3
-2
5
Limits To The Second Amendment?
"In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when, where, and what kinds of guns are allowed. In some cases, we can regulate who can obtain guns, imposing restrictions on, for instance, felons, the mentally ill, and known terrorists. We can ban firearms such as military-style assault weapons that (like child pornography) plainly cause far more harm than they add in value. We can require those who are negligent with their weapons (as we do those who are negligent with their words in defamation cases) to be held liable for the harm they inflict on others. We can do all of these things; we just don’t. There might be policy reasons to debate the pros and cons of specific regulations, but there’s no reason to assume that there is a constitutional problem.
And you don’t need to take my word for it. Let’s take another listen to Justice Scalia in Heller, shall we? The Second Amendment, he stated, does not protect “the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” He further noted that nothing in the court’s decision “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“But, but, but …,” your Facebook friend might counter, “the text of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ Shall Not. Be. Infringed.” Said friend may even say it in all capital letters."
Uh oh.
Walt
"In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court told us that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within our homes. But the opinion never suggested that this right was unconditional or immune from all regulation. In fact, Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said just the opposite. In Heller, he specifically said that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”
Protecting the right to keep and bear arms is not the same as forbidding all regulations on that right. We can protect that right and still require background checks, permits, and training. We can still regulate when, where, and what kinds of guns are allowed. In some cases, we can regulate who can obtain guns, imposing restrictions on, for instance, felons, the mentally ill, and known terrorists. We can ban firearms such as military-style assault weapons that (like child pornography) plainly cause far more harm than they add in value. We can require those who are negligent with their weapons (as we do those who are negligent with their words in defamation cases) to be held liable for the harm they inflict on others. We can do all of these things; we just don’t. There might be policy reasons to debate the pros and cons of specific regulations, but there’s no reason to assume that there is a constitutional problem.
And you don’t need to take my word for it. Let’s take another listen to Justice Scalia in Heller, shall we? The Second Amendment, he stated, does not protect “the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.” He further noted that nothing in the court’s decision “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
“But, but, but …,” your Facebook friend might counter, “the text of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ Shall Not. Be. Infringed.” Said friend may even say it in all capital letters."
Uh oh.
Walt
The Second Amendment Is Not Absolute
Posted from slate.comPosted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
2nd Amendment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 16
18
18
0
It is very easy to cherry-pick specific quotes from the ruling. However the ruling affirmed the Protection of the People AGAINST the Power of the Government regarding the Individual Right to Bear (as in Possess & Carry) Arms.
This ruling was the precedent for later cases like McDonald v. Chicago which had resulted in de facto gun bans to specific "classes of weapons" (handguns which included pistols).
Each Clause of the Constitution works in conjunction with every other Clause of the Constitution. Therefore the 2a protections work WITH the Due Process Clause which is why the "shall not be infringed" and "no felons or mentally ill" do not contradict. Because Due Process has (or should have) occurred.
The problem that most Guns Rights (Protections) Advocates have is that "Due Process" is NOT being taken into account. We (the People) are being punished without having actually committed a crime (Individually) with is counter to the concepts of Liberty.
This ruling was the precedent for later cases like McDonald v. Chicago which had resulted in de facto gun bans to specific "classes of weapons" (handguns which included pistols).
Each Clause of the Constitution works in conjunction with every other Clause of the Constitution. Therefore the 2a protections work WITH the Due Process Clause which is why the "shall not be infringed" and "no felons or mentally ill" do not contradict. Because Due Process has (or should have) occurred.
The problem that most Guns Rights (Protections) Advocates have is that "Due Process" is NOT being taken into account. We (the People) are being punished without having actually committed a crime (Individually) with is counter to the concepts of Liberty.
(18)
(0)
CW3 Dick McManus
FROG WALKING TO JAIL the too-big-to-fail banksters and those who authorized and did torture is more important than making any new gun control laws.
We are fighting a war against science.
9/11 Truth Seattle
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 2870/
see my free online book SOME UNKNOWN HISTORY OF THE U.S. - a work in progress
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SomeUnknownUSHistory/messages
This work is about OSS and CIA drug trafficking and their war crimes as well as war crimes by other US government Departments or agencies.
Dick McManus
Chief Warrant Officer-3/counterintelligence special agent, and combat paramedic, Vietnam, US Army retired, , Everett, WA
If you want to read the 2nd editions of my books for free. I can share them to you via Google Drive. Just send me an email [login to see]
to let me know if you want to read them. I have not gotten around to publishing them online or in a paper book
Some Unpopular History of the United States
Book One -- 1610 to 1933 (107 pages)
Some Unpopular History of the United States
Book Two -The Franklin D. Roosevelt Years (220 pages)
(March 1933 - died April 12, 1945)
Some Unpopular History of the United States
Book Three -- The Truman Years - Apr. 1945 to Jan. 1953
Some Unpopular History of the United States
The Eisenhower Years Jan. 1953 to Jan. 1961
We are fighting a war against science.
9/11 Truth Seattle
https://www.facebook.com/groups/ [login to see] 2870/
see my free online book SOME UNKNOWN HISTORY OF THE U.S. - a work in progress
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SomeUnknownUSHistory/messages
This work is about OSS and CIA drug trafficking and their war crimes as well as war crimes by other US government Departments or agencies.
Dick McManus
Chief Warrant Officer-3/counterintelligence special agent, and combat paramedic, Vietnam, US Army retired, , Everett, WA
If you want to read the 2nd editions of my books for free. I can share them to you via Google Drive. Just send me an email [login to see]
to let me know if you want to read them. I have not gotten around to publishing them online or in a paper book
Some Unpopular History of the United States
Book One -- 1610 to 1933 (107 pages)
Some Unpopular History of the United States
Book Two -The Franklin D. Roosevelt Years (220 pages)
(March 1933 - died April 12, 1945)
Some Unpopular History of the United States
Book Three -- The Truman Years - Apr. 1945 to Jan. 1953
Some Unpopular History of the United States
The Eisenhower Years Jan. 1953 to Jan. 1961
Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Exactly. The gun-grabbers are not concerned with due process. They don't care how many constitutional protections of our liberty they violate in pursuit of what they consider to be the best legislation for all.
In doing so, they destroy our society while proclaiming they are saving it.
“A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals [or psychos] dictates the scope of liberty for the rest of society, in no sense ‘fights’ crime.”
For society has permitted its fear of crime, and craving for safety, to turn the force of law against the innocent and law-abiding. Far from fighting crime, the criminalization of otherwise innocent activities represents a society in retreat from crime. This is a society desperately accommodating itself to crime.”
— Jeff Snyder
In doing so, they destroy our society while proclaiming they are saving it.
“A law which restricts the liberty of the innocent because of the behavior of the guilty, that rests on the principle that the conduct of criminals [or psychos] dictates the scope of liberty for the rest of society, in no sense ‘fights’ crime.”
For society has permitted its fear of crime, and craving for safety, to turn the force of law against the innocent and law-abiding. Far from fighting crime, the criminalization of otherwise innocent activities represents a society in retreat from crime. This is a society desperately accommodating itself to crime.”
— Jeff Snyder
(2)
(0)
10
10
0
Laws disarming citizens don't apply to criminals or terrorists who do not obey laws.
These laws only disarm the victims of crime and terrorism.
These laws only disarm the victims of crime and terrorism.
(10)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS, I believe that it is because liberals function from an emotional rather than rational base; they cannot get past the feeling that guns are yucky.
(5)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Capt Seid Waddell - Yet they would limit gun ownership only to government entities who enforce laws, and tacitly to criminals who care nothing about laws. But funny how government officials are all protected by men and women armed with ?
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
Capt Walter Miller I agree whole heartily the 2A does not give you the right to even defend yourself. It was not written for the propose. It was written so that us, as citizens, can rise up against the government and take it back if the government is unacceptable to the country as a whole.
When this was written there was no "military weapons" and "civilian weapons", other than who purchased them. The army was small compared to the citizens of the nation.
Our forefathers had one thing in mind when they write the 2A. Give the people the power to keep the federal government in check and remove them if they saw fit. I am sure that if this had been wrote a century later that "arms" would have have been wrote as "military arms". The government now has the upper-hand on its citizens and and the chances of overthrowing the government are slim. Yet we still have this right.
If anti-gun people want this removed then they need to change the Bill of Rights. Easy enough. Repeal the Second Amendment. Why all this dancing around trying to limit this and that? Why take away bits and pieces? Man up, put your big boy pants on, and call for a repeal. You know why they don't, because they won't last long enough to see it through. Their ass will be voted out before it ever makes it to the House. So as my saintly Grandma used to say, "Shit on the pot or get off it."
When this was written there was no "military weapons" and "civilian weapons", other than who purchased them. The army was small compared to the citizens of the nation.
Our forefathers had one thing in mind when they write the 2A. Give the people the power to keep the federal government in check and remove them if they saw fit. I am sure that if this had been wrote a century later that "arms" would have have been wrote as "military arms". The government now has the upper-hand on its citizens and and the chances of overthrowing the government are slim. Yet we still have this right.
If anti-gun people want this removed then they need to change the Bill of Rights. Easy enough. Repeal the Second Amendment. Why all this dancing around trying to limit this and that? Why take away bits and pieces? Man up, put your big boy pants on, and call for a repeal. You know why they don't, because they won't last long enough to see it through. Their ass will be voted out before it ever makes it to the House. So as my saintly Grandma used to say, "Shit on the pot or get off it."
(5)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
Capt Walter Miller - "No, Captain. The [Dick Act - 1903] is the way the Congress exercised its power and fulfilled its duty 'To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia' under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. [AGAIN] There is no such authorization given to the Government in the 2nd Amendment.
The 2nd Amendment merely states a benefit to the Government derived co-incidentally from the pre-existing 'right of the people to keep and bear arms'. That benefit, a 'well regulated Militia' available for the defense of that Constitutional Government, was possible because the Government would not interfere with that inherent 'right of the people'."
The 2nd Amendment merely states a benefit to the Government derived co-incidentally from the pre-existing 'right of the people to keep and bear arms'. That benefit, a 'well regulated Militia' available for the defense of that Constitutional Government, was possible because the Government would not interfere with that inherent 'right of the people'."
(0)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
SGT William Howell - The "militia only" interpretation (or more properly "perversion") of the 2nd Amendment would then imply that the right to keep and bear arms ceased to exist when a male who was not in the National Guard turned 46 years of age. There are quite a few minimum ages stated in the Constitution, such as 35 years of age to be President, but I have never heard of a maximum age for anything ---- certainly not a maximum age for the exercise of a Constitutionally guaranteed right.
Similarly, no woman of any age who was not in the National Guard would EVER have the RKBA, since no women are members of the Reserve Militia, now termed the "unorganized militia" in the U S Code.
That illustrates the foolishness of the "right of the Militia" nonsense.
Similarly, no woman of any age who was not in the National Guard would EVER have the RKBA, since no women are members of the Reserve Militia, now termed the "unorganized militia" in the U S Code.
That illustrates the foolishness of the "right of the Militia" nonsense.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
CW3 Harvey K. Chief, I agree but it does screw up those that say the militia is only the National Guard. I think many of us old dogs still would have some fight in us if called upon. Besides in 1907 the average life expectancy could not have been much over 60.
(1)
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
SGT William Howell - Absolutely. The National Guard is the combat arms reserve of the U S Army. In addition to the "unorganized militia", many states have a "state militia" separate from their National Guard, which provides an alternative armed asset if their NG is out-of-state on Federal duty.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google