Are ANY Gun Laws Legal?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm notorious for rambling to make a succinct point. I'm hoping to make an exception to the rule (especially in a thread like this).

Here's my view on "absolute" however hypocritical:

I believe our Constitutional rights are an absolute as long as my neighbor isn't harmed by my actions. If someone chooses to buy and keep 5000 ARs after a ban is placed on them, for example, I see no problem. The so called "law" is null and void by what the Constitution simply states. That person isn't doing anything to hurt me by simply owning those firearms.
 
"This is OUR LAW. And to impose anything other than this on THE PEOPLE would have to be aiding our ENEMIES. Which I believe is covered under the judicial sections as "TREASON".
If some of the polititians were held responsible for their ACTS against THE PEOPLE, maybe we could have a workable CONSTITUTION."

More than just a little overly wrought, and not particularly useful.

The Framers, once they were done writing the Constitution, didn't simply kick back, drink some rum, order up some cheese steaks and go down to the corner for some bodacious Philly hookers.

They were intelligent enough to recognize that the Constitution, as many have tried to interpret it, is NOT the end -- it was the beginning, a framework that required FAR more behind it than 4 simple pages.

So, what you're really saying, then, is that those fine men, the creators of our Representative Republic, were patriots when crafting the Constitution, but the very second that they moved on to the laying out the US code, they became traitors?

What are you smoking, and can I have some?
 
Certainly some gun laws are constitutional as no right is unlimited. Examples would be prohibiting people convicted of certain crimes from owning firearms (that person's rights are forfeit upon his conviction), banning of the carry of weapons in "sensitive places," and prohibition on "dangerous or unusual weapons" as SCOTUS chooses to define it. However, the rub lies in the details of what crimes warrant removal of Second Amendment rights, what places are sensitive enough to ban the carry of weapons, and what types of weapons may be considered dangerous or unusual.
 
However, the rub lies in the details of what crimes warrant removal of Second Amendment rights, what places are sensitive enough to ban the carry of weapons, and what types of weapons may be considered dangerous or unusual.
Click to expand...

This is correct. The 2A is not well settled. Heller was a big victory but it could be substantially curtailed should the court in the future decide that while it is an individual right it can be restricted in such a way as to make it not much of a right at all.

I don't believe for instance that a person should permanently lose a right based upon conviction for any crime defined by statute as a misdemeanor. If such crimes were so bad that they warrant forfeiture of rights they ought to be felonies. But there are still further questions like protective orders and can they be the basis for a temporary loss of a right? Also mental Illness?

And while I don't believe that a machine gun is dangerous or unusual but an RPG or hand grenade probably is.

Will the SCOTUS agree with all my thoughts? Probably not.
 
it would be legal to libel and slander other people.
Click to expand...
There's the obvious "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre." argument, which is technically a "violation" of free speech but a reasonable one, in this case.
Click to expand...

Shouting "Fire!" in a theater and libel and slander may be illegal, but they have nothing to do with the first amendment, for Congress (so far as I know) has written no laws regarding this. If Congress has, then that would be a violation of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law..." etc.

The wording of the second amendment must be pretty strong if people have to continually look to a misunderstanding of the first to justify violating it.
 
In fact, Hugo Black, a Supreme Court justice, firmly believed in the plain language of the First amendment. 'NO LAW" MEANS NO LAW, PERIOD. No slippery slope, no restrictions.
I believe Scalia, Thomas, and a few others have the same view...
You can yell whatever you want, the Congress of the United States cannot write and pass a law limiting your freedom of speech. PERIOD. If you yell fire in a theatre, you are going to held responsible for the damage done by your act, in the tort system.

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.
Click to expand...

Seems like the above is pretty clear. It also seems like that amendment is targeted ahead of the 14th amendment, at the states in particular, as well as the Federal government.

The Constitution was written to limit the power of the FEDERAL government, and to stop it from expanding it's power, and oppressing it's people.
 
Last edited:
To answer the OP. Yes, some gun laws are both legal and constitutional. The real question is: Which ones?
Click to expand...

How about providing a Constitutional argument WHY these laws are legal?

Please explain why gun laws are legal, when the Constitution states:
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.
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
Socrates said:
How about providing a Constitutional argument WHY these laws are legal?
Click to expand...

Didn't Justice Scalia just do that recently? Read what he said as he writes a lot better than I.

Also, don't put too much on a plain reading of the 2A. I have talked to lots of smart people who don't come to the same conclusion as do some about it's "plain" meaning.
 
Scalia wrote what he did to pass Heller. If, after 200 years, the SCOTUS has dogged this issue, a RADICAL change of position is not wise. An incremental change, is.
 
Also, don't put too much on a plain reading of the 2A. I have talked to lots of smart people who don't come to the same conclusion as do some about it's "plain" meaning.
Click to expand...

Have those same people ever read any of the Founding Fathers' writings and known opinions regarding gun ownership?
 
The Framers, once they were done writing the Constitution, didn't simply kick back, drink some rum, order up some cheese steaks and go down to the corner for some bodacious Philly hookers.
Click to expand...

Bet ya Ben franklin grabbed some of those hookers....:D

WildoldhellfirebenmyfavfoundingfatherAlaska TM
 
I believe our Constitutional rights are an absolute as long as my neighbor isn't harmed by my actions. If someone chooses to buy and keep 5000 ARs after a ban is placed on them, for example, I see no problem. The so called "law" is null and void by what the Constitution simply states. That person isn't doing anything to hurt me by simply owning those firearms.
Click to expand...

We are wandering into the realm of what level of weaponery is protected again.

Can a person keep my favorite biological WMD of Anthrax in his garage if he doesn't harm anyone?

Some level of weaponery poses a substantial mass risk.

We know that we have folks who might do an extraordinary amount of damage with such weapons.

Should they be allowed to sit on them until they use them?

I googled to find that there are laws and controversy about the regulation of purchasing ammonium nitrate. Should that right to purchase be unregulated because of the 2nd Amend.?

The Constitution isn't absolute - get over it.
 
The USSC has ruled that we have a right to own firearms and a right to defend ourselves. On the other hand they have said that they may be regulated.

I have no problems obtaining a firearm here in the great state of Texas. It takes longer to do the form and ring the purchase up than to make the call and get approval in all of my transactions. This keeps firearms out of the hands of those who should not have them. I have never been denied my Second Amendment rights under these laws.

If I have the money I can purchase a fully automatic firearm. I think the sytem here could use some change but once again I am not denied my Second Amendment rights.

What we tend to home in on is the word Freedom and we forget about the word Responsibility. With freedom comes responsibilty which means some sacrifice on your part to enjoy that freedom. Freedom and responsibility are joined at the hip.

If my buying a firearm means a little inconvenience in minutes so that criminals and people who do not need to purchase a firearm dont get them that comes under responsibility.

Without responsiblity freedom means nothing. Freedom isn't free.

Also I beleive some communities in Illinois that had banned firearms have caved in and removed those bans due to pressure from pro gun groups. In this economic hard times the communities dont have the dollars to fight in court . I beleive we will see more of these cities cave in as pro gun groups pressure them.
 
Socrates said:
You can yell whatever you want, the Congress of the United States cannot write and pass a law limiting your freedom of speech. PERIOD. If you yell fire in a theatre, you are going to held responsible for the damage done by your act, in the tort system.
Click to expand...

In fact there are plenty of laws limiting freedom of speech: laws prohibiting certain kinds of pornography, for example, or laws requiring permits for political demonstrations (which is a twofer, as they also limit freedom of assembly). And whether or not these laws are constitutional is also a matter of considerable debate.

As EricReynolds has pointed out, the framers of the Constitution made it possible -- not easy, but possible -- to change it, since they recognized that changing times would likely require this. And reinterpreting it has gone on regularly, also as a response to changing times. What changes might require the Constitution to be updated or reinterpreted? Well, business practices can change -- hence the interpretations of the word "person" in the Fourteenth Amendment which gave corporations the same rights as persons (a truly bad idea, IMHO, but I guess it seemed like a good idea at the time...). People's opinions about what's right may change: hence we have amendments prohibiting slavery, and giving women the vote.

Of course, for any given reinterpretation, those in favor tend to label it "strict construction," while those against it call it "judicial activism," "legislating from the bench," or some such... :rolleyes: But which it is seems to depend heavily on the observer's point of view.

So there's nothing sacred about the Second Amendment; if enough people in this country want it changed, or, say, reinterpreted to prohibit individual ownership of firearms, it will be. (No, I am NOT advocating this, thank you very much!)

It will be interesting to see just how Heller plays out in specific cases, although, Glenn, I rather doubt that it'll protect your right to own fertilizer.
 
Thanks for the link, Glenn. I'd forgotten about that particular use of obscenity statutes....

Here's another one, to a story about a more current prosecution under Federal obscenity statutes:

http://a.abcnews.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4222798&page=1

So, yes, Federal limitations on the First Amendment are alive and well.

And isn't there a Zen koan that goes, "What is the smell of Internet fertilizer?" :)
 
Last edited:
The only restrictions on free speech involve using speech in ways that hurt others (libel, child pornography, etc). Since murder and assault are already illegal, the same restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms already existed before any of this communist bull**** started.

Using the restrictions on the right to free speech as a standard, any restriction on the type and non-assaultive use of firearms is unConstitutional, period.
 
We are wandering into the realm of what level of weaponery is protected again.
Click to expand...

Where do you get this assumption? I haven't seen one post that supports your case.

Can a person keep my favorite biological WMD of Anthrax in his garage if he doesn't harm anyone?
Some level of weaponery poses a substantial mass risk.
We know that we have folks who might do an extraordinary amount of damage with such weapons.
Should they be allowed to sit on them until they use them?
Click to expand...

WMD is a far cry from what a firearm is. The 2A, last I checked, was talking about firearms.

I googled to find that there are laws and controversy about the regulation of purchasing ammonium nitrate. Should that right to purchase be unregulated because of the 2nd Amend.?
Click to expand...

What does fertilizer have anything to do with being classified as a firearm?

The Constitution isn't absolute - get over it.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I WON'T get over it. If people would quit overcomplicating a simple amendment and trying to read too much into it, law abiding gunowners would be better off. This is one of the biggest problems we have today, even in our own community. It's too important to me to just walk away without a concerted effort.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top