Does the Constitution allow any exceptions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date
G

Guns Guns Guns

Guest
rocket-launcher-6-30-10-col.jpg%3Fw%3D604



​


Despite a statewide ban on concealed weapons, gun owners in one central Illinois county don't need to worry about facing charges because McLean County State's Attorney Ronald Dozier is refusing to enforce a law he considers unconstitutional.


Illinois is the only state that still bans residents from carrying concealed guns.


Legal experts say he's completely within his rights.


As a prosecutor, Dozier has the power to decide which cases he will and won't pursue.


Dozier argued that state laws on where and how people can carry guns are unconstitutional.


http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/prosecutor-hopes-to-stir-1504315.html
 
according to the framers and commentators that presented the constitution, and what it meant, to the people that voted yea or nay, there are no exceptions. Powers assigned to the federal government are limited, not expansive and arbitrary.
 
\\((|))// said:
So felons, minors (or any other citizen) is entitled to bear any arms, and attempting to limit or proscribe the bearing of any arms is prima facie unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
correct. i'll say it again for the memory impaired...If you can't be trusted without a guardian (as in parole or probation) then you can't be trusted out of prison.
 
The Constitution is written on paper, not chiseled in stone. It has been amended and interpreted since the day it became the American creed. Amendments and reinterpretations will certainly continue.
 
\\((|))// said:
Yes, I did.



BTW, doesn't the Constitution include the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...

I answered the question posed. And yes, the US Constitution obviously includes the 2nd. But it also includes the 1st Amendment. And that is what I addressed in my post. If you want to limit the topic to the 2nd Amendment, you should ask if the 2nd Amendment allows exceptions.
 
WinterBorn said:
You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater. So, obviously, there are restrictions or exceptions.
Click to expand...
people keep using that badly written opinion to impair, infringe, and restrict rights that the federal government previously could not touch. why anyone concerned about government interference would praise this decision is stupid beyond comprehension. additionally, that case and opinion were decided over 100 years after the constitution was ratified, so what that signifies is the supreme court radically expanding the power of government, which they do not have the power or authority to do.
 
Gatorman said:
The Constitution is written on paper, not chiseled in stone. It has been amended and interpreted since the day it became the American creed. Amendments and reinterpretations will certainly continue.
Click to expand...
and amend all you like, but re-interpreting something in the constitution to suit some groups desire based on the unpleasantness of someones actions is most certainly not authorized by the constitution.
 
WinterBorn said:
I answered the question posed. And yes, the US Constitution obviously includes the 2nd. But it also includes the 1st Amendment. And that is what I addressed in my post. If you want to limit the topic to the 2nd Amendment, you should ask if the 2nd Amendment allows exceptions.
Click to expand...

That is exactly the way I took it as well, WB.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
people keep using that badly written opinion to impair, infringe, and restrict rights that the federal government previously could not touch. why anyone concerned about government interference would praise this decision is stupid beyond comprehension. additionally, that case and opinion were decided over 100 years after the constitution was ratified, so what that signifies is the supreme court radically expanding the power of government, which they do not have the power or authority to do.
Click to expand...

You have no understanding or appreciation of the purposes of the SCOTUS. Idiot.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and amend all you like, but re-interpreting something in the constitution to suit some groups desire based on the unpleasantness of someones actions is most certainly not authorized by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Again, you have no idea as to the purposes of the SCOTUS. If you shut up and listen sometimes you wouldn't appear to be so stupid.
 
\\((|))// said:
So WB thinks there may be exceptions and limitations to the Second Amendment, but cannot or will not say what they are or cite a basis for his belief?
Click to expand...

Why would he? You're just trolling or looking for an argument. What part of the exceptions and interpretations are you concerned with?
 
Gatorman said:
Again, you have no idea as to the purposes of the SCOTUS. If you shut up and listen sometimes you wouldn't appear to be so stupid.
Click to expand...
read the constitution, debate minutes, ALL the commentaries about the constitution prior to ratification, and the federalist and anti-federalist papers, then come back and talk to me. It's obvious you've swallowed the bullshit bait from the statists about the judiciary and it's 'responsibilities'. now, go the fuck away and let the grownups discuss serious shit.
 
WinterBorn said:
You can't yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater. So, obviously, there are restrictions or exceptions.
Click to expand...

there is a very key difference. The whole purpose of the right to free speech, the right to petition, the freedom of religion, etc, is to not have your mind policed. to be free to address your grievances, for the people to will their own government around themselves, and not be persecuted for any beliefs they have.

Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't undermine any of that. It serves no higher purpose, doesn't contribute to a free society, and doesn't involve your mind, your opinions, and your core values from being any less free. The spirit of the first amendment is left entirely intact. Not being able to yell "fire" does not undermine the 1st amendment in any shape or form.

Banning gun ownership however, and restricting the right to bear arms, is 100% in direct contradiction to the second amendment. The entire 2nd amendment concerns itself about the populace being free and able to possess firearms - and thus, restrictions limiting that very thing is a direct assault on the right itself.

That's the way I see it any way..
 
King of Owls said:
there is a very key difference. The whole purpose of the right to free speech, the right to petition, the freedom of religion, etc, is to not have your mind policed. to be free to address your grievances, for the people to will their own government around themselves, and not be persecuted for any beliefs they have.

Not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't undermine any of that. It serves no higher purpose, doesn't contribute to a free society, and doesn't involve your mind, your opinions, and your core values from being any less free. The spirit of the first amendment is left entirely intact. Not being able to yell "fire" does not undermine the 1st amendment in any shape or form.

Banning gun ownership however, and restricting the right to bear arms, is 100% in direct contradiction to the second amendment. The entire 2nd amendment concerns itself about the populace being free and able to possess firearms - and thus, restrictions limiting that very thing is a direct assault on the right itself.

That's the way I see it any way..
Click to expand...

I agree. But I was simply answering the question asked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top