which means what? "the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" ....is somehow affected or diluted by that?
It places the right in context of the purpose.

It places the right in context of the purpose.

You don't seem to know the purpose. Nor its context.

Again, when some of the founding fathers were on the board of governors at the University Of Virginia, they passed a rule saying no guns were allowed on campus. They didn't say you could have a gun as long as you weren't threatening someone...they said you could not possess a gun on campus at all. The founding fathers apparently did not believe that such a ban was a violation of the second amendment.

As explained to you, the Founders did not consider that the Bill of Rights applied to the individual states. At the time, the individual states were sovereign entities. Actually, they were considered separate "countries." And those countries agreed to a compact with each other for the purposes of mutual protection and free trade economic relationships. They were jealous to protect their own ability to govern themselves, and were fearful of a central power dictating to them what they could or could not do and which could tax them at will, as the British were trying to do and which inflamed the Revolution in the first place.

The struggle in the Constitutional Convention was to make their compact strong enough to work as they intended it to, but not to be so strong that it could willy nilly dictate to, or tax, the states. On the contrary, writing the Constitution was an act of the sovereign states dictating to the federal power which they created. That Constitution gave the central government certain powers, as enumerated in their final Constitution. And it constrained the federal government to, and only to, those powers. Any remaining power of government rested with the states and their citizens to construe. Each state had its own constitution.

The Constitution they created was intended to apply to the federal government. The Supremacy clause that you previously alluded to gave federal law supremacy only within the limited powers that their Constitution allowed. The Supremacy clause did not give the central government supreme power over the separate states. On the contrary, the states retained most of the powers, the "vast residuum" to which Madison referred. The states have tremendous power, constitutionally, over the federal government, if they chose to assert it. The difficulty is getting 3/4's of them to agree on wielding that power. The states have the power to dissolve the federal government and go on their separate ways or form a new compact.

A small example of state power vs federal in current politics is the formation of sanctuary cities. The federal government cannot ban them. It can only threaten to hold back federal funds to those cities. But federal funds to cities or states is another can of worms. Federal funds are used as a carrot/stick to dictate to states in ways they have no constitutional authority to do.

In short, I'm getting to verbose as usual, Madison and Jefferson didn't apply the 2nd Amendment to the states, only to the central government.

I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.

The Founders didn't restrict the states by the 2nd Amendment. States had their own constitutions which applied to and were supported by their citizens. So, whatever gun control the states wanted to apply would have to be decided by permission of their citizens. So, if the board of governors of the university wanted to disallow guns on campus, Jefferson and Madison would have thought they had the right to do so, any objections they might have had notwithstanding. If you think that meant that Madison and Jefferson also meant the federal government could also control private ownership of guns, you are wrong. Such a notion is not, as you put it, well within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

If one could construe that any state action would somehow be evidence that the federal government had the same power, and that the federal government was supreme in its own powers, then there would be no such thing as state sovereignty. There would be no need for state constitutions or criminal statutes or civil codes. There would, in effect, be no need of separate states. And we would have long ago dissolved them and become one State, with unlimited power.

That, BTW, is the Progressive ideal.

I don't think that's exactly true. Again, when some of the founding fathers were on the board of governors at the University Of Virginia, they passed a rule saying no guns were allowed on campus. They didn't say you could have a gun as long as you weren't threatening someone...they said you could not possess a gun on campus at all. The founding fathers apparently did not believe that such a ban was a violation of the second amendment.

Well, you are free to hold a wrong conclusion based on a mistaken assumption. The correct legal situation has been explained to you multiple times; I'm not bothering with it again.

I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.

If you want to conform your thinking to the framers then you will be wrong again. It isn't the 2nd Amendment that restrains government, it is the fact that no power exists to write those restrictions. The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

IOW, there is no, "2nd Amendment right" to point to . . .

The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for over 140 years stating that the right to arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.

If the right is violated by a law or regulation it is a simple example of the legislature overstepping its authority and generally, the government exceeding the powers granted to it in the Constitution. That's the definition of an unconstitutional law.

It places the right in context of the purpose.

Actually you have stumbled over the truth but not in the way you intended . . .

SCOTUS has filtered the right to arms through the "object" of the 2nd Amendment -- the "why" the framers secured the right from government interference. That is of course to preserve the general militia concept, the political philosophy that the mass of private citizens having their personal, military useful arms in their hands, without regulation of law or permission of authorities, stands as a barrier to domestic tyrants and foreign invaders.

That intent has informed the Court on what types of arms are protected for possession and use by private citizen.

US v Miller articulated those protection criteria (or tests) that the Supreme Court uses to determine if an arm is beyond the reach of government. The arm must be shown to be of the type:



In common use at the time and/or
that constitute the ordinary military equipment / are usually employed in civilized warfare and/or
that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.


If the type of arm meets any one of these criteria the right to keep and bear that weapon must be preserved and the authority claimed by government to restrict its possession must be repelled or invalidated.

That protection criteria, based solely on how effective an arm is in killing people, demands that those types of arms known as "assault weapons" be recognized as fitting the protection criteria better than any other type of arm.

So, thanks for trying so hard to link the right to arms to a militia intent, it is the left's unending pressure to that end, that will preserve those weapons in private hands.


.

they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.

...in what way is your right to free speech restricted?...this where I think you have it backwards....your right to free speech only becomes "restricted" as you like to put it in a perpetually flawed example...when you fail to use it responsibly(which is why I pointed this out to you previously rights/responsibilities)....you can say whatever you like, you are guaranteed the right to do so....at whatever point your speech infringes on the rights of another...then that speech may in some cases be punished through the courts but I think there needs to be physical harm or financial damage shown....you can apply this to other rights...except abortion...that one gets a pass

you seem to want to limit(federally) the rights of those that have yet to infringe on the rights of others through your arbitrary "restricting rights in the name of public safety"....and we can apply that to a whole host of things going forward and make the progressives really happy

The Founders didn't restrict the states by the 2nd Amendment. States had their own constitutions which applied to and were supported by their citizens. So, whatever gun control the states wanted to apply would have to be decided by permission of their citizens. So, if the board of governors of the university wanted to disallow guns on campus, Jefferson and Madison would have thought they had the right to do so, any objections they might have had notwithstanding. If you think that meant that Madison and Jefferson also meant the federal government could also control private ownership of guns, you are wrong. Such a notion is not, as you put it, well within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

If one could construe that any state action would somehow be evidence that the federal government had the same power, and that the federal government was supreme in its own powers, then there would be no such thing as state sovereignty. There would be no need for state constitutions or criminal statutes or civil codes. There would, in effect, be no need of separate states. And we would have long ago dissolved them and become one State, with unlimited power.

That, BTW, is the Progressive ideal.

OK, I agree with you that the supremacy clause limits the areas in which federal law trumps state law, to those powers enumerated in the constitution. But it would seem that gun rights and restrictions fall into that category, as some state gun restrictions have been struck down as being unconstitutional, as prescribed in the US constitution.

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/27/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional.html

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus. That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

...in what way is your right to free speech restricted?...this where I think you have it backwards....your right to free speech only becomes "restricted" as you like to put it in a perpetually flawed example...when you fail to use it responsibly(which is why I pointed this out to you previously rights/responsibilities)....you can say whatever you like, you are guaranteed the right to do so....at whatever point your speech infringes on the rights of another...then that speech may in some cases be punished through the courts but I think there needs to be physical harm or financial damage shown....you can apply this to other rights...except abortion...that one gets a pass

you seem to want to limit(federally) the rights of those that have yet to infringe on the rights of others through your arbitrary "restricting rights in the name of public safety"....and we can apply that to a whole host of things going forward and make the progressives really happy

"in what way is your right to free speech restricted?..."

It's a crime for me to threaten somebody.

"you seem to want to limit(federally) the rights of those that have yet to infringe on the rights of others through your arbitrary "restricting rights in the name of public safety"...."

Not exactly. I'm saying that some restrictions on firearms (let's assume they are state restrictions, not federal), in the interest of public safety, would appear to be constitutionally allowed. For example, the VA ban of firearms on campus, enacted by some of the founding fathers. They didn't say you could have guns as long as you don't threaten anyone. They said you could not posses guns on campus. So all I am saying, is this...if that state restriction (which prohibits the mere possession of firearms in certain situations) was considered constitutional by the founding fathers, then perhaps other proactive state restrictions would also be constitutional. At a minimum, clearly the founding fathers were OK with some proactive restrictions on the possession of firearms, even before said firearms were used to threaten anyone.

"in what way is your right to free speech restricted?..."

It's a crime for me to threaten somebody. is it?





Jim...what is the difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling fire in an empty theater?

At a minimum, clearly the founding fathers were OK with some proactive restrictions on the possession of firearms, even before said firearms were used to threaten anyone.

this is becoming comical

OK, I agree with you that the supremacy clause limits the areas in which federal law trumps state law, to those powers enumerated in the constitution. But it would seem that gun rights and restrictions fall into that category, as some state gun restrictions have been struck down as being unconstitutional, as prescribed in the US constitution.

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/27/emily-miller-federal-judge-rules-dc-ban-on-gun-carry-rights-unconstitutional.html

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus. That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

OK. We seem to be getting somewhere. There's farther to go and I'm too tired to go there at this moment. I think ScottW is getting there with his posts. You and he might arrive at the sweet spot in the debate. But, at the least, if you're shifting away from the federal government's attempt at gun control, then we're getting somewhere. Now you can campaign for Connecticut gun control, and quit jumping on the bandwagon for federal control.

Scott, the supremacy clause, very clearly limits what states can do. States may not pass a law which violates the US Constitution.

I get what detbuch is saying about a list of enumerated powers to the feds, and all else goes to the states. I'm not disputing that.

All I am saying, is that there are limits to the freedoms in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional.

Oh well, I did write this reply to the above post before I saw the exchange between you and Scott. I'll go ahead and post it.

I just noticed this post by you. As an addendum to the above lengthier posts, especially the succinct ones by ReelinRod, I'd like to clear up what appears to me to be a misunderstanding about the Supremacy clause.

The Supremacy clause also, and more so, limits the federal government's supreme power to remaining within the few granted parameters which the Constitution prescribes.

The notion that the clause's limiting effect on states due to the relatively small scope of power given to the central government somehow means that there is a general notion of limitation on freedoms in the Bill of Rights, or to any of the vast residuum of other rights, ergo that the federal government can use that notion to abridge rights outside of its scope of constitutional power is nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government a general power to create laws that abridge freedoms neither in the Bill of Rights, nor among all the inherent rights not listed in The Bill. You are missing that point. You seem to be saying that the Clause's limitations on states from trespassing federal power creates an aura of fallibility in the idea of unalienable rights which then gives the federal government a claim on creating laws that the Constitution forbids it to do. That is exactly the type of constitutional construction Progressives depend on to vitiate the Constitution.

THERE IS NO GENERAL LIMITATION ON CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHTS. Whatever limitations there might be would specifically reside in the power of the states and their citizens. This power cannot by analogy be transferred to the federal government. The Supremacy Clause, the Constitution, do not permit that. If it did, the whole Constitution would be null and void. If it did, it would mean that the federal government could assume all power, unlimited power, because there would be an assumed limit to rights, and it could, as you say, under some notion such as public safety or any other concoction claim the necessity of passing laws because rights, after all, have limitations.

Again, your notion is the perfect excuse for Progressives to pretend they are abiding by the Constitution while they are actually destroying it.

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

DC is not a state. The city council owes its charter to and exercises power with the blessing of Congress thus DC is entirely bound by the US Constitution; it is not afforded any protections or exceptions that autonomous state governments are.

Heller v DC struck down DC's handgun ban in 2008; this recent case (that your link discusses) was challenging DC's standards for issuing carry permits. DC lost at the district level in 2014, lost again at the circuit level and earlier this month (Oct) has chosen not to challenge the ruling to SCOTUS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-will-not-appeal-gun-law-to-supreme-court/2017/10/05/e0e7c054-a9d0-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.7a364e40b1ce) (as it did with Heller, much to the consternation of the left). DC has been served with the court's mandate and now must issue a carry permit to any law-abiding citizen of the USA.

As for state laws being struck by the Supreme Court as federally unconstitutional, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban in 2010, two years after Heller. That case was McDonald v Chicago. and the Court enforced the 2nd by incorporating it under the 14th Amendment.

McDonald was the very first time that a state / local gun law was invalidated as a violation of the right secured by the 2nd Amendment. Again, for like the 5th time, until 2010 the 2nd Amendment had zero effect or impact on state or local law.

The effect of McDonald has been stalled for the time being; there are a few cases challenging state assault weapon bans in the pipeline, it might be a year or more before the Court accepts one of those cases.

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus.

Your equivalency is still incorrect; the reason why a 2017 state law on bump stocks might pass federal constitutional muster has nothing to do with why the 1830's Univ. of Virginia gun prohibition did not violate the federal right to keep and bear arms.


That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

But you are not making a legal argument, you are making an emotional one that is divorced from any legal reasoning or legal precedent. That's fine to do, but stop couching your theory in constitutional law.

.

OK. We seem to be getting somewhere. There's farther to go and I'm too tired to go there at this moment. I think ScottW is getting there with his posts. You and he might arrive at the sweet spot in the debate. But, at the least, if you're shifting away from the federal government's attempt at gun control, then we're getting somewhere. Now you can campaign for Connecticut gun control, and quit jumping on the bandwagon for federal control.

I guess I assume some understanding of limits of federal power and States rights...and you guys were doing a fine job trying to e'splain....I'm bothered by the characterization of individual Rights/Freedoms as something that can be preemptively limited by or lost to government whim for higher purposes

Connecticut has a lot of "restrictions" already

Jim...what is the difference between yelling fire in a crowded theater and yelling fire in an empty theater?

That matters why?

The founding fathers passed a state ban of all possession of firearms on campus. They presumed that was constitutional.

The notion that the clause's limiting effect on states due to the relatively small scope of power given to the central government somehow means that there is a general notion of limitation on freedoms in the Bill of Rights, or to any of the vast residuum of other rights, ergo that the federal government can use that notion to abridge rights outside of its scope of constitutional power is nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government a general power to create laws that abridge freedoms neither in the Bill of Rights, nor among all the inherent rights not listed in The Bill. You are missing that point. .

I'm not missing that point. I am saying that the ability of states to limit gun rights, is clearly subject to the supremacy clause. I cited a recent case where a federal judge struck down a gun ban in DC...if the feds had no authority to subject such state laws to the supremacy clause, the judge would have refused to hear the case. The feds didn't create a law, they struck down a state law that violated the US constitution. You said the feds have no authority to regulate gun restrictions. The court case I posted, seems to indicate otherwise.

DC is not a state. The city council owes its charter to and exercises power with the blessing of Congress thus DC is entirely bound by the US Constitution; it is not afforded any protections or exceptions that autonomous state governments are.

Heller v DC struck down DC's handgun ban in 2008; this recent case (that your link discusses) was challenging DC's standards for issuing carry permits. DC lost at the district level in 2014, lost again at the circuit level and earlier this month (Oct) has chosen not to challenge the ruling to SCOTUS (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-will-not-appeal-gun-law-to-supreme-court/2017/10/05/e0e7c054-a9d0-11e7-850e-2bdd1236be5d_story.html?utm_term=.7a364e40b1ce) (as it did with Heller, much to the consternation of the left). DC has been served with the court's mandate and now must issue a carry permit to any law-abiding citizen of the USA.

As for state laws being struck by the Supreme Court as federally unconstitutional, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban in 2010, two years after Heller. That case was McDonald v Chicago. and the Court enforced the 2nd by incorporating it under the 14th Amendment.

McDonald was the very first time that a state / local gun law was invalidated as a violation of the right secured by the 2nd Amendment. Again, for like the 5th time, until 2010 the 2nd Amendment had zero effect or impact on state or local law.

The effect of McDonald has been stalled for the time being; there are a few cases challenging state assault weapon bans in the pipeline, it might be a year or more before the Court accepts one of those cases.



Your equivalency is still incorrect; the reason why a 2017 state law on bump stocks might pass federal constitutional muster has nothing to do with why the 1830's Univ. of Virginia gun prohibition did not violate the federal right to keep and bear arms.




But you are not making a legal argument, you are making an emotional one that is divorced from any legal reasoning or legal precedent. That's fine to do, but stop couching your theory in constitutional law.

.

The federal judge that struck down the DC, referred to the jurisdiction as a state.

.I'm bothered by the characterization of individual Rights/Freedoms as something that can be preemptively limited by or lost to government whim for higher purposes



You can be bothered by it, of course. The founding fathers apparently were not, or they would not have banned possession of firearms on the VA campus. Some of the same guys who wrote the Constitution, implemented that ban. Tells me that they were OK with the constitutionality of that ban.

You can be bothered by it, of course. The founding fathers apparently were not, or they would not have banned possession of firearms on the VA campus. Some of the same guys who wrote the Constitution, implemented that ban. Tells me that they were OK with the constitutionality of that ban.

if you write that one more time I am going to punch you...and that's a threat! :lm:

I'm not missing that point. I am saying that the ability of states to limit gun rights, is clearly subject to the supremacy clause. I cited a recent case where a federal judge struck down a gun ban in DC...if the feds had no authority to subject such state laws to the supremacy clause, the judge would have refused to hear the case. The feds didn't create a law, they struck down a state law that violated the US constitution. You said the feds have no authority to regulate gun restrictions. The court case I posted, seems to indicate otherwise.

I said: "The Supremacy Clause does not give the federal government a general power to create laws that abridge freedoms neither in the Bill of Rights, nor among all the inherent rights not listed in The Bill."

The DC law was not struck down by a law created by the federal government. The federal government did not write the Constitution. The federal government did not write the Supremacy Clause. The several States did. The DC law was struck down on the basis of a law that the states wrote--the Constitution. ReelinRod explained very well why the DC law was struck down.

BTW, not that it matters in terms of what is being discussed, do you have some documentation that says Madison or Jefferson actually had a hand in drafting the Univ. of VA ban? What little I've read merely says they attended the meeting. One source specifically said that there is nothing actually linking Madison or Jefferson to the writing of the draft.

The more I read these long winded defenses of the 2nd Amendment the more I'm reminded of that old debate adage, when you're explaining you're losing.

I thought it was a very plainspoken document, easy to understand.

The federal judge that struck down the DC, referred to the jurisdiction as a state.

To spare spence's attention span I'll just follow his lead and say you are wrong.

The more I read these long winded defenses of the 2nd Amendment the more I'm reminded of that old debate adage, when you're explaining you're losing.

I thought it was a very plainspoken document, easy to understand.

Yes, easily understood and as the Federalists recognized, easily misconstructed and misrepresented.

For 66 years the "militia right" and "state's right" perversions held sway in the lower federal courts. All Heller did was re-affirm SCOTUS precedent on the individual right (on that point Heller was 9-0) and slap the lower federal courts back into line.

You still want to argue defunct and disgraced theories while complaining that the explanations of why you are wrong are too long.

It must be good to be a liberal!

The more I read these long winded defenses of the 2nd Amendment the more I'm reminded of that old debate adage, when you're explaining you're losing.

I thought it was a very plainspoken document, easy to understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence

" it's more about a lack of curiosity to understand or an inability to understand. "

The more I read these long winded defenses of the 2nd Amendment the more I'm reminded of that old debate adage, when you're explaining you're losing.



Well, that explains why you do the pigeon walk in your Hillary underoos after you post here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The right to arms has exactly the same kinds of "restrictions" . . . One can't brandish or threaten the use of a weapon, one can't shoot at someone without justification, one can not kill another person without justification."



none of these are right to arms "restrictions" in the context that you are proposing "common sense gun laws"

apples and oranges as Spence like to say

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.


"threatening" is debatable...i don't think anyone has ever successfully argued that child pornography is free speech in any form and i don't think there is any freedom or right to possess such written or inferred in the Bill of Rights anywhere...horrible examples to use in an assault on the Bill of Rights...therefore...tsk...tsk

To bad 2a people do not put the same effort in to the entire constitution and amendments that they do defending what they consider is Their slice ... but that would mean changing and defending things they dont like ..
we need to start with the POTUS

because what we have right now is a joke, and it's a laughingstock," Trump refering to the justice system

1 trick ponies ... stroke the base

To bad 2a people do not put the same effort in to the entire constitution and amendments that they do defending what they consider is Their slice ... but that would mean changing and defending things they dont like ..
we need to start with the POTUS

because what we have right now is a joke, and it's a laughingstock," Trump refering to the justice system

1 trick ponies ... stroke the base

You really don't know what you're talking about. You should leave it alone. Move on to some other topic on which you have something more than a less than cursory knowledge.

To bad 2a people do not put the same effort in to the entire constitution and amendments that they do defending what they consider is Their slice ... but that would mean changing and defending things they dont like ..
we need to start with the POTUS

because what we have right now is a joke, and it's a laughingstock," Trump refering to the justice system

1 trick ponies ... stroke the base


I live next door to a know it all, I recognize know it alls'.

Please inform me of the part of the constitution that I don't like seeing how I support the second amendment and according to you I don't support the rest of the constitution. :confused:
Tell us all about it. I am not aware of any parts that are attacked as much as the Second by progressives and fools that are hoodwinked by those in power who wish to control people and stay in power.

You are entitled to your tunnelvision opinion of the current president. He is a lot smarter than you haters think and he is accomplishing way more than Obama ever did even though he has to swim upstream. so cram it and deal with it

That matters why?

The founding fathers passed a state ban of all possession of firearms on campus. They presumed that was constitutional.

No, Jefferson and Madison did not pass a state ban restricting firearms on campus. The ban was strictly a University of Virginia campus ban. It was not a state law. It was not a statute. Jefferson and Madison would not have imposed on the right of any college or business, or association or household to either allow nor restrict guns on their property. A state law would have meant that no campuses could allow guns on their property. That was not the case.

It would have been unconstitutional to pass a law that forbade carrying a gun on campuses. That would have had to have been campus decisions, not a state or federal decision.

No, Jefferson and Madison did not pass a state ban restricting firearms on campus. The ban was strictly a University of Virginia campus ban. It was not a state law. It was not a statute. Jefferson and Madison would not have imposed on the right of any college or business, or association or household to either allow nor restrict guns on their property. A state law would have meant that no campuses could allow guns on their property. That was not the case.

It would have been unconstitutional to pass a law that forbade carrying a gun on campuses. That would have had to have been campus decisions, not a state or federal decision.

"The ban was strictly a University of Virginia campus ban. It was not a state law."

Fine. It was a campus ban. But college campuses are also subject to the US Constitution, they are not allowed to violate constitutional rights. And obviously the founding fathers didn't think the ban was unconstitutional, and since they wrote the constitution, they presumably know a thing or two about what's constitutional.

Fine. It was a campus ban. But college campuses are also subject to the US Constitution, they are not allowed to violate constitutional rights. And obviously the founding fathers didn't think the ban was unconstitutional, and since they wrote the constitution, they presumably know a thing or two about what's constitutional.

what I said in the other thread :uhuh:

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;1130732
I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.[/QUOTE]

The Second Amendment IS "in the name of public safety." It is the public's safety against a tyrannical government. Restricting the public safety in the name of public safety is a contradiction. It's the sort of thing tyrants do as a legal pretense to consolidate power.

There are sometimes exceptions in extreme situations in which a law may be disobeyed. Crossing the street against a red light can be excused if it is done, for instance, to save a child from being mauled by a pit bull on the other side of the street. There is no necessity of creating a law to allow such "illegal" behavior.

The real agent that threatens the public safety in the above instance is not the law against crossing a red light, it is the aggressive pit bull. Nor is it the pit bull in itself that is the problem, rather it is the mismanagement of the pit bull. I have a friend with anger issues. To help him with his problem, he has been issued a well trained dog to accompany him in public. The dog is peaceful, tranquil, well mannered, and calming to the owner. It has been trained to be so. The dog is a pit bull. To ban pit bulls because some owners encourage them to be violent, as can be done with any other breed of dog, is no reason to ban pit bulls. But they are scary because they often are not well trained, or even are ill trained. So there is this notion that they should be banned. If it were the inherent nature of pit bulls to uncontrollably be violent, then it might be logical to ban them.

But if pit bulls were used to secure public or private safety, as in the above example, if they could be used to defend against those who wish to do you harm, then, in the larger interest of public safety, they would be a good thing to have. So long as they are trained to do so. So it would not be in the interest of public safety to ban an instrument which aids that safety because of its occasional misuse. It would be more logical, and overall safer to the public to have well trained dogs rather than banning some because of those aberrant behaviors.

If, in the interest of the greater public safety against abusive government, weapons can be used to that end, and public ownership is protected by a constitution in order to secure that privilege, claiming to ban weapons that strengthen the public safety against government on the grounds that is in the interest of public safety to ban them because of their relatively rare intentionally fatal misuse, is simply a deceitful gateway toward the path of weakening that Constitution and its guaranties.

But the emotional reaction to seeing a child mauled by a pit bull cries for getting rid of pit bulls.

Your emotional reaction calling for limitations to protect public safety against isolated incidents cries for some limit to the overall public safety in the larger political sense. But that is a reasonable reaction because you don't believe in the original reason for the Second Amendment, even though you say you"prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted."

The Second Amendment IS "in the name of public safety." It is the public's safety against a tyrannical government. Restricting the public safety in the name of public safety is a contradiction. It's the sort of thing tyrants do as a legal pretense to consolidate power.

There are sometimes exceptions in extreme situations in which a law may be disobeyed. Crossing the street against a red light can be excused if it is done, for instance, to save a child from being mauled by a pit bull on the other side of the street. There is no necessity of creating a law to allow such "illegal" behavior.

The real agent that threatens the public safety in the above instance is not the law against crossing a red light, it is the aggressive pit bull. Nor is it the pit bull in itself that is the problem, rather it is the mismanagement of the pit bull. I have a friend with anger issues. To help him with his problem, he has been issued a well trained dog to accompany him in public. The dog is peaceful, tranquil, well mannered, and calming to the owner. It has been trained to be so. The dog is a pit bull. To ban pit bulls because some owners encourage them to be violent, as can be done with any other breed of dog, is no reason to ban pit bulls. But they are scary because they often are not well trained, or even are ill trained. So there is this notion that they should be banned. If it were the inherent nature of pit bulls to uncontrollably be violent, then it might be logical to ban them.

But if pit bulls were used to secure public or private safety, as in the above example, if they could be used to defend against those who wish to do you harm, then, in the larger interest of public safety, they would be a good thing to have. So long as they are trained to do so. So it would not be in the interest of public safety to ban an instrument which aids that safety because of its occasional misuse. It would be more logical, and overall safer to the public to have well trained dogs rather than banning some because of those aberrant behaviors.

If, in the interest of the greater public safety against abusive government, weapons can be used to that end, and public ownership is protected by a constitution in order to secure that privilege, claiming to ban weapons that strengthen the public safety against government on the grounds that is in the interest of public safety to ban them because of their relatively rare intentionally fatal misuse, is simply a deceitful gateway toward the path of weakening that Constitution and its guaranties.

But the emotional reaction to seeing a child mauled by a pit bull cries for getting rid of pit bulls.

Your emotional reaction calling for limitations to protect public safety against isolated incidents cries for some limit to the overall public safety in the larger political sense. But that is a reasonable reaction because you don't believe in the original reason for the Second Amendment, even though you say you"prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted."

:btu:
:cheers2:

Can I send this the G.O.A.L.?
They could use some well written stuff to blast every politician in this state including the so called republican supporters of the second amendment. Seeing how there is a budget bill that passed yesterday which is on the governors' desk waiting for him to sign that includes an amendment to ban bump stocks with no path for legal ownership if you own one already making you a felon. Sounds like some kind of expos facto thing or something like that. He needs to line item veto that, but Charlie Baker is a tyrant turncoat.

The more I read these long winded defenses of the 2nd Amendment the more I'm reminded of that old debate adage, when you're explaining you're losing.

I thought it was a very plainspoken document, easy to understand.

The more I hear Anti2A screeds turn into legislation at the expense of others' Freedom the more I understand the foundation of 2A.

1A & 2A

"The ban was strictly a University of Virginia campus ban. It was not a state law."

Fine. It was a campus ban. But college campuses are also subject to the US Constitution, they are not allowed to violate constitutional rights. And obviously the founding fathers didn't think the ban was unconstitutional, and since they wrote the constitution, they presumably know a thing or two about what's constitutional.

Yet they do more and more these days :buds:

To bad 2a people do not put the same effort in to the entire constitution and amendments that they do defending what they consider is Their slice ... but that would mean changing and defending things they dont like ..

Wanna bet?

we need to start with the POTUS

because what we have right now is a joke, and it's a laughingstock," Trump refering to the justice system

It is a joke:

Give me your honest assessment of this "criminal justice" policy as explained by former St. Louis Police Chief Dan Isom:
"One thing we have to be aware of to give context to this whole problem is that we are looking at an urban problem. It’s much less a suburban or rural problem. It really affects young minorities— Hispanic and black males. I think that the suspects devalue life, the victims devalue life, and the system also devalues life. When you look at the shooting victims and suspects in these neighborhoods, you see 20 or 30 felony arrests, with eight convictions.

Often the convictions don’t result in any jail time at all; they’re getting probation on top of probation. This has caused a lot of us in cities to move toward federal prosecution, because we know on the state level it’s a hit-and-miss prospect: they’re arrested, they’re convicted, and they come out multiple times.

In Missouri, there’s a type of probation people can receive, and it has made it very difficult for us to establish a person as a convicted felon. I’ve heard other chiefs talking about the fact that a weapons charge in their state is only a misdemeanor offense. But in St. Louis, a weapons violation can turn out to be no offense at all. An individual will get arrested for a weapons charge, which is a felony, and often they plead to that case and get an SIS—a suspended imposition of sentence. It means that if you serve out your probation, which everybody does, that conviction is erased.

So if you’re arrested again with another weapon, you don’t have a conviction on your record, so you’re not a felon in possession of a weapon. If you continue to get multiple SISs, you never become a convicted felon. These offenders will often show up for other crimes, and if they never have a conviction, then you’re never able to put stiffer charges on them."

So the ridiculous murder rate in St Louis is due to what?

I say it is a "criminal justice" system that is better at catch and release than the most conservation minded fisherman. That constant stream of released criminals -- criminals who should be in jail -- that offend without penalty -- are the culprits and the responsible parties, not my gun.

I say it is "close the case by any means necessary" policies like these that embolden criminals and tell them they have nothing to fear from the "criminal justice" system.

I say it also tells the law-abiding that they are forsaken and their safety is not any priority for those in power.

That these criminal coddling liberals who have been in power for decades in these hell-holes tell us that they need gun control -- more power over the citizen who obeys the law -- is why we gun rights people have such little respect for liberals.

They have perverted the one duty they have complete and unquestioned power to do - arrest, prosecute and imprison lawbreakers -- and turned it into a criminal coddling industry where criminals are nurtured and grow to their full potential.

I'll add that this forgive and forget policy never ends with these violent armed criminals being CONVICTED, they never become a prohibited person as far as gun rights disability goes so these repeat armed criminals pass the NICS background check with flying colors . . . You want a universal background check??? Why, when hug-a-thug policies never convict actual, true armed criminals when they are caught?

1 trick ponies ... stroke the base

You haven't a clue and couldn't catch a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues even if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.

.

LMAO
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device