CA wasting no time following NY lead on gun control?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

If we could point to the Second Amendment as written and say it simply says what it says and holds no more meaning either good or bad, then you'd be technically right. Any regulation is too much regulation and any law, of any kind, is a violation of the 2nd.

Just because the 2nd is routinely violated does not change the fact it is still the law.

That's honestly not how it can be looked at though, with all due respect on this. The way the system works is as much to our benefit as citizens as to our detriment at times but the Constitution is subject to interpretation. Only one of the 3 branches gets that power and, as it happens, it's about the only real power they DO get but the Judicial branch wields enough that way when they get the issues brought to them to look at.

No the constitution is not subject to interpretation only new law is subject to interpretation to insure that it is in line with the constitutional standard. The fact that the constitution is unlawfully reinterpreted and routinely violated and new law allowed to violate it does not change the fact that it is still the law the federal government must abide by. We the people simply fail to hold government accountable because of ignorance apathy drugs and poor nutrition etc.

In our benefit ..Well, the Heller case made absolute law for now and forever ..or until the court reverses itself entirely and that's a rare thing,.. that firearms ownership is a personal and individual right. That cannot be banned. It's in no way connected to membership in a Militia or other organization. Yay for that. It was a near thing and losing that decision would have been absolutely catastrophic.

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. The court has no power of legislation they simply upheld the second Amendment to a degree... Despite this halfway decent ruling relying on the SC to preserve our rights will end in tyranny and slavery for us.

They also said....it could be regulated. It's a backhanded gift. Similarly, Obama got to keep Obamacare ...but the court allowed any state to opt out entirely if they so chose and couldn't be retaliated against by the Federal Government in things like the Medi- program funding to force compliance.

The commerce clause is a perfect example of something that has been unlawfully reinterpreted. Regulate commerce meant to make it regular not restrict it tax it and license it etc. And the states can opt out of Obama care only if they mandate their own state run program so healthcare is still being unlawfully mandated.

now will the court hold strong ..AND get the issues before them in a way they can act on? Both things have to happen, IMO..and I'm not positive how they get the EO's put before them.

They won't the EOs will not get to them unless someone files suite and they in the Heller case still allowed infringement on on gun rights so i would not put much hope in them

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by hawkiye

 

If we could point to the Second Amendment as written and say it simply says what it says and holds no more meaning either good or bad, then you'd be technically right. Any regulation is too much regulation and any law, of any kind, is a violation of the 2nd.

That's honestly not how it can be looked at though, with all due respect on this. The way the system works is as much to our benefit as citizens as to our detriment at times but the Constitution is subject to interpretation. Only one of the 3 branches gets that power and, as it happens, it's about the only real power they DO get but the Judicial branch wields enough that way when they get the issues brought to them to look at.

That is the way it was written, our founders were intelligent people, they knew the time would come when this would be needed, otherwise it would not have been included.


This was not written to benefit our government, it was written to allow a measure of protection to "THE PEOPLE" from our government. The branches of our government only have power because we allow it, but the constitution also guarantees that we have the power to remove that power if we deem it tyrannical. Without out the "arms" we have little to defend with...

reply to post by hawkiye

I suppose we're at an impasse for discussion on it then. If you are coming from the basis that the Supreme Court doesn't have the power and authority to interpret the Constitution...we're really missing common ground. I mean, this is their power and duty BY the very document they're charged with interpreting.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Source

Sorry to the thread for not having a more reader friendly one than that but there is the text and that's the thing about this whole problem right now and the Constitution. Even the White House is now claiming powers and abilities it flat doesn't have ...because that document AND the court decisions since...don't give it to them. The duties and procedures of each branch are spelled out..in detail but also very clearly.


Another thing worth mentioning though... Things like Abortion are found to be a federal supremacy by Supreme Court ruling. So is the Miranda warning and a variety of other things very much to our benefit and not strictly spelled out by the Document itself. All interpretations ..and in this case, the gun decision went 90% in our favor, as gun owners. We can't take the good and toss the bad though..and that crosses amendments as well as aspects of just the 2nd. The Constitution is a package deal, not a buffet after all.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


There is no authority in your quote to reinterpret the constitution like I said the constitution was the standard they were to interpret everything else by not change the clear meanings of the constitution itself.

We can't take the good and toss the bad though..and that crosses amendments as well as aspects of just the 2nd. The Constitution is a package deal, not a buffet after all.

Baloney! We are absolutely supposed to take the good and toss the bad That how we make progress. If the SC only gets it 90% right that does not mean we have to accept the 10% they got wrong. The SC is not the law if they make a mistake they need to be held accountable. They are not the final arbitrators The People are! The people created government and are its masters. The created.is not higher then its creator...

To bad American don't know their history.

reply to post by hawkiye


I say let the stupid democrat run bankrupt states try to "ban guns" - it's working so well in Chicago. There will be less democrats due to murder.

reply to post by Happy1


It's working in New York state. Although there are stricter gun regulations in the city of Chicago, that isn't true of the suburbs. Some of which are actually within the city itself. As well as 2 states with lax gun regulations, one just a 15 minute drive from the city in Indiana's case. Chicago guns

I suppose it must be better to be a "smart" Republican run state that balances its budget by being largely subsidized by the Federal government and those "stupid" Democratic run states, but I wouldn't know.

And it must be comforting to speak of the death of fellow American citizens you disagree with. Very patriotic and brotherly of you.

Originally posted by RobertF
That is the way it was written, our founders were intelligent people, they knew the time would come when this would be needed, otherwise it would not have been included.

The Bill of Rights, as it is known, was only included after protest that such Rights were not spelled out. The argument on its exclusion was more brilliant than that for them. Because the Constitution is a document outlining the limits of Government, such bills of rights were unnecessary.

Where in Article I or II, is the power granted to Government over any of the Rights enumerated within the Bill of Rights? They cannot be found because James Madison had faith that a Government following the founding ideals wouldn't need to declare such Rights; he feared that by their mere enumeration that the Federal Government would abuse other Rights held in reserve by the People to be abused and even those enumerated would be, as they are now.

The argument was that the Constitution did not allow the Government (Federal) to abuse such, so they were self-evident and held by the People. This of course, as highlighted in the 9th and 10th Amendment, was to be administered and handled by the States and People respectively.

This was not written to benefit our government, it was written to allow a measure of protection to "THE PEOPLE" from our government. The branches of our government only have power because we allow it, but the constitution also guarantees that we have the power to remove that power if we deem it tyrannical. Without out the "arms" we have little to defend with...

Quite true except the part where you say "deem tyrannical". While provisions were put into place for impeachment, they are clear on their proceedings. Tyranny, in the capacity you mentioned, is only addressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Originally posted by hawkiye
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

We can't take the good and toss the bad though..and that crosses amendments as well as aspects of just the 2nd. The Constitution is a package deal, not a buffet after all.

Baloney! We are absolutely supposed to take the good and toss the bad That how we make progress. If the SC only gets it 90% right that does not mean we have to accept the 10% they got wrong. The SC is not the law if they make a mistake they need to be held accountable. They are not the final arbitrators The People are! The people created government and are its masters. The created.is not higher then its creator...

Good with the bad means accepting the decisions by the court which we don't *ALL* like as well as those that define the rights in the best possible way we can have it.

If we want to go 100% strictly and by literal terms of the Constitution with NO OUTSIDE CONSIDERATIONS...which is your position as I understand it here, then the second is very short and to the point.

AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Source

Brevity was something they valued back then...a bit TOO much. Now, we DO use outside references and outside authority to INTERPRET the document.....so we know, for instance, the founders intended the Militia to stand outside of Government as a check/balance TO Government. It was not intended to be a National Guard as our state 'Uniformed Militia" could be termed. That HAS been the argument many have made with a straight face.

Strictly by the words of the document..taken in isolation? They're 100% right too. That is NOT an individual right by any means...and I'd ask anyone who argued it, what part of those few words say otherwise?


You see.... The idea that we stand and say 'The Constitution is the Constitution and that's that!" is silly, short sighted and EXCEPTIONALLY self defeating. Particularly when the document itself DOES specifically give the duties of interpretation to the Courts and the Supreme Court WAS making precedent setting interpretative decisions WHILE THE FOUNDERS WERE ALIVE to change that, if that hadn't been by their design and intent.

I'm honestly lost for where to go on this. You basically say the whole basis and purpose of the Supreme Court and Judicial Branch is wrong and unfounded. Where is there to go with that? I mean, can I saw the whole executive branch is likewise un-necessary and prone to abuse? It may be true..but it doesn't make their purpose and their function any less legal or valid to our system's operation as a whole?

Wrabbit; self evident...No room for interpretation...They basically said...these should be obvious and shouldn't need to be re-interpreted thousands of times to understand what they mean.

Perhaps they gave us too much credit? I see both sides of the debate you two are in but I'd have to say, the 10th does not over rule any other amendment. The 10th allows states to govern their own people under the constitution of the U.S. first and foremost and then their own constitution.

The slavery vs. arms issues...yes they can be correlated, they both have amendments stating specifics regarding their status. You can't say that states should be allowed to change the 2nd to fit the bill, but not be able to change any other amendment. You see what I'm saying?

Analyzing the constitution and interpreting to fit one way then, reading it again to interpret it another...then making two laws that contradict each other, based off two different interpretations would make the constitution null and void...Therefore, there can only be one interpretation of the constitution. Otherwise, some laws wouldn't meet the criteria to stick to other laws, making the legal system a complete fiasco and also, null and void...

Any of that make sense? I'm tired and trying to make sense...