In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down
Defender
Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down Chicago's 28 Year-Old Gun Ban
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
Comments
I wish they could point out that part in the 2A.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
There are a couple of measures that I can see as being reasonable .
But when you put power hungry politicians in the mix ,the word has a way of being put to uses that are not in our interest .
What is "reasonable" to them will more than likely enslave us !
There are four million of them gathered up in one spot...the membership roles of the NRA.
Then there are all the others..weak, cowardly go-along-to-get-alongers more afraid of their neighbors then of government.
Kagan coming onto the court is the a fallout consequence of voting in someone with a history of activism in opposition to the republican form of government.
COB
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
You seem to have a basic understanding of the meaning of the word "reasonable." How would you define the word "infringed?"
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
Tell us Brickmaster, do you feel ANYONE should be able to purchase a firearm?
Pel
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
Tell us Brickmaster, do you feel ANYONE should be able to purchase a firearm?
Pel
quote:Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
They are. It's not that they are everywhere, they also proclaim themselves as "gun-right advocates" and somehow "2nd Amendment activists". And are sincere about it too.
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
Yep, sure as * are!!!!!!![V][V][V][V][V][V]
Do you believe that savages that pillage, rob and rape ought to be executed ...either by a decent citizen, or the State ?
Tell us Brickmaster, do you feel ANYONE should be able to purchase a firearm?
Pel
I think any citizen who is deemed fit to walk the streets of society should have all their Constitutional rights . Hows that for an open ended answer Mr. closet liberal?
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
Tell us Brickmaster, do you feel ANYONE should be able to purchase a firearm?
Pel
If one is not incarcerated, please point to the area in the Constitution that provides the power or authority for government to prohibit it.
Your first weapon purchased after turning 21, must be a detachable magazine semi-automatic rifle capable of firing 5.56x45 NATO ammunition, if you do not already have one.
This weapon will be exempt from any taxes or fees
This is adapted from the militia act of 1792, which required adult male citizens to procure a musket or rifle capable of firing a standard ammunition (1/8 oz ball of lead) - which was to be exempt from any taxes or duties.
Crimes which qualify for the death penalty, also may disqualify you for gun ownership - if they can take away your life, they can take away your guns.
If you have a right to life, liberty... or to keep and bear arms, it is not absolute per se, as no one debates that the government can imprison people for certain offenses (jailing takes away your liberty).
Guns may not be transported into a foreign country without that country's explicit permission to do so.
Use or possession of guns while intoxicated or otherwise mentally impaired in a public place is prohibited and punishable by imprisonment.
Pointing guns at other people without justification or sufficient provocation is grounds for imprisonment - you do not have the right to endanger someone elses life without just cause.
Providing/selling weapons to someone you reasonably suspect desires to commit a crime is prohibited. It is quite simply giving someone material aid to comitt a crime.
For the purposes of this regulation, the absence of a declaration by the purchaser, and a background check showing no criminal history, shall be sufficient defense to show it was not reasonable to suspect the purchaser intended to commit a crime.
I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
Then just think of what they will do when they read something like "Reasonable restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms are ok".
The Supreme court took very stock, succint language, and couched it in mild equivocating nonsense.
It is anything but a clear win.
They did the minimum they could to avoid bloodshed.
quote:Originally posted by Pelican
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
Tell us Brickmaster, do you feel ANYONE should be able to purchase a firearm?
Pel
If one is not incarcerated, please point to the area in the Constitution that provides the power or authority for government to prohibit it.
Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his * whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
JMO, Pel
Wanted to, wanted to, wanted to. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Sounds like a liberal, and quacks like a liberal to me. What in creation do you think gives you the power to forsee what anyone will do with a firearm. In my country, its innocent until proven guilty. I dont know where your from. [}:)]
About the suicides - completely irrelevant - if they couldn't get a gun, they'd OD on pills or booze, jump off a building, crash a car, slit their wrists, etc.
I do think it would be reasonable to say you cannot sell to someone you have reason to suspect will use the weapon to commit a crime - as an individual, you already have the ability to refuse sale to anyone.
If it can be shown you would think the gun will be used to commit a crime, that does in a way make you an accomplice to the crime.
A clean background check, and the abscence of anything said by the purchaser regarding a crime should be a sufficient legal defense in those cases.
I also agree that people are idiots, and not all can be trusted with guns.
I do not agree that it is the government that should determine who can and cannot be trusted with them.
Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his * whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
A reasonable statement, except for the last sentence. You have the personal choice to not sell or give a firearm to anybody you choose not to sell or give it to. That is your right as a private citizen.
I've always said that on any given day, walking a downtown street, I can point out many people who I would not want to be armed. That is specifically why we need a 2nd Amendment that protects all free men. Give a person the power to restrict (or a city council, or a state legislature) and they will want to do so. The law of the land proscribes against such actions, as it should.
We have created a criminal underclass in this country that exists during and long after their incarceration. Ex-felons are understandably hard to employ and thus once set free tend to live in lower income neighborhoods, the very locations where a self-defense firearm is most important. I wouldn't go to these places unarmed, yet we effectively force people to live in these places unarmed. Any reasonable person will risk the potential arrest for an illegally possessed firearm over the much greater risk of walking those streets unarmed.
If a practical example is what you need, consider this:
There have been 209 homicides in Chicago so far this year, all but a handful by gunfire. Over the last two weekends, there have been over 80 people hit by gunfire, with at least 11 killed, most of these occurred in three low-income neighborhoods.
Chicago prohibits felons and ex-felons from owning firearms. Chicago also prohibits virtually all citizens from owning handguns. One must assume that near 100% of these firearms deaths were at the hands of a shooter that legally could not possess the firearm that he used.
Would you go into one of these three neighborhoods unarmed? Your insistence that ex-felons do so is no different than Mayor Daley insisting that law abiding citizens go to their homes in these neighborhoods unarmed.
Brad Steele
Advanced Member
USA
15024 Posts
Posted - 06/29/2010 : 12:18:25 PM
In fact what they did was void the Second Amendment.
James posted this on another thread...sums it up PERFECTLY !!!...As for Jim Rau ;
quote:I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
You simply do not get to excuse failure, then use that excuse to trample on my God Given Rights.
Yeah..you and your jack-booted friends are DOING it today...but that will not last forever.
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:Originally posted by Pelican
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
Tell us Brickmaster, do you feel ANYONE should be able to purchase a firearm?
Pel
If one is not incarcerated, please point to the area in the Constitution that provides the power or authority for government to prohibit it.
Please point to the area in the Second Amendment that says a person incarcerated shall have his RKBA infringed, or is that just a common sense, reasonable restriction?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by Pelican
quote:Originally posted by brickmaster1248
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
I think its reasonable, as the Court stated to have some gun regulation. Do we want deranged people to be able to purchase guns. The law against owning a gun if you are convicted of a crime or threats and abuse. Do we want kids buying guns? The word is reasonable. As to the future, this court has set precedent with this ruling. I don't see how any new challenge will affect this decision.
Reasonable people will obey reasonable laws.
Enough said.
Oh man, these folks are everwhere apparently.
Tell us Brickmaster, do you feel ANYONE should be able to purchase a firearm?
Pel
If one is not incarcerated, please point to the area in the Constitution that provides the power or authority for government to prohibit it.
Please point to the area in the Second Amendment that says a person incarcerated shall have his RKBA infringed, or is that just a common sense, reasonable restriction?
Ever been to a jail or prison where they allow inmates possesion of guns?
Got nothing to do with common sense restrictions on gun ownership as you desire.
Please point to the area in the Second Amendment that says a person incarcerated shall have his RKBA infringed, or is that just a common sense, reasonable restriction?
This has been pointed out previously, but apparently requires further explanation.
1. Prisons are places were we confine people. They are not free, they are under the control of the state following a trial and a conviction.
2. In that the purpose is to be confined, those that are confined are not permitted tools that can be used for escape.
Prisoners are not permitted cutting torches, nor are they permitted firearms.
A prisoner, for example, could point a firearm at a guard and request that he be released. With a firearm pointed at him, that guard may be inclined to grant that request. Firearms, therefore, can be used to effect a release and/or escape from a prison.
Likewise a cutting torch can be used to cut through any steel impediment to a prisoner's escape, and, therefore can be used to effect that escape.
For these reasons, prisoners are not permitted firearms or cutting torches. Either device will result in possible release of a person who has been lawfully convicted and sentenced to confinement.
If you take the time to think about it, issuing firearms and cutting torches to prisoners would be a very stupid idea, and would directly interfere with the Constitutional confinement of these persons.
Or was your stupid question merely rhetorical?
If so, ignore this post.
Brad Steele
quote:Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his * whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
Wanted to, wanted to, wanted to. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Sounds like a liberal, and quacks like a liberal to me. What in creation do you think gives you the power to forsee what anyone will do with a firearm. In my country, its innocent until proven guilty. I dont know where your from. [}:)]
If you like to help someone kill another person just because they are pissedoff, well that's your decision.
Pel
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Please point to the area in the Second Amendment that says a person incarcerated shall have his RKBA infringed, or is that just a common sense, reasonable restriction?
This has been pointed out previously, but apparently requires further explanation.
1. Prisons are places were we confine people. They are not free, they are under the control of the state following a trial and a conviction.
2. In that the purpose is to be confined, those that are confined are not permitted tools that can be used for escape.
Prisoners are not permitted cutting torches, nor are they permitted firearms.
A prisoner, for example, could point a firearm at a guard and request that he be released. With a firearm pointed at him, that guard may be inclined to grant that request. Firearms, therefore, can be used to effect a release and/or escape from a prison.
Likewise a cutting torch can be used to cut through any steel impediment to a prisoner's escape, and, therefore can be used to effect that escape.
For these reasons, prisoners are not permitted firearms or cutting torches. Either device will result in possible release of a person who has been lawfully convicted and sentenced to confinement. What about pre-conviction incarceration? Innocent until proven guilty, ya know.
If you take the time to think about it, issuing firearms and cutting torches to prisoners would be a very stupid idea, and would directly interfere with the Constitutional confinement of these persons.
Or was your stupid question merely rhetorical?
If so, ignore this post.
RED = prior restraint
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.
quote:Originally posted by dthhal
quote:Sorry folks, I'm about as liberal as Attila the Hun. I can say that having been a licened firearms dealer for over 38 years I have met several folks that should not have the right to own a gun. Like the fella that got his * whipped in a bar fight and wanted to go kill the guy that whupped him. The woman that caught her husband with another woman and wanted to shoot HER. The law allows me. as a dealer, to deny a sale to anyone that I feel is not competent or using good judgement in their reason for wanting to purchase a firearm. I can also say there have been situations when I wish I had refused a sale, like the idiot that bought a 22 rifle, loaded it when he got to his vehicle, and left it in the van with 2 kids, His kid shot and killed his buddy playing with it. I have had two people buy a gun and commit suicide. Sure they had a right to buy the gun but it doesn't make me feel any better knowing they used me as a means to take the easy way out. To say that anyone that is not in jail should be able to buy a gun is insane.
JMO, Pel
Wanted to, wanted to, wanted to. Coulda, shoulda, woulda. Sounds like a liberal, and quacks like a liberal to me. What in creation do you think gives you the power to forsee what anyone will do with a firearm. In my country, its innocent until proven guilty. I dont know where your from. [}:)]
If you like to help someone kill another person just because they are pissedoff, well that's your decision.
Pel
Again, how do you know they would? Are you some sort of Tom Cruise in a Minority Report movie? Arresting people or violating their rights because they said they were "going" to do something.
You are correct, you have the right not to sell to anyone. Now show me your NRA card. Denying people their 1st Amendment rights to free speech, and on top of that then denying them their 2nd Amendment rights by not selling them a gun.
Now before you say they have the right to purchase somewhere else, you are right. They can......So what exactly did you accomplish again?
Oh, ya....the denial of ones rights.
[br
[/quote]
Ever been to a jail or prison where they allow inmates possesion of guns?
Got nothing to do with common sense restrictions on gun ownership as you desire.
[/quote]
Of course inmates should be restricted but if the 2A absolutists are consistent then the "all guns for all people all the time" would apply to everyone, wouldn't it? If not, then the door to restrictions is open and now we can discuss the limits and definitions of those restrictions.
quote:A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.
A simple example of a restriction I support is that felons that used a gun in the commission of their crime(s) should have a lifetime ban on possesion of firearms and any felon should have a time limited ban on possession of firearms until they have shown they are integrated back into society. This should be part of the original sentence and some kind of matrix designed as for the length of time of the restriction.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.
A simple example of a restriction I support is that felons that used a gun in the commission of their crime(s) should have a lifetime ban on possesion of firearms and any felon should have a time limited ban on possession of firearms until they have shown they are integrated back into society. This should be part of the original sentence and some kind of matrix designed as for the length of time of the restriction.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law?
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.
Damn majik, you killed them all with one shot. Well said, simple, straight forward.
RED = prior restraint
A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Superficially correct, which is the goal of those who wish to confuse the issued, but it is, alas, factually incorrect.
Speaking of 'prior restraint' of a person in prison is an untenable position when one considers that the entire concept of prison is restraint. These people are being held against their will, and are primarily protected by Amendments 5 and 8. After due process, for example, they can be deprived of life, liberty, and property, but not before (Amendment 5).
Aside - This should focus free-thinking people upon the concept of incorporation of the 2nd through 'Due Process' rather than 'Privileges and Immunities', but it probably will not.
You, and any others that choose to promote this false argument know or should know that denying prisoners access to certain things is specifically Constitutional as shown above. It is not a 2nd Amendment issue, rather it is a criminal justice issue. While it satisfies your personal desire to alter the 2nd Amendment outside the Amendment process outlined in Article 5, it provides cover for the complete abandonment of the 2nd Amendment, as it justifies any contemporaneous legislature or council to impose any restriction they feel is reasonable.
We are either a nation of law as outlined in the Constitution or a nation of laws supported by any fleeting majority. As people we had best figure out which nation we are going to have.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:A stupid scenerio, yes, and not one I advocate but if the absolutists truly believe in no infringement why impose any restrictions? On the other hand if some restrictions are okay why are others not worthy of consideration?
Might have to do with incarceration for criminal acts(no rights) .vs free law abiding individual(all rights granted under the constitution).
Gordo, please list some reasons for your restrictions so that they might be discussed.
A simple example of a restriction I support is that felons that used a gun in the commission of their crime(s) should have a lifetime ban on possesion of firearms and any felon should have a time limited ban on possession of firearms until they have shown they are integrated back into society. This should be part of the original sentence and some kind of matrix designed as for the length of time of the restriction.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.