Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? . . . You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?

Correct, the Bill of Rights did not have any weight on state law. This fact is what made the 14th Amendment necessary. After the Civil War, the Southern States enacted and enforced with brutality the Black Codes which forbade Blacks from owning arms. The "official" state militias were the enforcers of these laws and violated the rights of Freemen to the point that the 39th Congress disbanded the militias of several states. Of course, the violence continued; the militia members just put on hoods and continued harassing and killing Freemen.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to finally enforce the federal amendments on the states and the right to arms was a primary reason.

Of course this was frustrated by the Supreme Court in 1873 where it gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This only left "due process" and "equal protection" as the mechanism to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.

This begat the "Selective Incorporation" doctrine because each claim of rights injury had to be painstakingly examined and the resulting decisions narrowly applied certain clauses of the 1st or the 4th or the 5th Amendments over many decades . . . The 2nd Amendment was not applied to the states -- "incorporated" against state law -- until 2010.

What's that saying? Justice delayed is justice denied. . .

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.

The doctrines of supremacy and preemption cover conflicts in claims of power.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. 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.

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.

Gun controllers are arguing for a much different "restriction" schedule to be pressed for guns . . . Broad proscriptions on simple ownership, registration with the government to exercise a right including licensing. Enacting bans on certain types of commonly owned arms and endorsing absolute bans on all operable guns based on geography.

Your equivalency fails, to put the kind of restrictions you want for guns on any other right would be laughed off as prior restraint.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Correct, the Bill of Rights did not have any weight on state law. This fact is what made the 14th Amendment necessary. After the Civil War, the Southern States enacted and enforced with brutality the Black Codes which forbade Blacks from owning arms. The "official" state militias were the enforcers of these laws and violated the rights of Freemen to the point that the 39th Congress disbanded the militias of several states. Of course, the violence continued; the militia members just put on hoods and continued harassing and killing Freemen.

The intent of the 14th Amendment was to finally enforce the federal amendments on the states and the right to arms was a primary reason.

Of course this was frustrated by the Supreme Court in 1873 where it gutted the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment. This only left "due process" and "equal protection" as the mechanism to enforce the Bill of Rights on the states.

This begat the "Selective Incorporation" doctrine because each claim of rights injury had to be painstakingly examined and the resulting decisions narrowly applied certain clauses of the 1st or the 4th or the 5th Amendments over many decades . . . The 2nd Amendment was not applied to the states -- "incorporated" against state law -- until 2010.

What's that saying? Justice delayed is justice denied. . .




The doctrines of supremacy and preemption cover conflicts in claims of power.



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.

Gun controllers are arguing for a much different "restriction" schedule to be pressed for guns . . . Broad proscriptions on simple ownership, registration with the government to exercise a right including licensing. Enacting bans on certain types of commonly owned arms and endorsing absolute bans on all operable guns based on geography.

Your equivalency fails, to put the kind of restrictions you want for guns on any other right would be laughed off as prior restraint.

"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."

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.

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.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

...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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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

[scottw]

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