Discussion pertaining to the militia act of 1792

Regurgitating debunked extremist rightwing disinformation is NOT helping your position.

 

No one has debunked the fact that there is no reason for taking guns away from people with anorexia and claustrophobia, nor is that fact disinformation.

I can accept the association of facts with the right wing. Conservatives do like to tell the truth. However, the notion that accurate facts are somehow "extremist" is pretty silly.

Look, the left is not going to be allowed to violate people's civil liberties for fun. It's just not going to happen.

The NRA is not going to let them do it.

Donald Trump is not going to let them do it.

The Supreme Court is not going to let them do it.

 

Regulations that denied the accused their rights without the benefit of due process of law, which even the ACLU did not support.

 

18 USC 922g hasn't changed one bit with regards to those adjudicated mentally defective or who have been institutionalized.

With regards to the action by Congress against the SSA rule:

"ADAPT, which “urged Congress to use the Congressional Rule Act to repeal this rule“; from the American Association of People with Disabilities, which pressed Congress “to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security Administration (SSA)”; from the ACLU, which pushed “members of the House of Representatives to support the resolution disapproving the final rule of the Social Security Administration”; from The Arc of the United States, which asked “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule”; from the Association of Mature American Citizens, which exhorted “Congress to quickly pass this Joint Resolution and restore the basic Second Amendment rights this rule has abridged”; from the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network, which implored “Congress to act, through the CRA process, to disapprove this new rule and prevent the damage that it inflicts on the disability community”; and, in addition, from the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, the Disability Law Center of Alaska, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability Directors, the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, the National Association for Rural Mental Health, the National Council on Disability, the National Council of Independent Living, the National Coalition of Mental Health Recovery, the National Disability Leadership Alliance, the National Disability Rights Network, the New York Association of Psychiatric Rehabilitation Services, and Safari Club International. All of them — every single one — urged that the rule be killed."

https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...round-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-ill/

Here's the ACLU letter:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

 

And who decides what reasonable is?

 

Are you sure Congress and POTUS didn't do it to placate the ACLU?

https://www.aclu.org/blog/disability-rights/gun-control-laws-should-be-fair

 

So now the Supreme Court is afraid of the NRA. Seems the NRA has everyone running so scared right now that maybe it should just take over the country. That would work well for us 2A supporters. We could make Ollie North the new king.

 

What is extremist rightwing disinformation is PRETENDING that that anyone would take guns away from people with anorexia and claustrophobia but those are EXACTLY the kinds of LIES that are contained the DISINFORMATION that is being regurgitated.

That you have NOT bothered to research and learn the FACTS as to what the regulations were ACTUALLY all about says volumes. Only those who have been diagnosed and are being treated with psychotropic drugs linked to mass killings should not have access to lethal firearms.

The NRA is full of bovine excrement and one of it's own directors openly proclaimed that the NRA supports giving guns to the mentally unbalanced. The reason behind this is because each time one of the mentally unbalanced goes on another murderous killing rampage that sells more guns.

The SCOTUS had no problem at all with the regulations enacted to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unbalanced.

In essence your position has been exposed as being fraudulent in all respects since those regulations did meet strict scrutiny but it was still opposed by the NRA and their supporters.

 

duplicate deleted

 

The united state supreme court has never ruled in favor of such firearm-related restrictions.

 

Because there was no problem with them ergo no ruling was necessary.

 

Thus meaning it is a false statement that the united state supreme court has no problems with such firearm-related restrictions.

 

That would be your false statement since everything passed by Congress and signed by the Executive Branch is automatically Constitutional unless challenged and ruled otherwise by the SCOTUS.

 

The above is nothing more than a statement of admitting to possessing no idea of how the law in the united states actually works. A piece of legislation is not constitutional by virtue of being signed into law. It does not work that way, nor can it be made to work that way.

 

Complete ABSENCE of any relevant subject matter knowledge effectively disqualifies you from any further meaningful interaction on this topic as far as I am concerned.

Have a nice day!

 

Then all that has to be done on the part of yourself to prove such, is cite the united state supreme court ruling where it was confirmed how all legislation is constitutional by virtue of being signed into law, from the moment it is signed into law.

 

Wrong, as always!

I do NOT have to prove a negative!

Everything that is part of the Law of the Land is de facto Constitutional until proven otherwise!

The ONUS is entirely on YOU to PROVE that legislation passed by Congress and signed by the POTUS into the Law of the Land is somehow NOT deemed to be "Constitutional".

 

Since the claim made is on the part of yourself, the burden of proof is also on the part of yourself to show legislation is constitutional by the mere virtue of it being signed into law.

 

Children in school learn this in the 4th grade!

https://www.house.gov/the-house-explained/the-legislative-process

 

None of which pertains to legislation being deemed constitutional by mere virtue of being signed into law. Such is not how it works. The determination of constitutionality lies with the united state supreme court, not with the house or senate. The citation on the part of yourself does not refute or disprove this fact.

 

Please cite all of the case numbers and decisions made by the SCOTUS pertaining the Constitutionality of the Vietnam War Veterans Recognition Act, the Weather Researching and Forecasting Innovation Act, the Securing Our Agriculture and Food Act, The Bob Dole Congressional Gold Medal Act, the American Legion 100th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, the Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Act, etc, etc, etc.

According to YOU none of those Acts of Congress are "constitutional" without a SCOTUS ruling.

However they are all part to the Law of the Land and therefore deemed to be Constitutional.

 

Factually correct. Because they have not been ruled on by the united state supreme court, they cannot be classified as being constitutional. There are, until further notice, presumptively lawful, and nothing more.

Presumptively lawful. Such is all the legal standing any particular piece of legislation has until the united state supreme court actually rules on the matter.

The district of columbia possessed what was essentially a total prohibition on handguns for more than thirty years before it was ruled unconstitutional. That means it was unconstitutional from the moment it was implemented.

 

A lot of people have trouble getting their heads wrapped around this, failing to understand the legislative branch of government lacks the authority to make a determination if a law is constitutional or not, the authority to determine if a law is constitutional is vested solely in the judicial branch of government.

 

The PRESUMPTION of Constitutionality matches the PRESUMPTION of Innocence.

Thank you for conceding that I am 100% correct that all Congressional Legislation is ALWAYS DEEMED to be Constitutional until it is CHALLENGED by a court case and PROVEN to be otherwise.

 

No concession was ever made. "Presumptively lawful" is not in any way close to constitutional, and the united state supreme court has stated as much itself.

It is not possible for a law to be constitutional until proven otherwise. It is either constitutional, or it is not. And if the united state supreme court determines the law in question to be unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional from the moment it was implemented. That is how matters work in the united states, and as a citizen you should not need to be educated about such. Constitutionality does not have an expiration date to it.