What is an "infringement" upon the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, according to the US Constitution? Well, the US Constitution does not spell it out at all. So its left to our judges and eventually The People to decide what counts as an infringement, and what does not. In my view, an infringement on gun rights would be something arbitrary, caspricious, and unrelated to safety and actual danger. For example, banning all black people from owning guns, would be an infringement. Banning all guns that have a pistol grip, may be an infringement. Banning all semi-automatic weapons, may be an infringement, though there's an argument to be made to the contrary. Basically any gun regulation that cannot be defended with logic & reason, based on facts, crime history, actual dangers, should be considered an "infringement". But regulations that can be seen as being logical, reasonable, rational, in the public interest and for the common good of safety, can be defended as legit. But in the end its up to The People to ultimately decide, through their representatives, what is and is not, a Constitutional law & regulation.
Sure, the people can decide, they simply have to muster the appropriate support to repeal or rewrite the Second Amendment via the Constitutional mechanism designed for that purpose. Many have posted the challenge to do just that and suspect as I do...the popular support doesn’t exist for amending the Constitution in regard to gun rights and why those that support gun control/bans keep trying to find the arguement that will somehow be the magic interpretation that will be accepted by the masses as justification for creating laws heretofore, and for the last 225+ years been considered unacceptable by the courts and most legislature during that timeframe. Again, I challenge, if you and your brethren think you have the support, the means exists; have at it.
Rules and regulations regarding which weapons can be possessed and when/where they can be carried have existed for centuries. Its nothing new. What IS new, is the idea ANY rules on firearms are ILLEGAL rules.
You and I are at complete opposites when it comes to the definition of infringement. Regardless, what laws or regulations do you think we need?
permit for all handgun possesion with tri-yearly fingerprint check mandatory background checks for all gun transfers/sales, except between close relatives. 1 per month limit on handgun purchases. nationwide concealed carry permit that has mandatory training and field exam banning of open carry, except when hunting. 10-round magazine limits. repeal of all assault weapon bans, but owners must be registered.
With these laws owning a gun is now a government privileged. You do understand Government never takes one drink from the well?
And none of those would have stopped any of the recent mass shootings. How does a tri-yearly fingerprint check make any difference? People with Top Secret government clearances don't have to do a repeat fingerprint check. Once your fingerprints are in the system, they are permanently there. You do know that the third worst mass shooting in the U.S. was done with 10 round magazines......
Mag capacity limits are the very definition of arbitrary and capricious and have no basis in reality whatsoever.
1. Fingerprints don't change 2. Most straw sales where criminals get guns occur that way 3. Already in place in California. Has done nothing for their crime rate. 4. MANDATORY 5. What is that going to accomplish? 6. Already proven to do nothing 7. Already proven to do nothing
well until the scumbags in the FDR administration created a fake power for the federal government to regulate firearms using the commerce clause the federal government pursuant to both the second and tenth amendments, had no power whatsoever to interfere with arms owned by private citizens
if Congress can regulated abortion, they can regulate guns. if Congress can ban same-sex marriages, they can regulate guns.
unconstitutional stupid suggestions for the most part. the ten round limit and one gun month both are idiotic
abortion is a court created right and your restrictions are idiotic you cannot give the government a power to ban me from buying another gun because I previously exercised the right within a certain period of time. It proves you are completely ignorant of what a negative restriction on the government means if cops have 17 round magazines there is absolutely no rational reason to pass a law that only limits honest citizens to ten most of the crap you push Ron is your pathetic attempt to subject the rest of us what your democrat turds in NY impose on people like you
the ten round limit reduces the ability of people to commit massacres. the one handgun per month limit reduces the ability of folks to be gun runners. an argument can be made to the social and safety benefit of both concepts.
if this is the extent of your arguments, then you're no longer interested in actually discussing the issue and are only interested in insulting and baiting people. if thats the case, I will simply put you on Ignore and that will be the end of our discussions. your choice. edit- i would be sad to Ignore you, but you've lately just been posting angry, hostile, flamebait posts. With zero interest in actual discussion.
Correct, but imposed by whom? The King? The Dictator? The authoritarian power seeking to dominate the entire land? I'm sure you are ready to take a knee for the King or Queen.
Great! So you have no problem supporting the Second Amendment. Thanks for clearing that up. BTW, just for further clarification, to do you think the Constitution gives us our rights or that it limits the Federal government?
Constitution codified rights, limits the Federal govt. and specifies what powers the Federal govt. has.
As long as they are in line with the protections in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, have at it. They should also be effective, enforceable, would be enforced and necessary. Nothing that gets proposed as "common sense" ever meets these criteria, though.
