Do any limits pass constitutional muster?

[wayneinFL]

I think the only thing constitutional would be training requirements age requirements. Pretty much anything else goes.

On 12 and 13, I don't know how we ended up wiuth those laws.

#12. If an offender is violent why is he out there on the street? Don't tell me, "This man has paid his debt to society. He is reformed and rehabilitated. he can move in next door to you and walk the street while your wife is home alone. He can hang out in the park where your kids play." Then out of the very next breath tell me, "Geez, we can't let this guy have a gun- he'll kill somebody!"

If they're violent, they need to stay in prison. If they can't keep them in prison that long and their crimes are heinous enough, then they should be executed.

Sorry for you law and order guys, but if someone commits a felony by trespassing on a construction site, by contracting without a license, or accidently walking on onto private property while hunting, he shouldn't lose his right to own firearms for the rest of his life. This just happened in Ocala: a 10 year old girl committed a felony by taking a steak knife to school to cut her food- they actually caught her cutting her food in the cafeteria, not hiding it in a sock or threatening someone with it. Should she lose her rights for life?

mental cases- i feel about the same way. If they're bad enough to be restricted from firearms they should be llowed to use a car either. They should either be in an institution or under family or professional supervision.

 

[BillCA]

With the above in mind, WMD would fall into this category and be prohibited. (infringing on others rights)

And those rights would be what, exactly?

For WMD you have "lethal chemicals"... Certain combinations of ordinary household cleaners could be listed in that group...

Yes...and no. We're talking prepared compounds of things like Sarin, Ricin or VX nerve gasses. We can include prepared compounds of mustard, chlorine and phosgene as well.

Restrictions on storage of explosive munitions (e.g. not in residential zones). NO! I can see this turning into a ban on "load your own want to store a lousy few thousand rounds for yourself situation."

Covered earlier - this would only be for explosive munitions like artillery shells, not small arms ammunition.

 

[Bob1911]

With the above in mind, WMD would fall into this category and be prohibited. (infringing on others rights)

And those rights would be what, exactly?

What I was thinking was that there are very few ways that come to mind in which to actually use WMD without greatly infringing on others rights. (the MASS part)

 

[surveyor]

read foot notes 1-10.. us court cases on 2nd amendment & constitionality

militaria act of 1792

this gets the idea of a well regulated militia, what it was intended to be, and what it consists of..

as far as militia in this, the 2nd amendment relates to things that a militia member would have..those things are diffrent than what a army would have..
so armys would have crew served weapons, tanks, aircraft carriers, cannons, WMD's, etc.. and fall outside the scope of the 2nd amendment..

so, I'd have to say the ones that would pass muster would be the crew served weapons, WMD, & artillery rounds, and age restrictions,
based on the definition of the militia..(citizens 18-45) that serve with their own supplied weapons no more than 3 months out of 12..

as far as barrel length restrictions..whatever the army standard length issue is, should be fine and unregulated.....

any shorter it may fall outside a militia weapon...sporting purposes have no bearing here..

comments based on definition of militia, from militaria act of 1792

Good topic..

 

[Pat H]

What the government can own should be limited by what we can own; if limits are to be set that's what they are Constitutionally.

In fact, the Second Amendment permits no limits set by government at all.

There are limits, however, to be set by the marketplace.

 

[BillCA]

What I was thinking was that there are very few ways that come to mind in which to actually use WMD without greatly infringing on others rights. (the MASS part)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying that, Bob.

 

[BillCA]

Surveyor,

Thank you for those educational links. By rough estimate, a Militia Division is between 6,000 and 6,300 men (depending on how you count noses).

Rough estimates:
California's potential force is 5.88 million men (does not include women, non-citizens or felons). But if only 10% volunteer (which might be optimistic) that's still roughly 90 divisions of light infantry.

If each soldier brought only 20 rounds, each division would field 120,000 rounds of ammo. Or a bit over 1 million rounds for the entire force.

The act calls for a company of mounted troops (cavalry) per division, which begs the question of where we get about 7,000 horses... and who's gonna clean up that mess?

 

[Pat H]

The act calls for a company of mounted troops (cavalry) per division, which begs the question of where we get about 7,000 horses... and who's gonna clean up that mess?

Composting?

In truth, horse manure is a fabulous vineyard top dressing, transportation costs would be the only factor, unless they were pastured in the vineyards

 

[STAGE 2]

What the government can own should be limited by what we can own; if limits are to be set that's what they are Constitutionally.

In fact, the Second Amendment permits no limits set by government at all.

There are limits, however, to be set by the marketplace.

So what you're saying is thai if Joe down the street cant have an ICBM in his backyard then the feds cant either?

None of our rights are absolute. There are reasonable limitations to everything. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't cover defamation or statements to incite violence. We have the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, but there are exceptions to that as well. People under 18 cannot vote.

Are you suggesting that the 2nd is the only amendment that is limitless? Should rapists and violent felons have the right to own guns?

 

[cold dead hands]

None of our rights are absolute

Only if you do not believe that your rights are absolute. I believe that no one has the rights to tell me me how to live my my life and what i can and cannot own provided I am doing no harm.

You claim that you do no harm with your guns and therefore you shall not be denied the right to have them.

What if some guy equates his liberty to mean that he can own a WMD provided he doesn't harm anyone unless they mean him harm?

As I asked BillCA, what makes a private weapons owner less trustworthy than a government that owns weapons. Individuals understand the harm they can do. Governments generally do not know or care. This very reason is why we are having to fight for our 2A rights.

There are reasonable limitations to everything

Intelligent folks call it compassion and concern. Moderation is a good word too.

. We have the right to not be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures, but there are exceptions to that as well

Do I need to buy you a Webster's dictionary for Christmas? What part of ''unreasonable'' do you fail to comprehend?

People under 18 cannot vote.

How does this apply to any part of the 2A?

Should rapists and violent felons have the right to own guns?

If they are so dangerous to society, why are they set free?

If they have done their time and made amends in a meaningful manner, then yes. They have the same rights to be secure in their persons (see the 4A) and in their homes.

You might want to look up the thread I started that concerns felons and firearms. Just do a thread search that concerns my user name.

 

[STAGE 2]

I see. So defamation should be perfectly legal, as well as religions that involve human sacrifice? You should be able to advocate the overthrow of the government?

Do I need to buy you a Webster's dictionary for Christmas? What part of ''unreasonable'' do you fail to comprehend?

Yes. You probably do, because if I ask 100 people what a reasonable search is I will get 100 different answers. The constitution doesn't define what reasonable is.

As I asked BillCA, what makes a private weapons owner less trustworthy than a government that owns weapons. Individuals understand the harm they can do. Governments generally do not know or care. This very reason is why we are having to fight for our 2A rights.

Well I don't know what Bill said, but the 2nd amendment itself does give some limitations. The right to bear arms doesn't include tanks, halftracks, or nuclear weapons. A person can't "bear" any of those. The second amendment protects arms. Not every military weapon known to man.

If they have done their time and made amends in a meaningful manner, then yes. They have the same rights to be secure in their persons (see the 4A) and in their homes.

So then why don't they have the right to vote?

 

[miboso]

None of our rights are absolute. There are reasonable limitations to everything. We have freedom of speech, but that doesn't cover defamation or statements to incite violence.

You may want to read that first amendment again and compare it to the second.
The first does NOT say "freedom of speech shall not be infringed", while the second DOES say "shall not be infringed".
For those who keep repeating the "freedom of speech is not absolute so neither is the second" nonsense, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMENDMENTS.

 

[STAGE 2]

You may want to read that first amendment again and compare it to the second.
The first does NOT say "freedom of speech shall not be infringed", while the second DOES say "shall not be infringed".
For those who keep repeating the "freedom of speech is not absolute so neither is the second" nonsense, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMENDMENTS.

So then folks in jail shouldn't lose their 2A rights while in jail, right?

 

[miboso]

Oh, I get it. You see rapists, murderers and thieves as being the same as you and me. You're points of view are so much clearer now.

 

[homefires]

First point: The word Felon means nothing any more. You can have a Felony Charge for almost anything now days.:barf:

Second point: What is metal limitations. What test do they use to determine a persons mental state?

Third point: If I wish to posses a 20mm, what business is it of some else as long as I don't do stupid things with it?

 

[STAGE 2]

Oh, I get it. You see rapists, murderers and thieves as being the same as you and me. You're points of view are so much clearer now.

Don't be snippy, just answer the question. If "shall not be infringed" is absolute then people in prison should be able to have firearms right?

 

[miboso]

...and so should 3-year-olds. After all, absolute does mean absolute, right, Stage 2?

There is a distinct difference in responsible citizens having an absolute right to keep and bear arms and those who are not responsible being denied that right.
I am sorry for you that you cannot see that.

 

[STAGE 2]

...and so should 3-year-olds. After all, absolute does mean absolute, right, Stage 2?

According to your view, yes. I'm not the one advocating that our rights are limitless. Thus, by your standards a 10 year old should be able to own an AR.

Either "shall not be infringed" is utterly absolute as you say, or is subject to a little common sense. Which is it.

 

[miboso]

Let me try again.
As a responsible citizen, MY rights are absolute (or would be if we actually followed the Constitution). If I were to commit a crime, my rights would be limited, at least during the time of my incarceration.
The problem is, you are trying to group individual rights.
How about this? Individual's rights are absolute unless they are in a "common sense" group that would require that they be limited. Sample groups would be children and incarcerated criminals.
Does that work for you?
It lets you and me have absolute rights while limiting your "people in jail" group.
Happy now?

 

[homefires]

?Arms? I can't find any limits of what I can have classified as arms in the sec Amendment!

No Mention of MuzzleLoader, 20mm, 105, Cannon, NOT!

They had Cannon, I assume they liked them too!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I don't understand what all of this is about. The Document clearly states in 6 grade reading level what it says! " Shall Not Be Infringed ". Again the Preamble of the Constitution starts as "WE THE PEOPLE" Not the Government! What is the problem here?