Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Well said 44 AMP, I like your post. A couple of thoughts;
I don't see as much separation between the two camps mentioned above. I am in the camp that the 2A is not an absolute right that breaks down into anygun, anyone and anywhere but may be reasonably regulated. The key to the middle ground is the word onerous. Lots of latitude there and when you say the government has a valid interest in regulating FA well, that is because of public safety as the position above the middle ground states.
I don't believe the courts establish rights but they do interpret laws to see if they conflict with a right and further interprets what the right entitles you to do.
Some on TFL believe THEY determine what the right is (like the 2A) by their personal reasoning of what they believe COTUS says and that you must show/convince them that it is not so or you are infringing on their rights. I think Glenn Meyer calls this the chortling choir. But that is what forums are for I guess.
I do not find the NFA to be an infringement. It may be said reasonably that the NFA is the reason why there has been virtually no crimes committed by legally owned FA since the law was enacted. In that regard the NFA has been successful. Which brings me to the Hughes amendment in which as I have said earlier you might have a point since it's enactment creates an arguable de facto ban.
Has anyone challenged Hughes in court? I do not know. A good strategy might be to use the amendment method that was used to allow CCW in National Parks. The problem there as Alan Gura has said before, outside the gun culture there is not a lot of support for FA.
As to the felony/reinstatement of rights I am a believer in "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" but if a person could show they had changed their ways sufficiently AND PAID ALL LEGAL COSTS assoicated with the hearing then I would be OK with that as well. That way they have to pay the price to restore their rights that they willingly gave up when they transgressed.
44 AMP said:On the other are those who believe that machinguns/assault weapons (et.al) should either be highly restricted or outright prohibited, for public safety. Many of these people feel thins way about all firearms, but many do not.
And the middle ground, people who believe that while the govt has a valid interest in regulating possession of these weapons, restrictions should reasonable and not be overly onerous.
I don't see as much separation between the two camps mentioned above. I am in the camp that the 2A is not an absolute right that breaks down into anygun, anyone and anywhere but may be reasonably regulated. The key to the middle ground is the word onerous. Lots of latitude there and when you say the government has a valid interest in regulating FA well, that is because of public safety as the position above the middle ground states.
44 AMP said:We do this, again in two camps, those who believe rights do not exist until a court says they do, and those who believe that rights exist until a court rules they do not!
Which camp are you in?
I don't believe the courts establish rights but they do interpret laws to see if they conflict with a right and further interprets what the right entitles you to do.
Some on TFL believe THEY determine what the right is (like the 2A) by their personal reasoning of what they believe COTUS says and that you must show/convince them that it is not so or you are infringing on their rights. I think Glenn Meyer calls this the chortling choir. But that is what forums are for I guess.
I do not find the NFA to be an infringement. It may be said reasonably that the NFA is the reason why there has been virtually no crimes committed by legally owned FA since the law was enacted. In that regard the NFA has been successful. Which brings me to the Hughes amendment in which as I have said earlier you might have a point since it's enactment creates an arguable de facto ban.
Has anyone challenged Hughes in court? I do not know. A good strategy might be to use the amendment method that was used to allow CCW in National Parks. The problem there as Alan Gura has said before, outside the gun culture there is not a lot of support for FA.
As to the felony/reinstatement of rights I am a believer in "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" but if a person could show they had changed their ways sufficiently AND PAID ALL LEGAL COSTS assoicated with the hearing then I would be OK with that as well. That way they have to pay the price to restore their rights that they willingly gave up when they transgressed.
Last edited: