SIgh: But but daddy says, again wihtout even parroting the reasoning. You're like a broken record. Sure can, there just aren't legitimate state interests outside of arrest and incarceration to infringe on the 2nd amendment.
and round and round we go. Argument from authority. Shall I trot out the cases that have made 180's in the law? SCOTUS cases aint a) automagically correct b) the final word. Besides: Its already been acknowledged that that is the current environment/precedent/rule. << We're talking about whether or not the rule itself is correct based upon what it purports to be drawn from (the constitution specifically the 2a and the police power)
You're all over the place. We were talking legitimate state interest in restricted carrying locations, such as jails, courthouses etc. you said no interest other than incarceration. That is completely absurd. The state has an interest in protecting the public from an inmate or accused on trial escaping and obtaining a firearm in the process. Thus, you can't carry in those locations.
IMO, "Shall no be infringed" meant federal nor state governments could make laws that impede a citizen from owning and bearing any firearm.
I'm asking you kindly to please point me to the post number where you gave your opinion of why our founders used the words 'shall not be infringed" in the 2A but in no other amendment in the BOR. I've looked and I can't find where you expressed that particular opinion.
That is the most popular opinion in our country about those words. There are some here that refuse to accept that and want us to believe that our pretty blue sky is actually pink polk a dots.
lol you ever been to jail? Even been on the chain gang going into court? I've actually had a cop brush his pistol against my hand in the courthouse. There were 30 of us and 2 of them, 1 on either end. 30 of us, and he put his gun IN my hand. That (*)(*)(*)(*) happens all the time. Escapes are rather rare and I've actually never heard of one escaping from the courthouse itself. In transit? Sure. At the jail? Yeah. But the courthouse during court when there are 4 armed men in the room itself and several guarding the doors downstairs not to mention cops in the room there to testify etc? Nope. Besides that's not even the interest they (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cite for that. You can't even be bothered to dig up the reasoning you're trying to parrot.
Don't quite think the FBI would agree with you. Access to the NICS process is very controlled and for good reason. NICS checks would probably not be allowed on smart phones. More than likely it would have to be conducted by a FFL dealer or LEO, more government intrusion on the law abiding citizen by those who believe government is the answer. Good for you...I've never had a NICS check done on anyone I've sold a gun to and by golly not one would of been disqualified by the check because I care so your emotional rant about not caring is just that..an emotional illogical response Criminals with criminal backgrounds get their guns in so many ways that even allowing we stop a few by enacting your proposal, they would still get their guns...No change would occur except law abiding citizens would be hassled by the gubbermint! Which wouldn't change a darn thing.....you seek utopia....it doesn't exist, sorry. Sorry the utopia you seek in a national database of gun owners isn't going to happen. Try to find another solution besides total government intrusion into our lives. I wouldn't, people who attempt to purchase weapons are denied or delayed for a variety of reason that don't include a violation of the law....wow you sure look for ways to get the government involved. No they shouldn't, you don't have a clue as to how many of those are mistakes It is ineffective No it's not yes it does
Your right.. It's not 3/4 of the states. First it's 2/3 of congress, then 3/4 of the states. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm
Please explain federal due process to me in your context. Then maybe you can finally answer my question about what our founding fathers meant by "shall not be infringed".
Any right may be restricted if the government can demonstrate a compelling state interest served by the restriction. That is due process. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
It is not. A background check mandate amounts to an infringement when there is no way of effectively complying with the mandate.
Of course it is. A background check in no way infringes on your right to own a firearm. . There is no infringement. Nobody who is legally allowed to possess a firearm is prevented from doing so.
