How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by I Love America View Post
Excellent points. The same goes with "mental health". It is such a broad term. Is it someone who sees a social worker because they are "sad"? Gets a prescription for Prozac?

These are all backdoor ways of grabbing guns and as you said they would never be applied to other "rights" leftists say they cherish.

What guns have been grabbed?

they can't......but Lord give them credit for trying via distortions, erroneous repetitions and flat out lying.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

This refers to RR in Cali. "Firearms and magazines that were legally owned at the time the law was passed were grandfathered in if they were registered with the California Department of Justice DOJ.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP]

Nothing was "grabbed" if owners were allowed to keep what they already had.

Due to poor registration compliance, the legislature also included money for an "education campaign" and extended the grace period for registration until March 1992. If a gun owner was caught with an unregistered gun after that date and prosecuted, it was possible for him to register the offending firearm, thereby reducing the felony to an infraction, and get his gun back. Former Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren, not wishing to further alienate gun owners, as he was planning to run for Governor in 1998, extended the registration date, causing Handgun Control, Inc.(HCI) to file suit.

When Democrat Bill Lockyear, an avowed gun prohibitionist, became Attorney General in 1999, he dropped opposition to HCI’s lawsuit, thereby invalidating every post-1992 registration and causing all those legally-owned firearms to become illegal.

They were no longer grandfathered in, so people had to turn them in, disable them permanently with proof, or face prosecution.

registration leads to confiscation, proven.

 

[christiefan915]

The SAFE act said:

• Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state. Registration began on April 15, 2013 and must have been completed before April 15, 2014.[SUP][9][/SUP]

[SUP]
Registering, not grabbing.
[/SUP]

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The SAFE act said:

• Requires creation of a registry of assault weapons. Those New Yorkers who already own such weapons would be required to register their guns with the state. Registration began on April 15, 2013 and must have been completed before April 15, 2014.[SUP][9][/SUP]

[SUP]
Registering, not grabbing.
[/SUP]

give it time. but i'm betting that when it does happen, you'll make an excuse about it, right?

 

[christiefan915]

Connecticut gun laws on assault weapons:

Selective fire weapons, some .50 BMG variants, and semiautomatic center-fire firearms with one defined feature: banned weapons lawfully possessed prior to this date must be registered with DESPP. Registered weapons may only be sold or transferred to a licensed gun dealer, to the State Police or local police department or transferred to a recipient outside of Connecticut. Assault weapons manufactured and lawfully obtained prior to September 13, 1994 no longer require registration with DESPP and may be sold or transferred to non-prohibited persons.[SUP][1][/SUP] Exceptions exist for active and retired law enforcement and military members.

Still no grabbing.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Connecticut gun laws on assault weapons:

Selective fire weapons, some .50 BMG variants, and semiautomatic center-fire firearms with one defined feature: banned weapons lawfully possessed prior to this date must be registered with DESPP. Registered weapons may only be sold or transferred to a licensed gun dealer, to the State Police or local police department or transferred to a recipient outside of Connecticut. Assault weapons manufactured and lawfully obtained prior to September 13, 1994 no longer require registration with DESPP and may be sold or transferred to non-prohibited persons.[SUP][1][/SUP] Exceptions exist for active and retired law enforcement and military members.

Still no grabbing.

What are these "reasonable" restrictions you want that would have prevented Jihad Jane and Fatah Farook from slaughtering people. Be specific please

 

[Abatis]

What I'm ASKING, not saying, is what research do you have to rebut the author's. Citations, not opinions. Re: Miller

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[2] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Since you are such an expert on Miller, using your understanding of Miller what was the status of the federal government's claim of power to restrict the private citizen possession and use of shotguns having a barrel length over 18 inches and the possession and use of other guns that can be shown to be of the type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and/or of a type that can be shown to be capable of being used effectively in the common defense and/or of a type in common use by the citizens?

Eagerly awaiting your (or anyone else's) reasoned, supported answer.

 

[christiefan915]

Since you are such an expert on Miller, using your understanding of Miller what was the status of the federal government's claim of power to restrict the private citizen possession and use of shotguns having a barrel length over 18 inches and the possession and use of other guns that can be shown to be of the type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and/or of a type that can be shown to be capable of being used effectively in the common defense and/or of a type in common use by the citizens?

Eagerly awaiting your (or anyone else's) reasoned, supported answer.

I'm not the gun person here. Maybe ILoveAmeriKKKa can help you.

 

[christiefan915]

What are these "reasonable" restrictions you want that would have prevented Jihad Jane and Fatah Farook from slaughtering people. Be specific please

? I don't see anything in my post about reasonable restrictions but I wonder why you have to single out the San Bern killers and ignore the home-grown ones?

 

[Abatis]

Burger was a lawyer and a judge for 55 years. I'll take his word for his experiences rather than your claim that he lied.

Again, I suggest you read his commentary in Parade that I linked to earlier.

In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns.

OK

Sounds to me like Burger is saying that machine guns (and cheap, low quality) handguns can be regulated in a fashion like motor vehicles but guns suitable for defense of the home and guns suitable for hunting should be as immune from governmental oversight as fishing equipment since the right to own such things is unquestionable and not subject to challenge (including any militia based attack on the right).

Sounds like in 1990 he's advocating the NRA's position that a unassailable constitutional right to own guns for various legal purposes without any militia conditioning exists . . .

And then he becomes a paid shill for handgun Control Incorporated to say such a position is a "fraud" less than a year later????

Hmmmmmmmm.

...1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.

You can not be serious; really, you are joking right? There is no individual right to arms recognized by SCOTUS in Cruikshank because the Court said that the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution?

Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

Presser doesn't help you either. Presser re-affirmed Cruikshank saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The Presser Court specifically said that the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms and that federal rights enforcement (to stop the states disarming its citizens) exists without reference to or appeal to the 2nd Amendment.

And while Presser did say that the 2nd Amendment did not bind state action, why do you think that point helps you now given that SCOTUS has since incorporated the 2nd under the 14th?

The author wrote "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision." If you think this is false, show me Madison's notes, ratification debates etc. that refute it.

The conclusion of the author (that there is no individual RKBA because the framers did not specifically mention or allow for it in the 2nd) is preposterous and is refuted by the framers endorsement of delegated powers / retained rights theory. I would recommend reading the Federalist 84 and Madison's introduction of the proposed amendments for an explanation of the rights theory. An understanding of the framer's understanding of the nature of rights disallows the maintenance of the author's position (that our rights are fully dependent upon the provisions crafted to secure them).

Again, this isn't about my mindset. It's about the pro-gun crowd reading the article and refuting it with certifiable facts, not opinion and name-calling.

I've read it (and a thousand before it that say the same thing) and I'm quite willing and able to refute the premise and conclusion with certifiable facts.

 

[Abatis]

I'm not the gun person here. Maybe ILoveAmeriKKKa can help you.

So you are looking for people who can refute the author's points but you yourself are incapable of considering and replying to the challenges you ask for?

Did you note that I answered all your true or false statements?

So am I to assume that simply posting bias confirmation was your singular purpose for starting this thread and your consideration of the right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment goes no deeper than that?

 

[christiefan915]

Again, I suggest you read his commentary in Parade that I linked to earlier.

In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns.

OK

Sounds to me like Burger is saying that machine guns (and cheap, low quality) handguns can be regulated in a fashion like motor vehicles but guns suitable for defense of the home and guns suitable for hunting should be as immune from governmental oversight as fishing equipment since the right to own such things is unquestionable and not subject to challenge (including any militia based attack on the right).

Sounds like in 1990 he's advocating the NRA's position that a unassailable constitutional right to own guns for various legal purposes without any militia conditioning exists . . .

And then he becomes a paid shill for handgun Control Incorporated to say such a position is a "fraud" less than a year later????

Hmmmmmmmm.

To start with, I read the article. And the paragraph you omitted is:

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

1. to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?
2. to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?
3. that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
4. to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.

Apparently you're no different from the others who don't believe views can evolve, i.e. your comment "paid shill for Handgun Control."

 

[canceled.2021.1]

? I don't see anything in my post about reasonable restrictions but I wonder why you have to single out the San Bern killers and ignore the home-grown ones?

So you don't want any more gun laws?

Good. Nothing to talk about then

As far as the homegrown stuff? We talk about the blacks killing the blacks all the time, but apparently like that they are killing the ones that made it out of the womb

 

[christiefan915]

Originally Posted by christiefan915
...1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution.

Abatis: You can not be serious; really, you are joking right? There is no individual right to arms recognized by SCOTUS in Cruikshank because the Court said that the right to arms is not granted by the Constitution?

Originally Posted by christiefan915

Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

Abatis: Presser doesn't help you either. Presser re-affirmed Cruikshank saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The Presser Court specifically said that the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms and that federal rights enforcement (to stop the states disarming its citizens) exists without reference to or appeal to the 2nd Amendment. And while Presser did say that the 2nd Amendment did not bind state action, why do you think that point helps you now given that SCOTUS has since incorporated the 2nd under the 14th?

You dropped context with these comments. They were in response to Superfreak's response "False. Again... please provide evidence that they ruled otherwise prior to 2008 and provide examples." Cruickshank and Presser were the examples.

 

[christiefan915]

So you are looking for people who can refute the author's points but you yourself are incapable of considering and replying to the challenges you ask for?

Did you note that I answered all your true or false statements?

So am I to assume that simply posting bias confirmation was your singular purpose for starting this thread and your consideration of the right to keep and bear arms and the 2nd Amendment goes no deeper than that?

Read the entire thread. Look at all the insults that resulted from me posting an article about gun lovers' sacred cow. Then read the posts from people who actually responded to the true/false questions. There was no consensus about each point even though every one of those posters is a 2nd Amendment advocate. Even the advocates can't agree on history or interpretation.

That is my point, that reasonable people can disagree about a document and its provisions that was written over 225 years ago.

 

[christiefan915]

So you don't want any more gun laws?

Good. Nothing to talk about then

As far as the homegrown stuff? We talk about the blacks killing the blacks all the time, but apparently like that they are killing the ones that made it out of the womb

How predictable. Muslims bad, blacks bad, dead silence on homegrown white killers.

 

[christiefan915]

So you don't want any more gun laws?

Good. Nothing to talk about then

As far as the homegrown stuff? We talk about the blacks killing the blacks all the time, but apparently like that they are killing the ones that made it out of the womb

How about this gun law, ILoveAmeriKKKa? It must present a real conundrum to you since you love guns and hate those on the terrorist watch list.

"With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.

“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.”

With his decision, Mr. Malloy has stepped into a fiery debate that has stretched from the Oval Office to the contest to become its next occupant: Should being a terrorism suspect prohibit a person from buying firearms? At the moment, it does not.

What some critics have called a startling gap in the law has gnawed at counterterrorism officials for years. But it has now emerged as a flash point following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., in which a married couple who the authorities believe were inspired by foreign extremists killed 14 people using legally obtained firearms."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/n...to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?_r=0

 

[canceled.2021.1]

How about this gun law, ILoveAmeriKKKa? It must present a real conundrum to you since you love guns and hate those on the terrorist watch list.

"With the mass shooting in California last week focusing attention on terrorism and guns, Gov. Dannel P. Malloy of Connecticut announced on Thursday that he intended to sign an executive order barring people on federal terrorism watch lists from buying firearms in the state.

“Like all Americans, I have been horrified by the recent terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris,” Mr. Malloy, a Democrat, told reporters. “This should be a wake-up call to all of us. This is a moment to seize in America, and today I’m here to say that we in Connecticut are seizing it.”

With his decision, Mr. Malloy has stepped into a fiery debate that has stretched from the Oval Office to the contest to become its next occupant: Should being a terrorism suspect prohibit a person from buying firearms? At the moment, it does not.

What some critics have called a startling gap in the law has gnawed at counterterrorism officials for years. But it has now emerged as a flash point following the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., in which a married couple who the authorities believe were inspired by foreign extremists killed 14 people using legally obtained firearms."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/n...to-those-on-federal-terrorism-lists.html?_r=0

So you are saying that with this law, people, on the terror watch list can NEVER, EVER obtain a gun under any circumstance or that they could never do us harm and give up their terrorist ways?

You do know Jihad Jane wasn't on the terror watch list right?

 

[christiefan915]

So you are saying that with this law, people, on the terror watch list can NEVER, EVER obtain a gun under any circumstance or that they could never do us harm and give up their terrorist ways?

Maybe he just means for the ban to last "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

You do know Jihad Jane wasn't on the terror watch list right?

What I said in another thread. How do you tell somebody's a jihadist? They aren't wearing name tags.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Maybe he just means for the ban to last "until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."



What I said in another thread. How do you tell somebody's a jihadist? They aren't wearing name tags.

So why are they on the terror watch list?

Maybe just put them in custody?

I think you have just found a sound byte and haven't really thought it through