Try learning the context in which it was written.
Try learning the decisions related to the 2nd.
Question on guns
- Thread starter Mr.Badguy
- Start date
Try learning the context in which it was written.
Try learning the decisions related to the 2nd.
What part of “militia” do you not understand?
What part of the meaning of “to bear arms” do you not understand?
ATF:
Which firearms are regulated under the NFA?
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device.
[26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-firearms-are-regulated-under-nfa
Which firearms are regulated under the NFA?
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(2) a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
(3) a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(4) a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
(5) any other weapon, as defined in subsection (e);
(6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in section 921 of title 18, United States Code); and
(8) a destructive device.
[26 U.S.C. 5845; 27 CFR 479.11]
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/which-firearms-are-regulated-under-nfa
lol
The available documentation CLEARLY indicates that ghe 2nd was written in the context of the militia. Two phrases, as well as the original wording, make that ABUNDANTLY clear. That is, except to the rabid, RW barrel-strokers.
The militia clause is clear in itself. The concept if the militia, a well-regulated one, during the time period is also clear. The intent was not that every Tom, Dick and Harry was running around packing 24/7, or even that they had weapons instantly available for home defense. That just wasn’t the context.
The context was “to bear arms”. In the time, “to bear arms” was ALWAYS in the context of MILITARY purposes. One did not “bear arms” for any other purpose.
Your ignorance of this issue is astounding. And you continue to prove it with every post.
Exactly, it is the "prefatory clause," the condition required to make what comes after it legitimate
Amazing part is that for over two hundred years the Supreme Court, conservative and Liberal Courts, never directly ruled on the Second Amendmemt because they could not get beyond the "prefatory clause," but the Roberts Court, swayed by Scalia, conviently just skipped over it, accepting the prior Courts' inability as their justification
Bottom line is that no Constitutional right is absolute, none, have never been, and will never be, a fact the gun people just refuse to accept
Is the whole militia argument still relevant since Heller ruled it is an individual right?
countryboy
Verified User
You just went full retard. You NEVER go full retard.
They aren't, you're wrong. Try reading a book.
You might wanna brush up on basic law, or Social Contract theory. Due Process is going through the court system numb nuts. That's why they're structured and separate from the legislative bodies. That's why you don't get charged by Congress.
You are telling me there are no federal or state regulations on firearms? Those are all "infringements" that you say cannot exist.
No, I'm telling you that you do not need a permit to own a NFA item.
In other words you have no answer so you revert to insults? If the constitutional language does not permit any infringements on firearms but does allow restrictions on 1st Amendment freedoms where do we find that language in the Constitution? You still have not explained where the 5th Amendment takes away the rights of felons to own weapons.
Can't debate without insults? Due process is going through the court system based on laws passed by the legislative branch. But due process also occurs in the executive branch prosecution process. How can the prosecution and the courts give a person due process (for example, penalty for robbery) unless the legislative branch writes that law defining robbery and determining the penalty available? Get back to me when you figure out how a person is given due process without a system of laws defined by the legislature.
Social contract theory is used to explain the origins of rights, it does not have any legal standing in the American legal system.
Can you legally own a machine gun made after 1986?
"Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/
No doubt it will be overturned someday, but that ain't going to happen for a generation, too many gun supporters who simply flat out deny the facts and legality involved, they are just pawns for the gun industry
The 2nd doesn't take it away. The 5th due process clause allows it. The due process clauses protects against ARBITRARY denial. If you've committed a felony based on other protections outlined in the Constitution, that's not arbitrary.
As to having the 1st amendment rights you mentioned, adhering to due process does limit those beyond that of the average person.
Didn't the 1939 U. S. v. Miller case rule on the basis of the militia argument? I don't why the different interpretations make any difference in practice since they both allow regulation.
Maybe the Roberts court was using the "living Constitution" theory that interpretations change with changing times and situations.
The 5th Amendment says nothing about felons. If you say Congress can limit felon ownership of weapons through due process (passing a law), it can also pass other regulations using that same due process (limiting minors, etc.). And in fact, they have done that through multiple laws regulating firearms.
My only point is that there is nothing in the 5th Amendment allowing Congress to ban weapons from felons that does not allow them to make regulations for non-felons.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then you have a SERIOUS reading comprehension issue. the documentation has been posted dozens of times. it's only morons like you that refuse to acknowledge your stupidity.