Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Isn't Gun Control a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the XIVth Amendment?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 08:54 PM
link   
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?
edit on 10-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 

I agree but....why then are we even talking about it? Well, because the Second Amendment is being attacked and it needs some allies.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

You know the funny thing is that the case for these tertiary violations like the Sherman AntiTrust Law or the Equal Protection Clause (XIVth A) are the kind that should be decided by the courts....but as to the language of the 2nd Amendment - it really is pretty clear and attempts to ban most guns (rather than restrict those who have abused the right) should be considered Treasonous. If those of you who want to ban guns want to be constitutional then try to amend or repeal the amendment.



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
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.
edit on 10-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
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
edit on 10-1-2013 by six67seven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by xDeadcowx
 

My sentiments exactly. First they start with machine guns and sawed off shotguns - the gangster guns - after the gangsters ran amuk across mid america in the 1930s (good intentions and public safety)....as if gangsters are obedient to the law. Then after a long hiatus they sought to s-t-r-e-t-c-h that to assault rifles and shotguns (AWB under Clinton which sunset after 10 yrs and the Destructive Device ruling by BATF on some "non-sporting" shotguns which did not sunset (by virtue of executive branch interpretation and ruling). Now they are coming after all semi-automatics it seems which is every modern gun since the 19th century....heck it may eventually be .22 rimfire short target guns and even .177 pellet guns. The slope is slip n slide for sure.
edit on 10-1-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


So the core arguement is that - If secret service are allowed to carry guns for their protection - so should you - right? (please correct me if I am wrong)

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?

Their is just a bit to much Libertarianism in your logic if you ask me. Some people can't handle power, and in all of the above cases, people are educated and trained to use these tools. Rules and regulations are made to minimize abuse, disorder... anarchy basically.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Funny enough but I think executive or congressional tyranny might just qualify as "due process of law."



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:23 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I see what your saying - and I do agree that some of the examples I chose were a bit over the top. I don't believe everyone would have a nuke even if it was legal. As you point out, the expense alone would stop most people.

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.

With that said. Personally I do have a very libertarian view on drugs. I like Portugal's approach very much, where they have basically decriminalized all drugs to the point, where the only penalty is that they take it from you, and that you have to have a meeting with a doctor, a physiatrist and a social helper.
The arguement being that society doesn't profit from punishing people, punishment hardly ever makes people change their ways and society has more to gain from helping people back on their feet.
Libertarianism can be both good and bad, it depends on how it is implimented.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 

Plutonium and F-16s are not the arms of the citizen soldier and of not intended for personal security. One could argue that the militia should be equal to the state but I think that the language of the 2A just applies to firearms (as evolved from muskets to M-4s and eventually Han Solo's "blaster"). Should Diane Feinstein be allowed to carry a gun just because she is trying to take citizen's guns or should I have a right to protect myself from someone who would take my "property, liberty or life" as well? If George Bush, no longer President, has that right should not you have the same right to defend yourself? You dont get a secret service detail but you have a fundamental right to self protection.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 

There is "due process" and then there is the "color of the law".....Some will probably say that is racist also.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:04 AM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I feel like I am going a bit off topic here.

As far as I understand there are two reasons, and most likely even more, for the age being 21.

First reason would be to prevent drunk driving, or at least minimize it, since most young adults don't have the same experience with alcohol as adults. In my home country, Denmark, you can legally buy alcohol from the age of 15 I believe, it was even less when I was a child, your parents can give you alcohol at any age if they wish, but you won't get your drivers license before you turn 18. We have a very good public transportation system and our country is not very big, so you can easily get by without owning a car, hence the different approach.

The second reason is that our brains stop developing at around that age, 21, which is why many weed-supports also recommend the same age limit.
However, you need to have a pretty bad alcohol abuse for this be an issue. So I think it is mainly because of the first reason.

So not completely arbitrary.

But laws aren't always right. Which is why we argue about them and need to do so, and whomever gathers the biggest consensus 'wins' (in a democracy at least). There is no right or wrong, just different approaches and sometimes different intentions.
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

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.
edit on 11-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 
simple answer a bill was passed and became law the age was if i remember right for the 1968 gun act "no person under the age of 21 shall buy a side arm/ pistol" this goes back to a 1938 gun act "no person under the age of 21 shall buy nor sell a hand gun" as seen here
www.saf.org... from the link

B. Ownership Prohibitions

The second major aim of the Gun Control Act was to extend the list of classes prohibited by federal law from gun ownership and to strengthen the regulatory mechanism designed to enforce the federal prohibition. The Federal Firearms Act had prohibited the receipt of a firearm by felons, fugitives from justice, persons then under felony indictment in state or federal courts, and persons not qualified to own the firearm in question in their state or locality.[113] The list of prohibited classes in the 1968 Act was larger in the number of persons prohibited and included a wide variety of disqualified classes. The new federal prohibition barred licensees from the knowing transfer of a gun or ammunition to:

(1) Minors (under eighteen for shotguns and rifles; under twenty-one for handguns). [Page 152]

(2) Persons convicted of a state or federal felony, as well as the fugitives and defendants under indictment covered by the F.F.A.

(3) Adjudicated mental defectives and any person who had been committed to a mental institution.

(4) Persons who are* unlawful users of or "addicted to marijuana or any depressant or stimulant drug . . . or narcotic drug."[114]
[/ex[ so in my opinion one must go before the SCOTUS, and have the law over turned for it against the 2nd and Xiv amendments






top topics



 
2

log in

join