Functionally we already had a "featureless" AR-15 in numerous semi-automatic .223 caliber hunting rifles. That was the problem with both the "assault weapons ban" and the argument by the "gun advocates" because the assault weapons bans address appearance and not functionality. Banning the appearance has no fundamental effect either in preventing crime or imposing any infringements upon a person's 2nd Amendment rights.
Specifically how do you arrive at that conclusion? - - - Updated - - - You have yet to explain what your functional purpose is that justifies your reason for existence.
Abridging is to further limit from where it stands. At the time of passage you could not incite a crime through speech and get away with it. Infringement stands in a like fashion. The difference? 1st specifies congress the 2nd simply has a blanket prohibition on ANY infringment. Before incorporation it could be argued that a state could abridge speech in some fashion, but no government (state local or federal) could infringe on the right to keep and bear. Simple ownership of a weapon, or carrying it with you, was perfectly legal at passage. Therefore simple ownership of a weapon or carrying it with you, may not be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed with unless you trigger the police power by an infraction which violates the rights of another (say brandishing said firearm at traffic). Inciting a panic does harm others, it violates their rights just as if I had said to you personally face to face "I'm going to kill you". I don't have to physically harm you to have "harmed" you. Its in the same line as a threat. Know what I mean? Which is my point: Those cases were eventually overturned and are not now the law. This goes to show you that the SCOTUS is not infallible nor does saying "SCOTUS SAYS" end the argument. Yes they are the end on constitutional rulings, and when they make a ruling the gov follows it (except when they don't. I'm looking at you andrew jackson), but that does not make it correct.
The 14th amendment applied the rest of the amendments to the states, not just federal government or congress. And again, no right is unlimited, and can be restricted or denied wit a compelling state interest. It doesn't. Your rights are not violated if I say that to you. Only if I act on it. No, it's 2 different things. Well, legally it ends the argument. If you wish to have an academic debate over it that's different. I don't disagree.
Yes, but it did not exist at passage. Read what I wrote. And there is no compelling state interest to restrict simple ownership and carry of a firearm. See 2a. See now I know you don't know what you're talking about because threatening someone like that is a crime and properly so. Time to go hit the books. Again: no it does not. You can tell by how SCOTUS has overturned itself more than once.
i love how the heatshield, bayonet lug, flash suppresor, foldable stock, are all labeled "cosmetic" features. lol!!!
in most places I agree. Court houses, police stations, airports etc are examples of state interest in restricting your right to carry there. It depends on context.
For all intents and purposes, they indeed are. Take all of them away, the firearm still functions exactly as one with the features. Semi-automatic is semi-automatic. Nothing changes that fact. None of the above features change the manner in which the firearm operates or fires.
I disagree. Those are infringement. Same as barring felons from owning guns. In the context I mentioned? It applies quite perfectly, and is a crime.
All are legitimate state interests and thus the right can be infringed, like every other. You didn't give any context. You simply said "I'm going to kill you" is illegal. It's not.
Such was not barred at adoption of the 2a, shall not be infringed. No legitimate state interest beyond an actionable infraction under the police power. If I threaten you with death face to face I have committed a crime. Which IS what I said.
an individual can lose his constitutional rights-through due process of law gun bans are not the same since they take away everyone's rights
that comes within the proper police powers of a state or local government unless its idiotic like preventing a store owner from carrying in his store or a farmer on his land
Irrelevant. Every right is able to be restricted if a legitimate state interest exists. [QUOYE] No legitimate state interest beyond an actionable infraction under the police power.[/QUOTE] Everything I listed is a legitimate interest. That isn't what you said. But I agree a legitimate threat of death face to face is a crime. - - - Updated - - - I agree
when the constitution was written and the bill of rights adopted, the founders knew that states had broad and expansive powers. The specific powers given the federal government were to deal with areas where state powers might conflict, or were unable to cope with national issues. Like treaties. or protecting merchant mariners on the high seas. the founders never intended the federal government to have powers that were already powers the states had such as regulating firearms. the 2A didn't require ANY interpretation or BALANCING because the federal government NEVER EVER was given any power to deal with what citizens did with small arms-that was at best a state issue. not until the blatantly dishonest and disgusting FDR regime did a conflict exist and that conflict existed when the FDR pet monkeys in the legislative and judicial branches created an unconstitutional power grab using the Commerce Clause to make up a federal power to regulate small arms which of course was never intended by the founders. now with this power grab that the courts somehow agreed to, we have created this idiocy that a balancing test needs to exist because of FDR's unconstitutional nonsense with McDonald it gets even worse because applying the 2A to the states, we really do have a legitimate conflict between the proper police powers states have and are recognized by the 10th amendment and the 2A its all about mucking around with the constitution such as the "incorporation provisions" created by the post war government in the 1860s.
What foldable stock? You can't mount a foldable stock on an AR, because the buffer tube has to remain stationary. We've been through this little discussion at least twice now, and you remain the eveready bunny, just going and going and wrong as ever. We may as well be talking about the muffler bearing mounts and the blinker fluid reservoir on an AKM.
Times change. Rights have been restricted through due process since the founding of the nation. I don't really understand what you're trying to say here m
1) the rights of individuals can be restricted through due process of law not blanket intrusions on constitutional rights as a whole 2) the third point-states have certain powers and now that the 2A has been applied to the states-this is going to require constantly balancing that the founders never intended for the 2A
