Should states decide on gun ownership?

Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

LOL, it was based on original intent that the poster I was responding to was arguing.

 

wrong!!! the constitution---limits---the reach of the federal gov. the constitution give only certain powers to the federal government. like treaties, trade deals, how the gov is set up. and what powers each branch has. if the constitution doesn't give that power to the federal gov. then the government doesn't have that power. the powers not given to the federal government by the constitution are then under the control of the states.---FYI--article no. 1 lists the powers of the legislature, the house, the senate. in acritical 2 the executive powers are listed. in article III the judicial branch powers are listed. the amendments of the constitution state the freedoms of the citizens of the u.s.. like freedom of religion, press ---and the right to keep and bear arms. they are the rights of the people. amendment 11 again gives the limits of the judicial branch please read the constitution before posting on subjects you don't seem to know much about. thanks.

 

under the constitution the state has very limited power to stop people from having firearms. like if you are mentally ill. a convicted criminal, some one using a firearm to threaten say his wife. but can't limit the ownership of firearms of normal, non-criminal, people. like the nyc gun law before the supreme court now. which looks like will be killed by the s.c.. the constitution gives the right to own firearms and carry them to the citizens of the u.s. there can be no --overreach of state power, when the state doesn't have that power in the 1st place.

 

The major reason for the 2ND amendment was for the federal to place regulations on state militias.

According to the originators of the 2ND, the last 13 words, er, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, was an afterthought of the originators to the amendment. Er, that last 13 words was to ensure that the federal 2ND amendment didn't supersede the Arms stipulations of states.

'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms (as stipulated in state legislation and constitution) shall not be infringed (by the federal government)...That would truly make the 2ND a limitation on federal power and not like the current interpretation of the 2ND which grants major power to the federal over states.

 

You're wrong. The current interpretation of the 2ND grants immense power to the federal to dictate Arms ownership over the states.

 

This is misinformation. Each state in 1791 had stipulations on Arms ownership.

IMO, you're confusing the intent of the ratifiers of the 2ND with some sort of natural right of Arms ownership, for example?

 

But the second does not give the government that authority over citizens. Have you ever looked up what a militia is? It's a voluntary defense force, that provides their own equipment. When the civil war began, the army of the north was vastly out-numbered. Lincoln called for volunteers to form militias to help defend the union. a few weeks later, 75,000 men had come forward. They formed their own units- which is why there are many identified by state names. They were citizens supporting national defense- and in effect, that best defines what militias are in a real-life example. These militias, while commanded within by people of their own choice, they got their general order from the government. Thus they were "regulated", not renegades- but they were volunteer units, and the extra manpower probably won the war.

You are seeing something similar today in the Ukraine, as citizens take up weapons and fight both independently and with the Ukraine's army.

 

wrong!!! the constitution says . from the 2nd amendment quote: a well regulated militia, coma-- being necessary to the security of a free state, coma-- the right of the people to keep and bear arms, coma--shall no be infringed. and the supreme court in many, many, cases has ruled federal law including the constitution---over rules state law. now if you would show me where in the constitution it says different..
Amendment 10 says quote: powers not delegated to the united states (by the constitution), nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. the constitution keeps the power of the "right to keep and bear arms to it's self. under the II amendment and does (not) give that power to the states. no state law can over turn the any rights given in amendments of the constitution .

now please show me where under any law you find that different. these quotes i used come straight from the constitution. where is your proof?

 

It sounds like the sophistry advanced by the Barack Obama School of Constitutional Law.

 

Dude, the 2ND (the federal) gives universal rights to arms ownership...It has that right over citizens and states.

 

No, more like the DJT or Eric/Don Jr so called legal analysis from the poster I was responding to,

 

QUOTE: IMO, you're confusing the intent of the ratifiers of the 2ND with some sort of natural right of Arms ownership really? (intent?) just where do you get the ratifiers (intent) from? where is it written into law, what their (in your words) "intent" was? if they indented one thing--- why ratify something different? that doesn't make sense. now does it? and from day one when the 1st Europeans arrived in the new world. they were (ARMED) . so there is your natural right of arms owner ship.

 

Cite the source, and quote the text to that effect,.

 

The 2nd amendment grants to night, and no powers, to anyone or anything.

 

wrong again. the 2nd amendment keeps the--(right) in the federal governments hands. and does not cede it to the states on the "right to keep and bear arms" federal
you asked for proof? Amendment 10 says quote: powers not delegated to the united states (by the constitution), nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. the constitution keeps the power of the "right to keep and bear arms to it's self. under the II amendment and does (not) give that power to the states. no state law can over turn the any rights given in amendments of the constitution . do you understand? your= and -- the supreme court, countless times have reinforced this.

 

now, you show me what law gives that right to the states? i don't think you can. but please try.

 

Liberals are fighting the tide. We now have 25 States that allow concealed carry without a permit and it is soon expected that from 1 to three States will pass Constitutional Carry laws. The problem is liberals flee liberal States and then want to turn the States they moved to into what they left.

 

The source would be The Constitution and the last 13 words of the 2ND amendment 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' is the text.

 

Explain.

 

Nothing in this clause grants -any- power to the federal to dictate arms ownership over the states.
Why do you believe otherwise?

 

The absence of text to that effect in the amendment proves my claim.

 

wrong again!!! the 2nd states: quote: a well regulated militia, coma-- being necessary to the security of a free state, coma-- the right of the people to keep and bear arms, coma--shall not be infringed. "shall not be infringed!!!" stopes the states from in any way shape or form from (infringing) on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. that is why time after time when liberal states try to limit the ownership or carrying of firearms. the state is sued in fed court. and when it gets to the supreme court the state is----"slapped down!" for going against the 2nd in trying to limit/control the ownership and carrying of firearms.
you still have not shown "any" law that gives that right to limit firearms to the states. your just imo running in circles trying to spin non-sense into what you want it to be. where is your evidence? you've proven you don't have any. poor baby!!

 

SCOTUS has interpreted that the 2ND is a universal arms right for all Americans.

 

And....nothing in the relevant decisions grants -any- power to the federal government to dictate arms ownership over the states.
Why do you believe otherwise?