Is shall not be infringed supposed to be taken literally?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Vegas giants, Jan 1, 2017.

  1. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I know some of you believe this. But why? Virtually no legal scholar believes this. Scalia didn't. So how can people still believe this?
     
  2. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why did Madison write "shall not be infringed" if he didn't mean it?

    Did the Framers ever write a single law to infringed firearms ownership?
     
  3. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I didn't ask if Madison believed it. I asked if you do currently
     
  4. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, you asked two questions: "But why? Virtually no legal scholar believes this. Scalia didn't. So how can people still believe this?"

    My response was designed to address why people might still believe it. Madison certainly believed it, as did the Framers, who never restricted firearms ownership in any way. Are current restrictions constitutional? Should those be re-examined to ensure that they are Constitutional?
     
  5. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I concede Madison and the framers believed it but few legal scholars do now. Most agree restrictions can be constitutional
     
  6. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And those restrictions are well defined by Cruickshank, Miller, Heller and McDonald. It's amazing that states continue to try to violate those limitations on 2A restrictions.
     
  7. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Legal scholars also believe that those who are in the united states illegally have rights afforded to them by the constitution.
     
  8. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So the you agree that shall not be infringed should not be taken literally....right?
     
  9. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At this point, it cannot.
     
  10. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good. I agree.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I would also point out that if restrictions can be defined by the Supreme Court they can be redefined by future Supreme Court decisions
     
  11. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you agree that the allowable restrictions are covered by Miller, Heller, and McDonald?
     
  12. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. And they can be redefined by other decisions.
     
  13. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,604
    Likes Received:
    11,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then they're wrong. The Constitution is not changed just because some legal scholars "don't believe it".

    But not all restrictions. When you say "restrictions can be constitutional" you are being overly broad. We may agree that some conditions to firearms ownership do not "infringe", but that some do.
     
  14. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How does a condition not infringe? Some groups are not even allowed to own a gun
     
  15. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    29,948
    Likes Received:
    20,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Scalia knew that the federal government was not supposed to have any powers over private individuals acting in their own home states. the commerce clause was never interpreted to allow such power until FDR came along and the FDR administration completely gutted the tenth amendment while drastically expanding the CC to give congress basically any power it wanted to.

    Scalia-according to one of his most famous law clerks-Professor Steven Calabresi-currently a visiting professor at Yale Law and normally a chaired professor at NW-was a "faint hearted originalist" meaning he was willing to overlook clear violations of the original intent of the founders when those violations have been "become a relied upon part of our jurisprudential fabric"

    Scalia knew that if the commerce clause was properly interpreted most of the new deal institutions that millions of Americans have become dependent upon such as SS, Title VII, Title IX, medicare etc.

    if you look at the wording of both the second amendment (which takes precedence over the main body of the constitution) and Article ONE SECTION 8 you cannot find any language that even remotely delegates a legitimate power to the federal government to interfere with arms private citizens own.
     
  16. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,604
    Likes Received:
    11,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Like felons, for example. So then you have to go back to what the framers intended when they said "the people", not "shall not be infringed". I would argue that the "people" meant loyal, law-abiding citizens. Some people on this board will not agree with me, I know. But I don't think it is reasonable to think that the framers were talking about robbers and murderers. I think they intended to say that the right of the people was extended to "the people" who would possess firearms for legitimate purposes, such as the defense of the state, self-defense, and hunting. I think it is unreasonable on its face to suggest that the framers intended to protect the right of criminals to possess firearms to further their desire to commit murder and robbery using firearms.
     
  17. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He also famously said he supported some restrictions on the second amendment. And thus my point
     
  18. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, but here we are.
     
  19. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you wish to make that interpretation then what they meant by the people were white land owning men. And that group alone
     
  20. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,604
    Likes Received:
    11,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know if the framers meant "white land-owning men" or not. Even if they did, they didn't write it into the Constitution. I am, however, quite certain that it was not their intent to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms to robbers and murderers.
     
  21. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are lots of other restrictions. Should every one of them be abandoned?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Do you think they meant women or black people?
     
  22. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    29,948
    Likes Received:
    20,041
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    and that is because he was not willing to actually enforce the tenth amendment.
    that a judge who is part of the system thinks the system should have powers that were not given it really means nothing to me

    if you actually read Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller, his main argument was that HE COULD NOT CONCEIVE that the founders would NOT GIVE THE NEW GOVERNMENT THE POWER to restrict firearms and thus he was going to find that the government did have it. Talk about dishonest BS at its worst

    - - - Updated - - -

    yeah so what we need to do is to continue to push for judges like Thomas who seem to want to roll back the idiocy of the FDR nonsense. THE ONLY WAY that the second amendment can be read and interpreted properly is that it is a BLANKET BAN ON THE federal government

    does anyone REALLY believe that the founders wanted the court to become involved in determining what infringements INFRINGE?

    it makes no sense but FDR didn't given a damn
     
  23. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good luck with that. Does that blanket ban apply to the states, or can states restrict as they wish?
     
  24. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are certainly in the minority among legal scholars
     
  25. Seth Bullock

    Seth Bullock Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2015
    Messages:
    13,604
    Likes Received:
    11,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There are really very few restrictions other than the criminal record. There are hoops to jump through, such as a background check, but I do not see that hoop as an infringement on the right. A couple of years ago I walked into a department store to go grocery shopping. This is a chain that has a large grocery section and a department section that includes a sporting goods section. In the time it took my wife to do the grocery shopping, I was background checked and purchased an AR-15 rifle, and I walked out of the store with our groceries and my new AR-15.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I don't know. I don't think it matters though. Your OP asks if "shall not be infringed" should be taken literally.
     

Share This Page