The former has already been ruled unconstitutional; the latter would as well. In the US, the state cannot require a license for the exercise of a right, because the state did not grant the right and thus has no standing to issue a license for same. But... none of these tings prevents someone from killing a lot of people with a gun.
The united state supreme court has already ruled that such an approach is unconstitutional, as it would amount to a total prohibition on an entire class of firearms that is in common use, and is overwhelmingly owned for legitimate purposes.
It is, and its a question for folks who want more gun control- which I don't. I already specified one line I would have drawn if I had the opportunity: taking gun rights from marijuana users. Except we never voted on that, regulatory agencies just started doing it and not enough people resisted. Now its precedent.
To you they are adult toys. To a couple of pissed off guys last week they are tools, with 31 dead and 38 injured.
For me the line can be drawn at weaponry not designed to be operated by a single individual. Basically handguns, shotguns, rifles are fine. Basically weaponry that an individual can carry and wield effectively. Anything beyond that and I don't really care if it's regulated and/or prohibited. Do I believe citizens should be able to own crew served firearms? Yeah. Do I really care that it's highly regulated? No not really, not enough to fight against it.
Correct statement. Another person choosing to misuse the weapons and commit murder is not a valid justification to prohibit others from owning them. To me my sports car is an adult toy used for fun. To a pissed off guy a couple years ago a vehicle was a tool used to commit mass murder. That too does not justify prohibiting me from owning a car. The individual misusing the equipment for nefarious purposes is dealt with under law. As it should be.
Sometimes, tools are misused. This on no way supports the removal of those tools from society, especially when the right to own and use them is specifically protected by the constitution.
Yes but you could pass laws requiring registration. Long waiting periods to own one and of course universal background checks and limits on magazine size. Personally I think all firearm should be registered with sever penalties for failure to do so. But I would like a reference to the Supreme Court decision
Where in 2A does it say that only some people may bare arms? I I am told it is an inalienable right held by ALL, even the marijuana users.
I agree. snopes (oddly) has a pretty good breakdown on this (despite claiming its false... typical snopes): https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cannabis-marijuana-guns/ As I said, I never would've supported restricting either, much less using one as to means to restrict the other. I agree its unconstitutional.
Good of the ignorant to ask questions. Right of The People. In United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the Court said that “the people” refers to those “persons who are part of a national community,” or who have “substantial connections” to the United States.10 The touch-stone was not citizenship, but the extent of one’s connection to this country https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf Rights can also be removed thru due process as described in the 5th Amendment.
Yes, but all of the ideas for gun reform I proposed where raised in answer to the question raised in the tread i.e. what would I change if I could. The key word being if - my suggestions were more along the line of a wish list rather than practical suggestions. In fact unless or until there is a move towards Constitutional reform in the US I don't see any reductions in the high levels of US gun fatalities/injuries occurring. Upward movement yes, downward no. There is simply nothing that can be done in terms of legislation given the firm historical precedents set by the US Supreme Court re gun control legislation. The US just has to endure the self inflicted pain.
Bingo. Now please tell that to the current Democrat Party in the United States. If you want to mess with gun rights then amend the Constitution.
But....but....but.........US resident citizen marijuana smoker is part of the national community and has substantial connection with the US, yes. So do the certified crazies who are US resident citizens.
That's the problem though, it cant just be a Democrat endorsed amendment or a Republican endorsed amendment for that matter. There has to be a degree of cross party support. And then the group supporting an amendment will have to fight their way through the howls of indication coming from both the far right and the far left just to get some clear air space for rational discussion. There are elements on the Right who will never accept even the slightest proposed changes in scope to the 2nd amendment without crying socialism, UN control and whatever other war cry they can raise. Meanwhile elements on the left will undermine any chance for real change by immediately pushing for 'more', which is pure gold for those opposed to any change because they will use those calls for more as proof that there is a hidden agenda at play with the real aim of to taking everyone's guns away. Even trying to insert words like responsible or competent would probably be opposed.
Probably.... both are terms of subjective measurement not unlike the oft used ‘reasonable’ or ‘common sense’ proffered by the anti gun clack as if they referred to some universal standard, which they don’t.
Yes, but I was trying to think of and use language that would merge with that of the original document - which deserves something better than a abridged summery from guns and ammo. Any amendment would also have to be accompanied by a riding document that clearly outlined the intentions of the drafters rather than leaving it to those on the extreme left or right try to hijack that interpretation to suit their own purposes.
Noting also that interpreting the 2nd Commandment in the first place (and all the others ) is a pretty subjective process to start with . After all it hardly spells out in exact detail what the founding fathers intentions were re; firearm rights. If subjectivity is the key issue it cant really be interpreted at all.
Nothing subjective at all about the 2A despite the anti gun clack’s attempts to make it appear so. Funny, despite the 2A being among the BOR, each amendment of which limits the Government’s from establishing laws to limit, ask any American from the last 200 years what the 2A does and most, usually without reading it, will say, erroneously, it grants (as opposed to recognizes and protects) gun rights. The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled on it....case closed. But, the Left continues to try to make it appear to be a nuanced interpretation to in attempts to nullify it rather than make a concerted campaign to repeal it, a campaign they can’t win.
All rights are limited. The old "you can't yell fire in a theater" for public safety reasons. What you can do is buy a hundred round magazine and kill nine people in 32 seconds in Dayton.
Ownership of a firearm does not serve to threaten or harm anyone, or otherwise interfere with the concept of public safety. It is only when something is used in a reckless and dangerous manner, that public safety is put at risk. It is not the ownership of a magazine capable of holding one hundred rounds of ammunition that puts anyone at the risk of harm. It is only when someone decides they are going to commit murder, that harm is posed to others. Therefore the second amendment covers and protects everything related to firearms, except for when they are used in the commission of a crime.
Exactly. If they have to bring an AR15 to stop someone from killing me, then clearly I should have one as the target of the attack.
