gun restrictionists think because the USSC under FDR ignored the tenth amendment while mutating the commerce clause, that such actions are fine and should never be challenged. the fact is, the power of congress to "regulate trade among the several states" was never intended to allow congress the power to ignore the 2nd Amendment or to regulate what sort of small arms private citizens can own
I'd say the 2a is quite clear that neither congress nor any other branch of government (state or local) can restrict what sort of small arms a private citizen may keep or bear. And for the record: (*)(*)(*)(*) FDR. Polio didn't do its job.
An answer not unexpected coming from one who knows he cannot get his way through proper due process. Gun rights are a national issue protected by national law. Changing it requires an amendment. Again, I'm not surprised you do not respect due process.
no doubt in my mind that if FDR had not been around to serve a second term, America would have been in far better shape than it is now
Unless, for some unforeseen reason, a background check cannot be carried out for an extended period of time.
I thought you were talking about further restrictions than already exist. Of course there are already some restrictions. So, please respond to the rest of my post. You really are speaking volumes by refusing to address my question.
Well, I've demonstrated that it's false. - - - Updated - - - Due process is served by the state demonstrating a compelling interest served by the restriction. - - - Updated - - - Still not an infringement. No matter how many nonsensical hypotheticals you wish to throw out. - - - Updated - - - I'm talking about any restriction. Current or future. I've already answered it. Several times in fact.
how ever shall I go on? He destroyed checks and balances and pushed a plethora of unconstitutional laws. He interned american citizens without due process, stole their property, even killed a few. He should've been aborted. - - - Updated - - - No you haven't. You've demonstrated that it is not followed. You've yet to refute the argument itself.
They should've been aborted too. So should the liberals who want to do similar things with gun ownership and wealth redistribution. I'm not a partisan hack Ronnie.
Thats odd because not even Obama has been able to pass any proposed restrictions on a federal level. And our congress failed too. You have never answered my question...... you parrot the same thing over and over. But I asked for your opinion about our founding fathers and their reason for using specific words. I have scrolled through this thread, and you have not answered it. Its a funny thing about a forum like this..... everything can be reviewed. I see no posts by you regarding founding fathers, bill of rights, or "shall not be infringed" . If you think you answered, please point to the post number.
I've cited case precedent supporting me. You saying "nuh uh" doesn't have any effect on that. - - - Updated - - - Ok? I have. That you don'tike or accept my answer doesn't change the fact it's been answered
You actually haven't cited ANY cases. You've just said "nuh uh dddddaddy said" and haven't actually told us what daddy said by quoting the cases and synthesizing the reasoning to come up with the rule. Even if you did that that's just an argument from authority, whereas mine cites the actual document they're supposed to be following. You cannot reconcile the language of the 2A with these rulings. Guess which reigns?
Pretty sure I cited heller. It may have been in the thread about liability insurance. If so I apologize. But am more than happy to cite heller if you'd like. The difference is that authority is the actual legal body charged with interpreting that actual document. Whereas you are an anonymous poster on the Internet. Your opinion of US law and how it is applied is rather irrelevant. The rulings. That's why you can't carry in the examples I've given.
Don't think you did. I've been asking you to at least parrot the reasoning if you're going to use the AfromA fallacy. And again that body overturns itself on things with alarming regularity. AfromA is not a guarantee of correctness. You'll have to reconcile the reasoning with the plain language of the Amendment. See when you do statutory (which includes Constitution) interpretation the first thing you look at is the plain meaning. If what you're arguing doesn't jive with plain meaning? You're (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.
And as I've said numerous times, you're welcome to your opinion and I wish you luck taking that opinion to court. In the meantime I'll go with the actual body charged with interpreting the constitution says.
and I keep pointing out that's not actually how it works which is demonstrated by courts overturning each other in full 180's with disturbing regularity.
Back during oral arguments for the case Heller v DC the attorney arguing for keeping the district's ban on functional handguns argued that, if it was needed, he could undo a trigger lock in three seconds in order to protect himself from danger. The supreme court ruled that, even if this was true, it still amounted to an unconstitutional infringement on the right to self defense. If even three seconds is regarded as an unconstitutional infringement, there is little reason to believe that several hours or days would not be regarded as the same.
So what? That has nothing to do with a background check. Can you show me any court which ruled a waiting period or background checks are an infringement?
yeah the waiting period has been found unconstitutional in California on or about August 25, 2014 and why do you support this crap and claim to be pro gun how does the government enforce an UBGC without registraition
