And yet another Unconstitutional Push against the 2nd Amendment

reply to post by rickm


I see where you're coming from. Theo whole mentally disabled thing and convicted felon thing is an interesting one. I can explain the convicted felon one, but the mentally unstable part is very tricky.

Convicted felons are no longer, from a legal perspective, full citizens anymore. They are civilians, but they have lost the right to unlimited franchise (the right to vote) the right to free movement around the country as well as in or out of it, the right to own firearms, exclusion from serving on a jury as well as employment restriction, among a veritable host of other restrictions that full citizens enjoy as rights. Basically is a social demotion. The ethics and constitutionality of social demotion is a different discussion entirely, the restriction to firearms that goes with it is just incidental at that point. Even though it's not a common phrase, convicted felons aren't legally full citizens.

Whether or not I think it's unconstitutional doesn't matter, it's law. I think the affordable care act is unconstitutional, I don't think the government can coerce me through any means whatsoever to buy a specific product or service. Despite echoing that exact sentiment, the supreme court somehow ruled it constitutional. It's law, I have to live with it.

For the mentally unstable, it's tricky. Limiting a person's ability to legally purchase firearms does little to affect their ability to actually purchase one. Much like preventing felons from legally owning firearms through legislation does little to impact their ability to obtain one. Should a social demotion on a similar level to a felon be in order for the mentally unstable? I don't take any medication, but know some people with soldier's heart who take mild anti-anxiety medicine. They still work with firearms and have clean records, would you consider them mentally unstable? Would they be up for a social demotion to "citizen in name only"?

I guess what I'm getting at is if the restrictions do little to limit actual accessibility, even though the perceived accessibility is limited, and if those restrictions aren't in accordance with the constitution, then is it really an issue?

In many cases it is impossible to know if someone is mentally unstable until they do the mentally unstable act. If a firearm is involved it is even more tragic, but how do I judge someone before anything has happened?

reply to post by Galvatron


but for both felons and mentally unstable, you can't argue the 2nd amendment says NO restrictions then say it's ok to limit them.
if you read it literally, it means no restrictions at all.

so either limitations are ok or they are not

reply to post by rickm


That's what I was getting at with the convicted felon thing. They aren't really citizens anymore in the eyes of the law, so the constitution doesn't apply to them. Whether or not that itself is constitutional is a different discussion. I think the case is from 1980 or 1982. Lewis vs US. Basically the supreme court explained why, but much like the affordable care act, you may or may not consider it constitutional. It's still law now.

Do I think there should be a delineation between citizens and civilians? Yes. Therefore I don't mind people stripped of their status as full citizens not having the constitution apply to them.

As for the mentally unstable, do I think that is justification for stripping someone of their rights, that is, to make them equal to a felon without the record? It totally depends on what mentally unstable or unfit is defined as. Do I think the mentally unfit ought to be prevented from owning firearms as a mere piece of legislation? no. As described before, the laws do little to prevent actually obtaining firearms anyway.

reply to post by Galvatron


but you are referring to an interpretation of the bill of rights.

my entire thought is that people who quote the 2nd are saying anything is an infringement.
but nowhere in the constitution or bill of rights does it say anything at all about taking away rights.

arguing one point and disregarding another is a double standard.

reply to post by rickm


That's exactly why I say it's best to make a new discussion about the constitutionality of taking away rights. The access to firearms is just incidental to that whole thing.

I agree about the double standard. Given an unmolested system without any legal precedent, and the only things in discussion were the questions should the mentally disabled or those convicted of a serious crime still have access to firearms under the current constitution then my answer would be yes, they should have legal access. As stated before, however, denying legal access does little to deny real access.

reply to post by rickm


Talking points.... Oh you mean adherence to the Constitution. Yeah, those pesky talking points are hold old again?

And when did I say I want to do away with laws?

Please point that out.

reply to post by rickm


No, no you can't. You about the most uneducated person within this thread.

There are laws governing private sales in all states.
Some range from sales being between only state residents.
Some require a sales receipt.

Look, you may be very smart in many other things. Gun law isn't one of them.

Care to try again?

reply to post by rickm


Oh geez. Nothing stops people from buying drugs or alcohol off the street either.

Seems yours laws have done a lot for the drug usage in the US. So why not apply the same idea to firearms, because the track record is so great.

reply to post by macman


when you quote the 2nd amendment
that is when.

where in the constitution or bill of rights does it allow for felons to lose their rights as a citizen?

reply to post by Galvatron


by using the views of the supreme court, the right to travel is a constitutional right.

yet to legally operate a vehicle to travel, you must have a license, register the car and have insurance.

surely a double standard

reply to post by macman


suure there are.
you are too funny.
talk about ignorance. you have been brainwashed by the nra and gun nuts

reply to post by macman


now you are talking bout legal products and illegal products.
you can't even stay on topic can you?

reply to post by rickm


Yep, the you do have the right to travel. But you don't have a right to own a horse, an airplane, a train, a car etc. It's not the same as the 2nd, and there is no double standard. Here's why. The right to travel is about the what (travel), not about the how. The 2nd amendment is about the how (arms). One is a verb, the other is a noun (not simpliftying it this way to be snarky, just to show the core differences between the two). One is more explicit than the other.

If the 2nd amendment said "right to defend one's life with lethal force, or right to defend one's sovereign (the constitution) with legal revolution" then the how would be up in the air and everything from firearms to swords could and probably would have license for the simplest of ownership if ownership was permitted at all.

reply to post by rickm


You missed his point entirely. Unless you got it and you're saying that to detract his point.

His point is if you make firearms illegal products, like the one he listed, then the ability to acquire them isn't much changed. Using drugs as an example.

There is so much evidence around the world that basically shows without a doubt that legalization of illegal and "dangerous" things is without exception immediately followed by massive decreasing rates of abuse of said product, dismantlement of the black markets pushing whatever goods they may be, and a reduction in prison rates due to petty crimes with said products. Guns, drugs, alcohol (18th amendment), tobacco, whatever. Better the devil you know I think has become the most statistically proven phrase in existence.

rickm
reply to post by Galvatron

 

but for both felons and mentally unstable, you can't argue the 2nd amendment says NO restrictions then say it's ok to limit them.
if you read it literally, it means no restrictions at all.

so either limitations are ok or they are not

That is incorrect. Constitutional rights can be removed from criminals after due process of law--its in the 5th Amendment. This would not be "restrictions" on the RTKBA, but rather a punishment on an individual after due process. Just like losing the franchise, losing freedom by being put in jail, losing property by fines, etc after due process.

reply to post by Galvatron


i would like to see which supreme court argument said you can't use the most common form of transportation (outside of walking) to travel.

rickm
reply to post by Galvatron

 

by using the views of the supreme court, the right to travel is a constitutional right.

yet to legally operate a vehicle to travel, you must have a license, register the car and have insurance.

surely a double standard

That is incorrect as well. You can own an operate a car without license, registration, or insurance at all as long as it is on your own property. Those are just needed to use publicly owned streets. Although not practical for most, there are many farmers and ranchers who have beat up old trucks that they only use on their property without any of those things at all. If guns were like cars, you could go into any store, buy a machine gun if you wanted, no background check other than the means to pay for it, and take it home without any sort of licensing as long as you used it on your own property.

reply to post by NavyDoc


where does it say that? or are you using a court interpretation?

the text reads

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

i see nothing in that text that says rights can be taken away.

reply to post by Galvatron


and that is a moot point.
i have never said firearms should be made illegal.

i have stated numerous times that they should be made harder to get.
unlike him, who wants them easier to get with no limitations on who gets them

rickm
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

where does it say that? or are you using a court interpretation?

the text reads

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

i see nothing in that text that says rights can be taken away.

"No one may deprived of life (a right), liberty (a right) or property (a right) without due process of law." However, with due process, one can be deprived of all three. You lose your right to liberty when you are sentenced to jail, for example.