I don't need to cite the body, I can cite the document they're supposed to follow in plain english. You on the other hand can't even parrot their bull(*)(*)(*)(*) reasoning and have consistently resorted to "but daddy said" arguments from authority. - - - Updated - - - None, which is why we AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION TO ALLOW FOR THAT.
you start wondering about people who claim they support the 2A BUT are so willing to buy into the FDR created bovine excrement that pretended that a negative restriction on the government is subject to "reasonable restrictions" the only way the federal government can obtain the POWER to engage in REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS is to have the underlying power delegated to it in the CONSTITUTION or an amendment to do that delegation pretending that the commerce clause was actually a proper delegation of power is the sign of either a gullible statist or someone who actually supports an unlimited federal government
we are asking you why, you as a purported gun owner and supporter of the 2A, is going beyond merely conceding that the FDR idiocy has created a court created expansion of the commerce clause. I admit that is the current legal environment but I deny it is legitimate and we need to use the LOPEZ opinion to start rolling back the idiocy of the FDR courts especially in areas where the faint hearted Originalists like Scalia, won't get too upset. Getting rid of Medicaid and Socialist security would be actually enforcing the tenth amendment as it was intended but that would cause all sorts of social upheaval that causes people like Scalia to balk at actually following the constitution. getting rid of crap like the Hughes Amendment would not cause any social upheaval at all and would show that the Supreme Court actually follows the constitution
No it isn't. It works by citing case precedent. You keep whining I'm appealing to authority. That's bowing works.
Wonderful. I'm so glad to see that you guys have succeeded in reducing this thread to a personal exchange of insults. That's what we really need here.
No it works by examining the constitution. In this case we're talking about the 2a, which is quite clear and doesn't allow for infringment from ANYONE, unlike the 1st which only barred the federal congress. I can cite you a plethora of cases that were decided held to be law of which we now hold the opposite to be true. Why? Because the reasoning was invalid in some cases, and in other cases politics demanded that the reasoning be found to be invalid regardless of the truth of the matter. You're appealing to authority and you can't even cite the reasoning of the cases.
And your opinion is noted, but I'll continue to take the word of the actual legal body in charge of making such determinations. I don't necessarily disagree. It's how constitutional law works. - - - Updated - - - And instead of contributing to the thread, we get this instead. Pot......kettle
You understand that by simply taking their word for it, you are contributing to the problem right? Then stop trying to just say "but daddy says". At the very least tell me what the (*)(*)(*)(*)er actually SAID. No its not. You don't just say "x case y case z case therefore you must acquit." You say "x says (reasoning) and y says (reasoning) and z says (reasoning.). Taken together that means (sythesized reasoning)". Try again
That is why you fail. Its not unlimited. I have never said it should be, and have in fact stated the opposite. You and I differ on what is allowed. I say no infringement on keeping and bearing unless you're under arrest, incarcerated, or on parole. Other than that there is no legitimate state interest to override the plain language of the 2nd amendment. That would go for state, local, or federal. You seem to think that because "times have changed" and "the founder's weren't perfect" (those are loose quotes of your posts) that the legislature can simply pass what it wills and infringe willy nilly.
Lol, what is it you think I failed? [AUOTE]Its not unlimited. I have never said it should be, and have in fact stated the opposite. You and I differ on what is allowed. I say no infringement on keeping and bearing unless you're under arrest, incarcerated, or on parole. Other than that there is no legitimate state interest to override the plain language of the 2nd amendment. That would go for state, local, or federal.[/QUOTE] And I gave you a list of legitimate state interests banning WHERE firearms can be carried. Jails, courthouses, etc. I carry on a daily basis, and have no problem and completely understand that I can't carry in those places. I never said or implied any such thing. I've consistently said a compelling state interest must exist. Not just pointless infringements. Cosmetics being one such pointless restriction.
Basic comprehension. Again those aren't legitimate interests, see the 2A. As stated earlier you've gone with the commerce clause extension. That's something they made up whole hog. Pointless or not, infringement is infringement and violates the Law of the Land.
So how does that work at auctions and estate sales? Also let's pretend you are a criminal with a disqualifying felony conviction, are you going to go with Joe citizen to complete a check? Criminals get most of their guns illegally so this is nothing more than feel good legislation bothering law abiding citizens. If it's not mandatory it will be a massive waste of time. How does that work? If it isn't mandatory how do you impose a penalty. That one would be shot down in court in quick order. sorry but this isn't common sense law, If I choose not to use it and it ended up in a criminals hands how would you prosecute me without a national database of all guns owned by whom. I can see that getting all sorts of stupid attention from anti-gun folks. Next they would want to create a database, then make it a felony to not report a lost, stolen or sold gun. Naw This won't work at all. No it falls entirely in the anti-gun camp. No where close to between the two positions. A more middle of the road solution would look like this: allow those who want to check get the check and those who don't, no penalty. Then it's a matter of conscience and not meddling by the government.
Why would you think an AR-15 is unnecessary simply because another avenue exists. That's an extreme form of control, something a government would do. I think the mini 14 is unnecessary because the AR exists. sheesh. Yup just like supporting a ban just because one thing can be replaced by another functionally equivalent object. Thank god that line of reasoning isn't applied to all objects.
Yes they are, that's why neither of us can carry there. every right can be infringed if a legitimate state interest is served by that infringement.
You still won't answer my question. Why do you believe the words "shall not be infringed " are used in the 2A and not in any other amendment in the Bill Of Rights?
Online access to the FBI NICS database could be virtually instantaneous and a background check could be run on any sale or transfer in a matter of a couple of minutes even using a smart phone. There would be virtually no problems associated with running a background check for any sale or transfer regardless of where it takes place. As a law-abiding gun owner I don't want to sell a firearm to a person that's prohibited so I'd use the access. Only someone that doesn't care whether they sell a firearm to a prohibited person would not use their ability to access the FBI NICS database. Yes, many criminals purchase firearm through "illegal sources" but they can also go to a gun show or to a private person and purchase one from a "legal source" because the private person is incapable of running a background check today. Fortunately most sellers at gun shows are FFL's and they do run background checks because they have access to the FBI NICS database. It is already a felony to knowingly sell or transfer possession of a firearm to a person known to be prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm. If the individual has the capability to verify that a person is not prohibited from owning/possessing a firearm it is reasonable to expect them to exercise due diligence to prevent such a transfer. In any case, whether a "criminal" purchases a firearm from a "legal" or "illegal" source if the firearm can be traced back to the "seller" and that person didn't run a background check they could be sent to prison for selling a firearm to a prohibited person. That very fact alone would encourage law-abiding citizens to run a voluntary background check. BTW - I'd also support a "notification" icon when the results come back from the background check when a person is "prohibited" that would instantly notify local law enforcement to respond. Over 1 million firearms sales have been blocked because of the NICS database at FFL locations but those individuals simply walk away to purchase a firearm somewhere else. The police should respond and investigate the person that is apparently attempting to commit a felony by illegally purchasing a firearm. You can claim allowing access to the FBI NICS database is ineffective but it's use by FFL's contradicts that belief. The greatest failures are that a private person doesn't have access to the FBI NICS database at all and that those identified as attempting to illegally purchase a firearm are not investigated by the police even though they're committing a felony by attempting to purchase a firearm. On a final note it can be stated that a background check, whether mandatory or voluntary, in no way represents any infringement upon a person's 2nd Amendment Rights as a law-abiding person is not prohibited from purchasing or owning a firearm.
Doesn't matter. The state can still impose restrictions, just like they can "abridge" the freedom of speech.
You still won't answer my question. Why do you believe the words "shall not be infringed " are used in the 2A and not in any other amendment in the Bill Of Rights? I didn't ask if it mattered... I asked what is your belief... I knew you wouldn't answer.
Not without, as you stated, "legitimate state interest is served by that infringement." and scary cosmetics (as is the case with AR15 bans) don't meet that standard.
This is where your logic falls apart.... There is no national database of firearms. The gun cannot be "traced" back to the seller. There is no one but me that knows what guns I currently own, so if I sell one of one to someone that commits a crime with it, there is no way they can trace it back to me. So your idea that this would be an incentive is a non starter. That being said, I'm not against voluntary use of the NICS system for the public.
If by "answered" you mean evaded the question with deflection. Then yes, you have answered my question.
