Constitutional Basics

[Spats McGee]

Let me apologize on the front end if I've missed key points. It's early, I'm just now on my 2nd cup of coffee, and I haven't given this thread the detailed reading that it may deserve. With all of those said, I'll toss out a couple of points:

1. Yes, there are a metric ton of people who get their "understanding" of constitutional law from sound bites. (And I'll be the first to tell you that I have grown exceptionally weary of the self-righteous Facebook Experts.)

2. Heller was not the be-all-end-all, expanding gun rights anywhere and everywhere, but it was a very big step in constitutional & 2A law. When I was in law school, we basically skipped from the 1A to the 4A in two sentences. "The 2A is the gun amendment and the 3A is about quartering soldiers. Now let's talk about the 4A." In reading legal decisions, though, it's important to remember that appellate courts only answer the questions in front of them. Anything else is an advisory opinion, and our courts don't do those.

3. I think gun control groups and leaders have made it clear that they are not interested in civil discourse. As for me, I'm fresh out of "compromises" on gun control.

 

[USNRet93]

Some snipped...
They will not be "civil" until they have won back the house, senate and president; then there is NO discourse or compromise.

Just for info.

Gun Laws Signed By Obama Expanded Rights
During his first term Obama didn't call for any major new restriction on guns or gun owners. Instead he urged authorities to enforce the state and federal laws already on the books. In fact, Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners.

One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of car that enter national parks.

Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

This when Obama and congress were democrat majority.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

I just don't think it's as 'black or white' as you say. There are plenty pf GOP who favor gun control measures and plenty of Dems who are for pro gun rights..Not at 'civil war' stage quite yet, IMHO, of course.

 

[DT Guy]

Just for info.


This when Obama and congress were democrat majority.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595

I just don't think it's as 'black or white' as you say. There are plenty pf GOP who favor gun control measures and plenty of Dems who are for pro gun rights..Not at 'civil war' stage quite yet, IMHO, of course.

Well, there's one political party who has made it an official plank of their party's platform.
There is one party whose leadership continually calls for greater restrictions on firearms.
There is one party that, almost completely along party lines, has supported further restrictions on firearms.

So while you may not see it as 'black and white', it's far from grey. Perhaps a very, very dark grey versus a slightly off-white? Either way, arguing 'there is no difference' between the two major parties is simply fallacious.

Larry

 

[USNRet93]

Well, there's one political party who has made it an official plank of their party's platform.
There is one party whose leadership continually calls for greater restrictions on firearms.
There is one party that, almost completely along party lines, has supported further restrictions on firearms.

So while you may not see it as 'black and white', it's far from grey. Perhaps a very, very dark grey versus a slightly off-white? Either way, arguing 'there is no difference' between the two major parties is simply fallacious.

Larry

Didn't say that, that there was 'no differences' between the parties. I said that the last time the Dems were in control of 2 of the 3 parts of US government, there were 2 pro gun rights measures passed. Granted, history is not a predictor of the future BUT

Take a look at the 2016 GOP official party platform and see if there is anything in it you 'may' disagree with.

Same for Dem 'party platform'. They are huge and are an exercise in typing more than anything else. VERY little in these platforms actually see the light of day as a 'law'..

BUT is GOP more 'gun rights' and Dems more 'gun control'..yes BUT Not a zero sum tho, not either/or..Not a civil war 'plank'..IMHO.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/02/04/congress-gun-ownership-survey/1891191/

 

[Brownstone322]

When I started this topic many months ago ... wait, no, it was just four days ago ... I primarily wanted to know if others recognized that still others do not seem to understand that constitutional rights refer only to the authority of government. I think misunderstandings of that simple concept — regarding any constitutional right — represent profound ignorance in our society. That’s all I really had in mind (although it took a little setup to express).

Oh, and I also wanted to know what our esteemed panel thought might be probable sources for this basic disconnect. That’s it.

But, sure, I guess I knew where the thread might lead. I offer my thanks to those who stayed more or less around the topic. As for those now prepared to barricade themselves in their homes with 5,000 rounds of .223, I just dunno ...

 

[davidsog]

The most important thing we gained from Heller was the Supreme Court's recognition that the RKBA is an individual right, unconnected to military service. That puts a stake through the heart of the anti-gunners' claims that the 2A applies only to militia service, and that today the National Guard is the militia. (Hint: it isn't.)

Exactly and what my post was about!! I just dug up the Militia Laws and some examples of State Militia Law. To most of us it is pretty common sense, everyone was expected to be armed to defend themselves, their homes, towns, country, and yes...even against "tyranny". That was just an implicit duty of citizenship.

davidsog says:

So, any argument that the 2nd Amendment only applies to organized military forces or confined to sporting arms is simply not factual.

IMHO, An AR-15 or Military Style arm is not a by-product of the 2nd Amendment, it is central too and the implicit reason for that Amendment.

Heller didn't address a right to self defense outside of the home

The Heller ruling was very narrowly focused, by design and intent.

Yes. Unfortunately, you eat an Elephant one bite at a time.

The fact we were able to invalidate the entire "Militia" and "Service Connection" argument is a significant step forward on a long journey.

 

[davidsog]

I think gun control groups and leaders have made it clear that they are not interested in civil discourse. As for me, I'm fresh out of "compromises" on gun control.

Why do people think being civil means compromising?????????

 

[44 AMP]

That puts a stake through the heart of the anti-gunners' claims that the 2A applies only to militia service, and that today the National Guard is the militia. (Hint: it isn't.)

This got me to thinking (seldom a good thing) and if you look at just what was written, the 2nd Amendment DOES only apply to militia service. It very clearly states that the militia is necessary, and because of that the Govt shall not infringe the people's right to keep and bear arms.

The fallacy of the anti-gun argument about the right to keep and bear is thinking it ONLY applies to militia service. The 2nd Amendment explains one reason, and only one reason why the Government should not restrict our arms. There are other reasons. Personal reasons. Reasons described as "natural rights", not constitutional right.

Heller recognized this, that we have a right to arms APART from militia service. We would have this same right if there were no 2nd Amendment.

the second amendment is done then. It’s only intention is to defend against a tyrannical government, so if you can’t do that there’s no point in ownership of firearms.

That was THEIR argument. And so sayeth the politician who said the people can't win against the govt because the govt has nukes! Therefore, no point in fighting...

Again, defense against an out of control govt is only ONE reason to have arms. The soundbyte educated people,(and this does not depend on income, social class, or educational opportunities, it depends on personal choices) and their puppet masters (the ones who create the soundbytes) think and advocate that resistance to the govt is the ONLY reason to be armed, and since that is a laughable idea, here in the beginning of the 21st century, we don't NEED arms, and therefore, since THEY don't see a need, WE should not be ALLOWED to have them.

They rail endlessly about what an evil thing it is to profile people (pick your parameters, race, religion, style of dress, etc) and yet they seem incapable of recognizing (or perhaps just admitting) that is exactly what they are doing to gun owners.

As Reagan, and no doubt many others through history have said, "the problem with our opponents is not what they don't know, it is that so much of what they do know, is wrong!"

 

[Spats McGee]

Why do people think being civil means compromising?????????

Why do you think gun control groups want to talk to gun owners about anything other than these so-called "compromises?"

 

[davidsog]

Why would you talk to gun control groups? They have already made up their mind. Trying to picture in my mind some guy banging on the doors A.C.O.R.N. yelling "Come out and talk to me about Guns!!"

Does not pass the common sense test and really not going to get you anywhere.

Be smarter than that. Talk to your neighbors, co-workers,....people that vote. Bring it up in conversation and start a discussion. If presented with incivility respond with civil, rational, discourse and do not let emotion get the better of you.

 

[davidsog]

The fallacy of the anti-gun argument about the right to keep and bear is thinking it ONLY applies to militia service. The 2nd Amendment explains one reason, and only one reason why the Government should not restrict our arms. There are other reasons. Personal reasons. Reasons described as "natural rights", not constitutional right.

Good point. It is a shame so many people today do seem to understand the origin of Governmental power and rights.

They think Washington DC has granted us some rights out of the goodness of their little beltway hearts!!!

 

[rickyrick]

You’re right, davidsog, the main body of the constitution outlines the framework of the federal government and I see the Bill of Rights as a list of rights the government has no business in interfering with.
The government grants me no rights.

 

[davidsog]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is the 10th Amendment.

Something else that struck me as interesting....

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.

Notice the language does not say "the United States", "Government", or any specific administrative entity formed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is very specific and is not ambiguous about who has what power.

It simply says " a free State".

 

[davidsog]

https://conventionofstates.com/take_action/volunteer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVQH0JbwIgA&feature=youtu.be

 

[Aguila Blanca]

But, sure, I guess I knew where the thread might lead. I offer my thanks to those who stayed more or less around the topic. As for those now prepared to barricade themselves in their homes with 5,000 rounds of .223, I just dunno ...

Yeah, 5,000 rounds isn't nearly enough. IMHO we should be thinking at least 20,000 rounds as a starting point ...

 

[44 AMP]

Why would you talk to gun control groups... If presented with incivility respond with civil, rational, discourse and do not let emotion get the better of you.

The point is to be seen talking to gun control groups, displaying our open mindedness to those who have not already put themselves in one camp or the other. We need to be seen as the calm, rational ones, respectful of others, and NOT wild eyed slogan spouting wackos who are dangerous because we have guns.

The wild eyed slogan spouting wackos on the other side don't seem dangerous to the undecided, as they don't have guns! (though many actually do, either personally owned, or hired with their users)

It's irritating, its frustrating, but if we don't at least appear to have the MORAL high ground even though we have the legal high ground (for now) we could lose that position through simply majority rule.

Because simply put, together there are more under informed, misguided and deliberately mislead voters on gun issues than there are of us. Added to the votes of the "true believers" we are unlikely to be a numerical majority.

Why are the fanatics on the other side working so hard to paint the NRA, and all gun owners as bad guys? There's a simple answer. Because if we AREN'T then we must be the good guys and THEY are the bad guys...

which, I've always thought they were...

 

[davidsog]

The point is to be seen talking to gun control groups, displaying our open mindedness to those who have not already put themselves in one camp or the other. We need to be seen as the calm, rational ones, respectful of others, and NOT wild eyed slogan spouting wackos who are dangerous because we have guns.

The wild eyed slogan spouting wackos on the other side don't seem dangerous to the undecided, as they don't have guns! (though many actually do, either personally owned, or hired with their users)

It's irritating, its frustrating, but if we don't at least appear to have the MORAL high ground even though we have the legal high ground (for now) we could lose that position through simply majority rule.

Because simply put, together there are more under informed, misguided and deliberately mislead voters on gun issues than there are of us. Added to the votes of the "true believers" we are unlikely to be a numerical majority.

Why are the fanatics on the other side working so hard to paint the NRA, and all gun owners as bad guys? There's a simple answer. Because if we AREN'T then we must be the good guys and THEY are the bad guys...

which, I've always thought they were...

Bingo!

Why that is a great idea, Mr El Salvadorian Infantry Platoon Leader!

 

[davidsog]

at least 20,000 rounds

That is already distributed on the line with more in the bunker.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I happen to agree with you but as gun owners we need a better response than:

We have reasonable measures, and have had for a long time.

In order to fight back.

Things like measurable metrics and facts. Not just parroting an opinion.

One might then ask, if there are 20,000 existing gun laws on the books (a number I see cited often, with no substantiation. Let's just go with it, for argument), how can one compile "measurable metrics" if 19,997 of those 20,000 laws are never enforced? The only way to come up with a meaningful (as opposed to measurable) metric would be to analyze every criminal act that involves a firearm against all potentially applicable state and federal firearms laws, and then compile statistics on how many laws were actually violated in the incident compared to how many violations were actually charged, prosecuted, and convicted. It would, I suspect, be a Herculean task, but that's the kind of statistics that are needed to demonstrate the folly of trying to solve every problem by just creating a new law rather than enforcing the laws already on the books.

This is a slight detour, but I'll cite it as an example: Many years ago, when I was still in my second marriage and living in a New England state that still had on the books a number of old "blue laws," a couple of nice, "New Age" young women who ran a New Age book shop in a small town decided to host a psychic fair. The local police saw the advertising and paid the young women a visit, warning that if they went ahead with the event they would be arrested. The problem was that there was a law on the books that said it was illegal to (a) advertise fortune-telling services, and (b) to "fraudulently" predict the future for money.

The psychic fair was cancelled. Meanwhile, in another town in the same state, a woman was arrested and prosecuted under this law. She did not advertise -- her business was a sideline, her clientele all came to her by word of mouth, and the police called her for an appointment in a sting operation; she didn't reach them by advertising. Two cops posing as a couple went to her home, had a reading, handed her some money ... and slapped the cuffs on her.

At trial, the prosecutor dutifully brought in both cops to testify that they had made an appointment, had gone to the house, had obtained a reading, and had paid money. Done. The prosecution rested. The judge called the defense, whereupon the defense attorney did NOT put on any defense. Instead, he moved for dismissal. Everyone in the room looked at him as if he was crazy. The judge asked why he should dismiss.

"Because, your Honor, the law under which my client is charged prohibits two things: advertising to tell the future, and fraudulently claiming to foretell the future for money. The prosecution has not presented any evidence that my client did either of these things. The officers' testimony established that there was no advertising. The prosecution made no attempt to demonstrate that anything my client did was fraudulent by intent. Therefore, I move to dismiss."

The judge considered this for about a minute, re-read the statute, and said, "Case dismissed."

In the next session of the legislature, that statute was repealed. Not "revised," but "repealed." In testimony during the hearing on the bill to repeal it, it was documented that the law had been on the books for eighty-eight (88) years, and the ONLY case in which it was taken to trial was the one that was dismissed because neither the police nor the prosecution even understood what it said.

How many of those existing 20,000 (or so) gun laws are like this? How many have been on the books since forever but have never even been used to charge someone? Or have been on the books forever and are routinely ignored by the police? I could cite examples of that, too, but this is a post, not a textbook, so I'll skip that.

How can we begin compiling a body of statistics showing how many existing gun laws are NOT enforced, even when they could be cited in incidents involving firearms?

 

[WyMark]

Just for info.
Quote:
Gun Laws Signed By Obama Expanded Rights
During his first term Obama didn't call for any major new restriction on guns or gun owners. Instead he urged authorities to enforce the state and federal laws already on the books. In fact, Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners.

One of the laws allows gun owners to carry weapons in national parks; that law took effect in February 2012 and replaced President Ronald Reagan's policy of required guns be locked in glove compartments of trunks of car that enter national parks.

Another gun law signed by Obama allows Amtrak passengers to carry guns in checked baggage, a move that reversed a measure put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
This when Obama and congress were democrat majority.

https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-...ngress-3367595

I just don't think it's as 'black or white' as you say. There are plenty pf GOP who favor gun control measures and plenty of Dems who are for pro gun rights..Not at 'civil war' stage quite yet, IMHO, of course.

That's all just crazy talk. Hell, everyone knows that the only guns Obama didn't take away were the ones he left for Hillary to seize.