If the 2nd is an Individual right does that mean registration is unconstitutional?

How many? I don't know, but here are a few examples:
Scott v. Sandford
Roe v. Wade
Gonzales v. Raich
Inconsistency between “Gonzales v. Raich” and “Gonzales v. Oregon”, which have the same basic principles.
Wickard v. Filburn

....and who says there are mistakes, except them
Click to expand...
Anyone that has a reasonable command of the English language and logic.
 
I am still trying to figure out what purpose registering guns (much less cars) is other than a revenue builder.

I don't buy into the "providing ammo" deal. Heck we can't supply enough to our armed forces. Sure "Spec ops" types get plenty of ammo. Everyone else? Not so. I am sure some are satisfied with the amount of trigger time, but I believe the vast majority could use more.

Even as a revenue builder, it won't be that good. At least until they start jacking up prices. Think of the DMV.... imagine have to go to the DATF (department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms). I would get stuck behind that guy with 40 some odd firearms....oh wait, that sounds familiar :D "Aw crap, I got to take that darn firearms profiency test again!!" We all know how well the drivers test helps us out

As far as the original question? Constitutional? Probably.... At least initially for the right reasons (which I can't seem to figure any out). Just to track them? No. I can understand explosives, volatile compounds, hazardous waste, etc... But guns?
 
Anyone that has a reasonable command of the English language and logic.
Click to expand...

Great what do we need a Court for...we have me :)

No wait, you wouldnt like my decisions...

WildbacktosquareoneAlaska

PS Tell me what is wrong with Rickard vs Filburn, with citations please to prior case law. Or are you just finding some right wing bete noirs on the net.
 
Great what do we need a Court for...we have me
Click to expand...
But, wait! Don't forget I also included a command of logic. Your decisions (and many of the court's) aren't logically drawn from the text of the Constitution (including amendments), nor from the words and purpose of the founders (You know, that limited government, personal responsibility crap).
 
Your decisions (and many of the court's) aren't logically drawn from the text of the Constitution (including amendments), nor from the words and purpose of the founders (You know, that limited government, personal responsibility crap).
Click to expand...

OK..great..anaylze one for us...dont forget citations :)

Prior to that YOU tell us what the founders said, not just a rehash from a milita site :)

Dude we have been down this road on this Board for thousands of posts. IMHO, it just doesnt cut it anymore now that WE are in the ascendent legally and legislatively.


WildihaveaplanAlaska
 
How about crime investigation?
Click to expand...

I guess I could buy that....not very easily. In order for it to be effective, case samples, bullet samples, and other stuff need to be cataloged. Registration alone may not do very much. Now we are talking lotsa money....
Maybe even cost prohibitive (if it comes from gun owners only), that would be infringement, no?

Without having an intimate knowledge of gun crimes and how registration would help solve them, I cannot give my opinion on whether this is constitutional or not.
 
Wickard v. Filburn...

Prior precedents? Where? There are none that stretch the Commerce Clause in the manner that Wickard did. It was the seminole case against which the modern (read: more governmental power) interpretation of "commerce" was drawn.

Thomas was correct on Raich, just as he was correct to criticize the Court for their turnabout in Oregon. Raich leaves us with the rule that the Congress has no limits, while Oregon simply says, "unless we don't like the outcome."

How long was "separate but equal" the Law of the Land?... Until the SCOTUS said, "Opps! We made a mistake!!"

Bah! It's all politics, even for the Court.
 
Prior to that YOU tell us what the founders said, not just a rehash from a milita site

Dude we have been down this road on this Board for thousands of posts.
Click to expand...

#1. I have not been to a militia site, so no hash from me.
#2. Considering that "we have been down this road on this Board for thousands of posts", there is no need for me to "rehash" what the founders said. You know as well as I.

It seems to me that you do not care what the founders said, only what the Supremes said.

For example; if founders said the sky is blue and grass is green, and the supremes (in a majority) said the the sky is green and grass is red, I believe that you would believe the supremes, based on your previous comments.

Whereas I and, I hope, many others, would have to work under the legal framework of green skies and red grass, while at the same time recognizing reality, until such time as one more supreme sees reality. (I haven't checked thouroughly, but it seems to me that most non-"realistic" decisions have been 5-4.)
 
The Founders said what they said.

The meaning of what the founders said, and its applicability to the Constituion and Laws, is a matter for the Sup Ct to decide.

Not me or you.

WildwehavehashedthisbeforeAlaska
 
Using your premise that it is an individual right then isn't it up to YOU as the one advocating constitutionality to show the compelling state interest and that registration is the least restrictive means? Registering every gun is a substantial burden, chilling effect, etc, etc.

C'mon, crime investigation? Registration as a least restrictive means for crime investigation? You're not even trying.

Why does WildhowmanyangelscandanceontheheadofapinAlaska ask these questions?
 
Or is it more like "evolving standards"
Click to expand...
Seems to me evolving standards were meant to be handled by the amendment process, ala the 18th Amendment.

And, obviously nothing will change either of our minds, so enjoy those green skies, WA
 
Using your premise that it is an individual right then isn't it up to YOU as the one advocating constitutionality to show the compelling state interest and that registration is the least restrictive means? Registering every gun is a substantial burden, chilling effect, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

Tell me first how it is an infringement.... to even trigger the whole analysis.

Why does WildhowmanyangelscandanceontheheadofapinAlaska ask these questions?
Click to expand...

So than I can do my very small part to help make more thinkers and less screechers.:D

WildjbtpatriotetcadnauseumAlaska
 
Seems to me evolving standards were meant to be handled by the amendment process, ala the 18th Amendment.
Click to expand...

All righty then:rolleyes:

WildandwiththatigotoenjoytheblueskiestheskiesareonlygreenatauroratimeAlaska
 
Your decisions (and many of the court's) aren't logically drawn from the text of the Constitution (including amendments), nor from the words and purpose of the founders (You know, that limited government, personal responsibility crap).
Click to expand...
OK..great..anaylze one for us...dont forget citations :)
Click to expand...
Roe v. Wade - hard to find those elusive penumbras and emanations in the Constitution.
 
Roe v. Wade - hard to find those elusive penumbras and emanations in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Couldnt ya find those little squirrels in the 2nd Am...bet there is a penumbra under some emanation?

WildseebelowAlaska

PS...I always try to avoid debating Roe since it is bad law that creates a good result...which makes it frustratingly not bad law even if it is bad law if ya know what I mean
 
2nd

the 1934 gun law tax was based on the commerce clause.as an atempt to circomvent the 2nd amedment.To take it to the conclusion the law was based on taxing.not on banning or registration WHAT PART OF INFRINGE DONT YOU UNDERSTAND. give an inch and they will take a mile.all of the gun laws therefore are unconstitutional.if you belive any thing else you have lost all.:confused::):):):D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top