Posted on 11/20/2017 2:21:38 PM PST by davikkm
I’m a Californian, but if I could figure out a way, I would vote for JUDGE MOORE 20 times on election day.
Times four on a December 12’th election date, ( I think I have the Date right), if anybody knows how to work the system, please let me know.
Wildlife have rights too. /s
The question is what does the 2nd Amendment guarantee to each citizen and where is the line drawn as to what Congress is required to authorize?
To me the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. If you look at some of the early State Constitutions they talk about the right to keep and bear arms in protection of oneself and the State. So when the State Delegates went to the Constitutional Convention, some of they were not thinking about just a militia as in a military organization.
There is a gray area between what is a “right” under the Bill of Rights and what is granted by Congress. Do I think private ownership of nuclear weapons is a good idea? Nope. Do I think that private ownership of crew served weapons is a good idea or a right under the Bill of Rights? Not really, but we are getting close to the line on anything much less than a crew served weapon.
So, currently Congress has this cute definition of “National Firearms Act” weapons. NFA weapons are: machine guns, sound suppressors (a.k.a. silencers), short barreled shotguns, short barreled rifles, destructive devices and “any other weapons”. Exactly what these weapons are is defined in the law, as well as in court cases interpreting the law.
Do I think that an RPG is an “arm” under the Bill of Rights? How about a hand grenade? My answer is maybe. Do I think that a military looking semi-automatic, large capacity magazine rifle is an arm under the Bill of Rights? Heck yes! How about a crew served heavy machine gun? Possibly not.
Then again, we have 3 branches of government to sort this out.
So why this governor wanna be might think there are limits to the 2nd Amendment, I would wager we would draw the limits a lot differently.
...Any State Legislature could limit or ban hunting tomorrow without even touching the second amendment....
They already do that. They give that power to the natural resources, or fish and wildlife, or whatever the state calls them. They require licenses, rifle/shotgun capacity for hunting, limits on game taken, type of game taken, and the ability to close areas or species completely to hunting.
I think “arms” is clear enough. There’s no right to a B52 or an F16, but crew served machine guns would certainly qualify. Individuals may and should be prevented from developing nuclear weapons by controlling the materials used to build them. No conflict there. Ditto cannon or anti aircraft guns.
Whenever these people start talking about “common sense” or “smart” laws, you can kiss some more of your freedom goodbye.
Well, yes, they did mean SANE people, but the phrase, "the right keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is very clear.
The most important thing the Second Amendment accomplishes to me is that it makes one hell of a deterrent against government tyranny.
Another RAT politician who sees the Bill of Rights ass the Bill of Suggestions. I will bet money that his comments are not going to be well-received by the Alabama voters.
So when the US signs an arms deal with a nation for F16s they aren’t arms? What are you seeing clearly that I’m missing?
How about nukes? Are they covered? Should you, as a private citizen, be able to own a nuclear weapon?
Every law respecting arms is unConstitutional. The Second is absolute “shall not be infringed” means it cannot be limited. That means every American, hell, everybody in America has the unlimited right to possess and carry any arms. The only possible limitation possible Constitutionally is the Involuntary Servitude wording in the 13th Amendment and only applies to actual criminal prisoners while they are prisoners. What the 2nd does not recognize as a right is the USE of arms for criminal purposes. Murder thus is a legitimate crime if there is a law against murder. Possessing the gun that was used to commit the murder cannot be a crime under the Constitution.
"What are you seeing clearly that I’m missing?"
I believe I’ve already covered that one. The old “can’t yell fire” canard is a pet peeve of mine. It has nothing whatsoever to do with limitations on the first amendment, but is regularly trotted out as an argument against gun rights.
Any fool can see that falsely yelling “fire” in order to cause a panic has CONSEQUENCES. The restriction has always been about the consequences, not the act. Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater when the theater is on fire is not only protected speech, but it’s the wise choice. If you were to yell “Tomato”, no one would evacuate the building.
Yet there’s always some fool who’ll trot out the lie to justify restricting the rights of others.
H.
Yet you still haven’t answered the question. Let’s assume somehow you acquire, or build, a MOAB. Should you legally be allowed to keep that weapon? And if not, what would be the constitutional prohibition against you owning it?
I’m not obligated to answer your facetious question.
If a person can acquire the components to assemble a MOAB in their garage, then the laws controlling those components need to be looked at closely.
The point is, that there is no CONSTITUTIONAL prohibition against owning a MOAB, and that any law that specifically targets your ownership of said bomb is, prima facie, unconstitutional.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This amendment says nothing of “approved” arms, or “ineffective” arms, or even “reasonable” arms...
And the exact same arguments when applied to the first amendment are treated as farcical.
How big a word is protected by the first amendment?
How effective is your speech allowed to be and still be covered?
Is only reasonable and safe speech protected?
How about assault speech?
Yes, speech has consequences, and fighting words don’t get constitutional protection from bloody noses, but prior restraint, as a doctrine violates the first amendment and is well recognized as doing so, even by the idiot supreme court.
The exact same unlimited nature must be granted the second. It’s the unreasonable speech that requires constitutional protection, the offensive, unpopular, and non-PC opinions that some might refer to as hate-speech, or anti-government rhetoric.
Safe, pro-government, non-offensive speech would never require the protection of the first amendment. Those in power would never see the need to regulate those who follow them in agreement.
The second amendment must be interpreted to protect the right to own weapons that “nobody needs” like bazookas and MOABs or it is useless. Those in power would never see the need to regulate rubber-band guns, so long as they have access to the arms of the police and military.
The second amendment serves only one purpose: to remind those in power that they hold those positions only so long as we the people acquiesce.
It’s seems like we are taking the known definition of the term “Arms” and creating a new definition to suit a theory. Further a cannon or a ship, generally speaking, cannot be borne but both were covered under the second amendment.
"Further a cannon or a ship, generally speaking, cannot be borne but both were covered under the second amendment."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.