The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The XIVth Amendment was directed at the States during the time shortly after the Civil War but the "equal protection clause" has been interpreted to apply to the Federal Government as well (including as a component of the Vth Amendment due process).

I would argue that the Citizens of the United States have a Right to Equal Protection of the Laws and that laws which "abridge the privileges...of the citizens (and seek) to deprive them of their life, liberty or property...without due process and equal protection of the law" are Unconstitutional. If some can have guns for their protection (or be assigned guns for their protection, ie, secret service for life for former presidents) and others denied that right by law (essentially discrimination in that they are ordinary citizens and not officials of the various levels of government) then it is a wrong which should be righted by the courts and any legislation or executive order denying the potential equal protection (which the state has said it cannot guarantee) of its citzens should be made null and void and without the effect of law.

In addition (a question for you legal eagles) wouldn't forcing someone to register a gun that is banned be a form of Self Incrimination which the Vth Amendment stands against?

I guess that you can make that argument, but you don't need to because any form of gun control at the Federal level is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

Well I wish California fell into those amendments, but look what happened there...

Technically California should not have been affected, but it has...

They have already violated the 2nd amendment and the others that support it.

Now what?

Restricting and punishing law abiding gun owners for the actions of a few criminals and madmen is wrong, no matter how you try and spin it.

Its a slippery slope to start restricting and banning anything with the potential to cause harm.

DC

It is interesting you brought this up considering this is exactly what the Supreme Court tackled in McDonald V. Chicago (2010) examined. I suggest reading that opinion and you will see that the Court has a deep precedent to strike down any State or Federal law that attempts to remove the enumerated Rights of citizens.

Opinions are tough reads but provide ample information in support of your post.

Here is Justice Thomas in that opinion:

...the right tokeep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

This gun control issue is just one arm of the obama administration's agenda

And there is one HUGE problem with the obama administration

The obama administration is set on destroying the past to build "their" future

Ironically, humanity has already seen and lived their future, just with less advanced technology

Funny enough but I think executive or congressional tyranny might just qualify as "due process of law."

Originally posted by Mads1987

So if a scientist have acess to plutonium - so should you?
So since military have acess to F-16 jet fighters - so should you?
So when doctors have access to drugs - so should you?

This is the whole "evey one will have a nuke!!" nonsense.

Plutonium? If you can afford it you can certainly have it lawfully.

F-16? Again, if you can afford it.

Drugs? Well, here's where I might be too libertarian for you. Considering anything you want can be had at the local street pharmacy why bother preventing access? If you're too stupid to know opium and morphine will destroy you then by all means destroy yourself. No skin off my teeth.

But the plutonium and the F-16? There's nothing in place now to prevent you from acquiring them other than the fact that you're poor.

Originally posted by Mads1987

However, I do think that there are people out there who for their own, and others, protection, need to be limited in their access of curtain products. Like you have to take a divers license to legally drive a car, or have to be 21 before you can drink.

That right there is ridiculous on its face simply because those measures are arbitrary and without value.

It wasnt long ago that 12 year olds were operating heavy machinery without incident. In much of rural America 12, 13, 14 year olds will still drive cars, trucks, International haulers, etc....

All a license proves is that you can pass a fill-in-the-bubble multiple choice test and pay the state $60.

Same with drinking. Why 21? Where did that number come from? Children in France can have wine with dinner. You can load your kid up with Robitussin at 8. At 18 you can be shipped off to catch bullets in the face and murder children. But 21 to drink?

It's completely arbitrary and as we have all seen wrapped around telephone poles and trees that arbitrary bit of legislation isnt doing anything to keep 16 year olds from exploding their intestines all over the street.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Same with drinking. Why 21? Where did that number come from? Children in France can have wine with dinner. You can load your kid up with Robitussin at 8. At 18 you can be shipped off to catch bullets in the face and murder children. But 21 to drink?

With the risk of continuing this off-topic the "drinking age limit" is misunderstood really. That is a State's legal age to purchase the product, not consume. You can give your child wine at dinner if you wish and you will not be breaking any laws. In agreement though about the arbitrary nature and it is well within the power of individual States to limit that commerce. Sadly, many of those laws above you mention are black-mailed by the Federal Government via the Federal Aid Highway Act and National Interstate and Defense Highway Act.

Come to think of it, it really isn't that far off-topic. Most likely States will push back against any act Congress takes in regards to "gun control" so the Federal workaround will be to push an act that gives "aid" to the States but they must comply with the new Federal standard on whatever arms infringement they present. Don't comply? No money. That is why each state has set their limit of purchasing alcohol at 21; they want the Federal funding for their highway systems.

My prediction, the Federal Government will utilize monies from the "obamacare" provisions to get what they want in the terms of restrictions on arms.

If Cheney can have a gun why can't I?
If Feinstein can carry concealed why can't I?
What is good for the goose and all that.