They have. It's listed 2nd in the Bill of Rights.
. . . restrict felons from possessing.
Florida Declares Open Season On Targets In 'Gunshine State'
- Thread starter Formaldehyde
- Start date
. . . restrict felons from possessing.
KmDubya
King
Like I posted earlier there is not a chance of reacquiring 2nd amendment rights that were given away by our forefathers. That is the reality, the best that can be done now is to hold what we still have.
As far as someone championing felons regaining their 2nd amendment rights, what politician would ever consider taking that position? He'd be called "soft on crime", a "criminal coddler", as well as being a "gun nut". It would be political suicide.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
I still think that the best and most straightforward interpretation of the second amendment is that the Federal government established and limited by the US Constitution has absolutely no authority whatsoever to limit anyone's right to keep and bear arms for any reason, but that state and local governments still have the power to regulate the use of arms as they deem appropriate within their jurisdictions.
There were plenty of local firearms regulations at the time that the 2nd amendment was ratified (and centuries earlier), which no one seemed to think were repealed by the change in the federal constitution. It was not until the passage of the 14th amendment that the protections of the bill of rights came to be incorporated against the states.
The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that states and localities would be able to defend themselves not only from foreign threats when the US army was not able to protect them, but also from the US army itself whenever the Federal government oversteps its authority. States and municipalities owning their own nuclear weapons, or permitting their residents to own their own nukes, would be perfectly in keeping with this purpose.
All federal laws regarding firearms are unconstitutional, and thus null and void. State laws and local ordinances regarding firearms are perfectly fine, assuming they do not violate any provisions of the state constitution, city charter, etc. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause should make it unconstitutional for a state or locality to pass any race-based restrictions on weapons (or anything else) or to prevent citizen's of other states from keeping and bearing weapons on the same terms as is allowed for the locals.
There were plenty of local firearms regulations at the time that the 2nd amendment was ratified (and centuries earlier), which no one seemed to think were repealed by the change in the federal constitution. It was not until the passage of the 14th amendment that the protections of the bill of rights came to be incorporated against the states.
The main purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure that states and localities would be able to defend themselves not only from foreign threats when the US army was not able to protect them, but also from the US army itself whenever the Federal government oversteps its authority. States and municipalities owning their own nuclear weapons, or permitting their residents to own their own nukes, would be perfectly in keeping with this purpose.
All federal laws regarding firearms are unconstitutional, and thus null and void. State laws and local ordinances regarding firearms are perfectly fine, assuming they do not violate any provisions of the state constitution, city charter, etc. The 14th amendment's equal protection clause should make it unconstitutional for a state or locality to pass any race-based restrictions on weapons (or anything else) or to prevent citizen's of other states from keeping and bearing weapons on the same terms as is allowed for the locals.
It was established in the 1830s (I think) that the states actually have no constitutional authority to do that, though, so I think that rather scuppers this argument.
Including the weapons bans supported by Governor Reagan and enshrined into Federal Law in the 1960s? Any politician opposing that would have been seen as supporting the Black Panthers.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Against better reason or judgement. No evaluation, just holding on. That is important. Because holding on to outdated ideas equals liberty.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Oh you awful, awful man. Gawd I hate that song with a passion.
I mean we hate that song. Don't we Tom?
Link to video.
I mean we hate that song. Don't we Tom?
Link to video.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Yeah. Tom Waits.
You got a problem with that?
You got a problem with that?
Diavolo Rosso
Lord Giggles
and what about the part saying gun possession is for the purposes of a well regulated militia? is this guy part of the florida militia?
Berzerker
Deity
well regulated militia is for the states' security
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
It's just one interpretation versus another. And yet one side keeps acting like it doesn't do any interpretation at all.
With that in mind, how can there be any inalienable rights if people accept that any 'outdated ideas' in the Constitution should be removed? If a majority of people disagree with the Second Amendment, should it be repealed? What about the First?
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
Rights should be supported by well-reasoned argumentation, I care little about the place where they are mentioned.
As was clear from the quote you quoted, which I'll requote for quoteness sake
As a response to
The oposite of holding on to ideas whatever those ideas may be is not remove those ideas, but rather decide on a different criteria. Should one not consider the merit of the ideas before deciding to cling to them?
The Second Amendment should be repealed, the First as well.
If those rights are that important, I would feel one should spend a little more effort in defining them than the single sentenced definition you got there. As has been clear all along, they are too open to interpretation. They are nice to point to the gist of the rights which they speak about, but surely not as definition.
Leaves room for Human Sacrifice. Of course that's not the gist of the First.
And the Second has that well-regulated militia bit.
Bottom-line: those amendments are nice and historic and should be valued as the starting point of American society. Not as documentation from which you can derive rights.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Why? What kind of security? This isn't 1792; you're a world power, and theoretically you should be (and, in fact, you were) invading other countries.
I've got to say I'm not sure that there is an entirely comfortable answer to this one. On the one hand, keeping laws which seem woefully outdated is hardly a way to bring about a modern and fair system. On the other, giving the government, 'the people' or anybody else the power to give or take away whatever rights they please seems extremely dangerous.
gay_Aleks
from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free!
Sadly, unlike Britain, which is a tiny island compared to U S of A, you can't just litter the countryside with CCTV cameras.
