Trump publishes support for nationwide CC and elimination of gun and mag bans

[natman]

At the other end of the spectrum are those who feel that as long as you can buy some kind of gun, somehow, after passing all the govt requirements about your character and personal history, and the time it takes for them to decide to approve you, then your rights are not being infringed upon.

If it's somehow unconstitutional to require ID in order to vote, then it's darn sure unconstitutional to have to buy a license (renewable every 4 years) and go through a background check in order to buy ammunition (as in CA soon).

Let's call such laws what they are: Jim Crow laws for the 21st century.

 

[44 AMP]

SCOTUS didn't rule that "reasonable" restrictions ARE lawful -- they just didn't say they are not. That's a subtle difference, but it's a difference.

Absolutely agree. The court ruling ALLOWED them to stand, without ruling on them, while APEARING to have ruled and endorsed them. And perception creates its own reality. Simply put, because the court didn't specifically say "NO" advocates of whatever point is not being ruled on, ASSUME the court said "YES".

I'm not a lawyer, not a judge, do not have formal education in the law, but I can read and comprehend English. And, I DO understand that while the law is written in English, the law is not written in English...

As I see it, the "reasonable restriction" portion of Heller is another, more modern example of the weasel worded CRAP demonstrated in the Miller ruling that allowed the NFA 34 to stand.

Essentially the court ruled that "we have been shown no evidence" that the short barrel shotgun in the case "was a militia weapon" (and therefore protected) and ruled in favor of the government.

The defense didn't show up, the court didn't look anywhere else for evidence, AND it is unclear if the ruling was referring to the specific shotgun in the case, OR ALL short barrel (sawed off) shotguns in general. And nobody in the day, asked the question. The Fed took their ruling and ran with it, and for 80+ years we have acted as if the NFA (and everything in it) was ruled constitutional, when in fact (as I see it) that ruling was never actually made.

I am disturbed by the thought that since the high court has shown the "ruling without ruling" in these cases involving firearms, what other subjects of law have had the same treatment?

As a nation, we get a "condensed" version of the Courts ruling delivered to the public by the news media. The vast majority of people never look beyond that, to see if there is a difference between what we are told the court said and what they actually said.

there isn't a single other right in the entire Bill of Rights that outright says "shall not be infringed."

Again, absolutely correct. However look at what "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of ...religion" has been turned into.

 

[Grizz12]

The first link is the most encouraging, because it came out after the election. It shows (I hope) that The Donald intends to at least try to deliver on some of his promises.

When was the last time any federal elected official put forth any pro 2A anything before or during their term?

 

[Don P]

Just a thought here, If you read the U.S. Constitution with regards to Article,1 section 8 it states that the only military that we will have full time is the Navy and our right to keep and bear is in case the popular is needed to be called up to defend the nation at home or called to service abroad This is the way I read it in a simplified explanation

 

[danco]

Just a thought here, If you read the U.S. Constitution with regards to Article,1 section 8 it states that the only military that we will have full time is the Navy and our right to keep and bear is in case the popular is needed to be called up to defend the nation at home or called to service abroad This is the way I read it in a simplified explanation

Specifically, it says:

The Congress shall have Power...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Rather than a prohibition on Standing Armies, politicians think it just means we need a Defense authorization bill EVERY year...

 

[Tom Servo]

with regards to Article,1 section 8 it states that the only military that we will have full time is the Navy and our right to keep and bear is in case the popular is needed to be called up to defend the nation at home or called to service abroad

Yep. The original intent was that we were responsible for protecting our country, our communities, and ourselves. To that end, states and towns were not only permitted, but expected, to form militias of their own.

(The first draft of Virginia's constitution actually required people to bring their guns to church on Sundays.)

In fact, many areas had regular musters, in which citizens were expected to prove ownership of and proficiency with firearms on a regular basis.

As the 20th century rolled on, the idea of having police forces took hold in major cities. Citizens delegated a great deal of power and authority to these organizations. The result was that defense of the community and individual was delegated to the state.

It follows that, if I have the police to protect me, why do I need to own a gun? Furthermore, why do you need to have them? After all, the state will protect us.

Sound familiar?

As for standing armies, the founders were great students of history. When the plans for the structure and nature of the republic were being formed, they looked at prior failures and learned from them. Standing armies have always been the tools of would-be tyrants, and that was one of the most emphatic prohibitions Jefferson (among others) could envision.

 

[44 AMP]

Organized police forces predate the 20th century by quite a few years in some places (large cities), though I will credit their increased influence from the late 1800s on...

Well aware of the dangers of a standing army, the Founders believed that militias would be enough, and in the technology of the 18th century, they actually could be.

You can train a plowboy to be an acceptable soldier in a few weeks. The Militia was to provide a framework & training (well regulated) so that there would be a core of people to draw on, at need, that didn't need a few weeks training, they already had it.

The Founders also recognized that this approach would not work with the Navy. Sailing ships were the most complex and "high tech" things to operate that existed in their world, and you can't turn a farmboy into a sailor capable of working the ship in just a few weeks. Much longer is required, even with a standing frame work for support, it takes time, so a standing navy was needed. Also unlike an army, the physical reach of the Navy on land was limited, so the threat to liberty of a standing naval force was much, much less than that of a standing army.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Rather than a prohibition on Standing Armies, politicians think it just means we need a Defense authorization bill EVERY year...

Correct. Other writings of the Founders tell us that they did not approve of maintaining a standing army, but doing so is not expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

 

[44 AMP]

I'd say the politically managed war in VietNam and the apparently endless War on Terror are excellent illustrations of "tyrants" playing with a standing army.

I also think that the years long activation and combat of National Guard units is a shameless abuse of the men and women who serve.

We defeated Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan in less than 5 full years. We should have done better against "terrorists".

 

[TailGator]

I was listening to an audio book while laid up after surgery a couple of months ago, a biography of Alexander Hamilton. My ears perked up when they read from a letter written by him when he was a teen in the Virgin Islands. It used the phrase "well-regulated militia" to refer to a requirement that males keep a firearm at home. The purpose was primarily to put down slave rebellions, as the sugar plantations were the primary economic driver, and the conditions were brutal. The use of the exact phrase and its disconnect from the meaning that gun control proponents insist upon was striking.

 

[44 AMP]

"Well regulated" was a term often used in the 1700s, and later. And it NEVER meant covered by laws and regulations, until the modern era.

It meant "worked right" or "in proper working order" , that everything did what it was supposed to do.

A well regulated clock or watch was one that kept proper time, neither fast nor slow.

Gunsmiths "regulated" double barrels so both barrels had the same point of impact at a given range, a term still used in gunsmithing today.

A well regulated militia meant that the members showed up when called out, had their own weapon and a basic supply of ammo, had their own camping gear, (bedroll, canteen, etc) and knew the rudiments of military drill.

In the 1800s, well regulated was also used for engines (steam) that would run without constant adjustment, and the railroad was well regulated when the trains ran on time.

I'm sure other examples could be found, those are just off the top of my head..

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Correct on the "well regulated." I knew I recently saw a discussion of that, but it took me awhile to find it. Here 'tis:

http://ezine.m1911.org/showthread.php?219-Thoughts-on-the-2016-U-S-Election

Beyond the 1911 pistol platform, many of you may own one or more AR-15 pattern rifles. Never mind the “modern sporting rifle” nonsense, those of us who own AR-15s understand exactly what they are: semi-automatic versions of the full-automatic, select-fire M16. This is what Hillary Clinton wants to ban first. Yet, in reality, is there any firearm today that’s more appropriate under our Constitution than the AR-15?

Remember that when the United States was founded there was no standing army, and the Founding Fathers were opposed to the concept of a standing army. The national (and state) defense was based on the citizens’ militias, and the basis of the militia was that each man brought his own rifle and ammunition. The following is an excerpt from the original Militia Act of 1792:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, … That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, …

,,, and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.​

Let’s look more closely at the second part of that quotation. What is it saying, really? It’s calling for standardization, that’s what it’s doing. It’s calling for each militiaman to equip himself with a musket capable of firing the same ammunition as all other militiamen. Now we get a glimpse into what the Second Amendment was saying when it spoke of a “well-regulated” militia. It didn’t mean a militia that was hamstrung and hogtied by regulations, it meant a militia that was standardized in armaments and in practice. And if we fast forward to 2016, isn’t the present-day equivalent having each private citizen (the people who comprise the “unorganized militia” under the most modern version of the Militia Act) equipped with a rifle that fires the same ammunition and uses the same magazines as the military-issue M16 rifle and M4 carbine?

The militiamen were responsible for arming themselves. If we are the militia today (and we are, there is an updated version of the Militia Act in force today, as this is being written), doesn’t it only make sense that the citizens comprising the militia should be armed with weapons compatible with those used by the regular Army? Of course it does; that’s why I own an AR-15. Yet this is precisely what Hillary Clinton wants to eliminate.

Makes sense to me. The writings of many of the Founders support this.

Link to the Militia Act of 1792: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

 

[TailGator]

Agreed entirely about the meaning of "well regulated." I just thought the phrase being used in the context of a militia in a letter by the teenage Hamilton might be some more ammo in discussing these matters with unbelievers.