reuters.com

MSG Stan Hutchison - Exactly. It doesn't it simply says shall not be infringed. Which means ALL makes and models shall not be infringed.

The Constitution doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except the really dangerous ones, then go ahead and legislate away." It doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear small arms shall not be infringed" or "the right of the people to keep and bear single shot pistols shall not be infringed" or "the right of the people to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles, provided they have a magazine capacity no greater then 10 rounds, shall not be infringed." The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Without a qualifier of ANY sort, it means ALL ARMS.

SFC Casey O'Mally - Isn't interpreting the Constitution the job of the Supreme Court?
And what about States Rights?

SFC Casey O'Mally - And how about common sense? Do you really want every man, woman, and child to be running around with an M16?

MSG Stan Hutchison You threw out a lot of completely different things here so bear with me.....

Interpreting - and complying with - the Constitution is actually the job of all citizens. The group of citizens who have the GREATEST responsibility is actually Congress, not the judiciary. The judiciary, however, has the final say, with SCOTUS, obviously being the ultimate authority.
But just because SCOTUS is the ultimate authority does not mean you and I are neither allowed to or required to come to our own conclusions about the Constitutionality of an action, law, or policy prior to a court ruling.

States' rights are completely irrelevant, here. 10th Amendment reserves to the states or the people that which is not clearly outlined already. And the 2A clearly outlines SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. And, just to be safe, 14A binds the states to it. Leftists love to roll out "states rights" when they are suggesting something which CLEARLY defies the constitution, but it just doesn't work like that. (Of course, they refuse to acknowledge those same states' rights anytime they are trying to get authoritarian rules forced onto the populace, but I digress.)

The problem with common sense is that it is the least common of all senses. Whenever anyone trots out a "common sense" law or policy, what they are REALLY saying is that they are unable or unwilling to clearly justify it. "Common sense gun control" is about not being willing to discuss just how un-Constitutional the laws are, so the politicians shut down the debate pre-emptively by calling it "common sense." With the tacit implication that anyone who is against this "common sense" law is clearly either stupid or insane. Once again, that is not how this works.
In addition, what is "common sense" to you may NOT be common sense to me. How we are raised, what we have experienced in life, these make a difference. A 14 year old boy who has been hunting to put meat on the table for 3 years now sees it as common sense that he be allowed to carry his rifle to school so he can go hunting right after and save a trip home to pick it up. He also sees it as common sense that he knows how to safely handle the rifle, and he doesn't need someone supervising him. I am willing to wager you do not see the sense in that common sense.

Finally, what I want regarding who has what weapon is irrelevant. It is what they have a RIGHT to do. I don't WANT anyone to vote for Trump OR Biden in the upcoming primaries or general elections. So because I don't WANT that to happen, does that mean the government has the authority to step in and prevent it from happening? No, I do not want every man, woman, and child running around with an M16. But I do want every man*, woman*, and child** to BE ABLE TO run around with an M16, if they want to.

*Exceptions for those who are currently incarcerated, ruled legally incompetent, or under court/state jurisdiction for parole, probation, or other similar circumstances.

** Allowance for children with firearms should be at the parent's discretion and allowed only with the assumption and assignation of parental responsibility. Parents still have a role, here.

MSG Stan Hutchison I had an ex-con living with me. And the Commonwealth decided that it was "common sense" that there should be no guns in the home of a previously convicted felon, regardless of the nature of their crime.

I was informed by my local sheriff's office that keeping my gun would send him immediately to jail and bring me up on charges. And I did a free consult with a local lawyer who confirmed the same.

I had a choice: my brother or my gun. Because "common sense" said that a hit and run on a DEER means no guns for the rest of your life - for you OR the people you live with.

SFC Casey O'Mally - I think that's a BS move from the commonwealth. As long as you prevent access to the "Felon" you should be good.

SFC Casey O'Mally - Thank you for your response. That appears to be a bad decision on someone's part.

MSG Stan Hutchison I agree. But this is what happens with "common sense" legislation. Because it is "common sense" no one is willing to look at details.

Well, OF COURSE it is common sense that felons shouldn't have guns in their homes. I mean these are people who have proven they have no respect for society and are OBVIOUSLY a danger to everyone around them.
No one is willing to get into the nitty gritty and truly define things or look at the ramifications of broadly worded broadly applied policy/ law.

I would be willing to be 95% of users on RP have committed at least one felony SOMEWEHERE in their life*. Seriously. Half may not even realize they committed a felony. Many would be guilty only on a technicality, but guilty they would still be. We maintain our good names and good standing only because A) we didn't get caught, B) no one pursued it, C) no one was actually harmed, or D) some combination thereof.

I am not saying DUI is a good thing, should be overlooked, or anything of that nature. But how many folks COULD HAVE gotten a DUI - or two or ten - in their early military careers? In most places, DUI is an actual crime. Not just civil infraction like a speeding ticket, but misdemeanor level crime. And repeated or aggravated ones can rise to the level of felony.

Yet we sit in judgment of folks who have done the same type of stuff we have done, they just managed to get caught.

No, that is not an excuse for criminals. But it *is* an argument against punishing one-time criminals or even reformed repeat offenders for the rest of their lives, which is what a lot of our laws do. Including "common sense" felon in possession laws.


*Our society has created so many laws about so many things, we do not even legitimately know when we are breaking the law any more. That is another debate for another time, but in that environment, creating barriers to exercising Constitutional rights based on criminal convictions is, IMHO, exceptionally poblematic.