas Legislature and the Kansas governor basically “sold this kid down the river with a law they knew full well was not going to be able to thwart the federal government,” said Ian Clark, the attorney who represented Kettler at trial. “That is the sadness of all this — they basically made Jeremy and Shane their guinea pigs.”



Hmm... do you support state laws which legalize or decimalize marijuana? If not, then can you explain the constitutional difference?
 
It would be interesting to see what happens if several states enact laws such as this. There is no doubt that they'd be challenged and I'm not sure that if half a dozen or so states were dealing with similar challenges hos SCOTUS could avoid having them dropped on their doorstep. The question then would be whether the Roberts court would hear it or not. Roberts appears to HATE taking up direct Constitutional challenges but he does have his name on McDonald and Heller so...


Already been there... The conviction of Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler who based their defense on the Kansas Second Amendment Protection Act was upheld when the Supreme Court rejected their appeal in 2019...

 
Hmm... do you support state laws which legalize or decimalize marijuana? If not, then can you explain the constitutional difference?


The federal government is still enforcing federal drug laws.. Personally, I would like to see marijuana removed from the list of controlled substances and let the states regulate it...
 
The federal government is still enforcing federal drug laws.. Personally, I would like to see marijuana removed from the list of controlled substances and let the states regulate it...

That (bolded above) is obviously not true when they allow states to collect tax revenue from “legal” marijuana sales or the licensing of marijuana sellers or growers. Many would like to see the NFA repealed, but that did not make it OK for Kansas to pretend to have invalidated it.

BTW, nice dodge of answering either of my questions.
 
Does this idiocy pass as some kind of scholarly legislation? Do they not teach the supremacy clause in Florida? Florida is late to the game with this trend of GOP states passing stupid laws like this... Kansas passed theirs in 2013 and two idiots in Kansas believed them... Here is the result...

“I was just collateral damage in this dispute between the state and federal government,” Kettler said after the ruling. Cox and his attorney could not be reached for comment.

The Kansas Legislature and the Kansas governor basically “sold this kid down the river with a law they knew full well was not going to be able to thwart the federal government,” said Ian Clark, the attorney who represented Kettler at trial. “That is the sadness of all this — they basically made Jeremy and Shane their guinea pigs.”



Actually, what that "highlights" is the outlandish ways certain Courts are interpreting Federal power to make such limitations. According to this link your article:

The appeals court panel rejected all the defense arguments in a 47-page decision. It concluded the federal gun law falls within Congress’ power to tax.
Ruling: Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges (apnews.com)

How the "power to tax" enables the Federal Government to forbid firearm "accessories" is a legal legerdemain that stuns the mind. Typically the argument would be based on regulatory power granted in the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that fails in this case because the item was manufactured, sold, and only protected by the State law within the State. The frequent use and abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause is already bad enough, but now another "power" to control lies in the "power to tax?"

The Supremacy Clause was initially limited to those Federal laws that were well-within the power given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce and international relations. Even the Bill of Rights and other Amendments were restrictions on the Federal government alone until the Incorporation Doctrine was established by SCOTUS based on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments promulgated after the Civil War.

Still, this is not my argument. My argument (stated in the thread title) is that the legislation proposed in Florida is how the Second Amendment should be interpreted nationally, well in keeping with the plain meaning of "shall not be infringed."
 
Last edited:
Actually, what that "highlights" is the outlandish ways certain Courts are interpreting Federal power to make such limitations. According to your article:

Ruling: Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges (apnews.com)

How the "power to tax" enables the Federal Government to forbid firearm "accessories" is a legal legerdemain that stuns the mind. Typically the argument would be based on regulatory power granted in the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that fails in this case because the item was manufactured, sold, and only protected by the State law within the State. The frequent use and abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause is already bad enough, but now another "power" to control lies in the "power to tax?"

The Supremacy Clause was initially limited to those Federal laws that were well-within the power given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce and international relations. Even the Bill of Rights and other Amendments were restrictions on the Federal government alone until the Incorporation Doctrine was established by SCOTUS based on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments promulgated after the Civil War.

Still, this is not my argument. My argument is that the legislation proposed in Florida is how the Second Amendment should be interpreted nationally, well in keeping with the plain meaning of "shall not be infringed."


Your "argument" created two felons in Kansas... How many guns can a felon possess?
 
Owning a fire arm is a stupid thing to do. The crime is just a part of it. Then there are the suicides, the accidents, the threats through spouse abuse. And for what? A false sense of security? Toxic masculinity masquerading as patriotism?

These people need help.
 
Actually, what that "highlights" is the outlandish ways certain Courts are interpreting Federal power to make such limitations. According to your article:

Ruling: Kansas gun law no defense to federal firearm charges (apnews.com)

How the "power to tax" enables the Federal Government to forbid firearm "accessories" is a legal legerdemain that stuns the mind. Typically the argument would be based on regulatory power granted in the Interstate Commerce Clause. But that fails in this case because the item was manufactured, sold, and only protected by the State law within the State. The frequent use and abuse of the Interstate Commerce Clause is already bad enough, but now another "power" to control lies in the "power to tax?"

The Supremacy Clause was initially limited to those Federal laws that were well-within the power given to Congress to regulate interstate commerce and international relations. Even the Bill of Rights and other Amendments were restrictions on the Federal government alone until the Incorporation Doctrine was established by SCOTUS based on the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments promulgated after the Civil War.

Still, this is not my argument. My argument is that the legislation proposed in Florida is how the Second Amendment should be interpreted nationally, well in keeping with the plain meaning of "shall not be infringed."

Yep, the federal powers to tax, regulate commerce (no longer interpreted to mean only interstate commerce) and to promote the general welfare make virtually anything into a (new?) federal government power.

So long as the NFA and Brady Law(s) remain constitutional, with states being free to extend (but not relax) those “infringements”, the 2A is rather toothless and subject to ever more federal, state and local “reasonable restrictions”.
 
Owning a fire arm is a stupid thing to do. The crime is just a part of it. Then there are the suicides, the accidents, the threats through spouse abuse. And for what? A false sense of security? Toxic masculinity masquerading as patriotism?

These people need help.

Perhaps you should change your avatar. If John Brown were alive today, he'd be on our side, not yours.
 
what fascinates me is the posters who will enter and post in this type of thread and not enter and post in a thread where an adult appears to have had sex with a minor (and paid her).
 
Back
Top Bottom