Are you a gun controller ?

[Ridgerunner]

Just for a lark...let us discuss gun control for a moment.

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

We all know that the Heller decision codified into law the premise that indeed government has the authority to enact 'reasonable' gun control.

The Supreme Court vastly out-stepped its bounds with this decision..."Shall not be infringed' strips the government of that authority.

Gun controllers nodded their heads wisely at the decision....

Those that support the Second Amendment saw it for what it was..government/courts taking final control of the ONLY means left to control them.

Where do you stand ? Do you REALLY think the Founders fought and whipped the greatest military force on earth at the time...firing the first shot when that force marched to confiscate powder and shot...only to set it up so some FUTURE government...domestic...would be allowed to do the same thing ?

 

[1shot(bob)]

The 2A says what it means and means what it says. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. No laws concerning the owning (keeping) and bearing arms. There is no way to enact reasonable control over a right that is so adamantly stated.
The 1A is guaranteed in the same manner. There are laws concerning what we say, but not the manner in which we say it. Libel, slander and other acts are illegal, as is crying 'Fire' in a crowded theatre. However, the tools such as the press, internet, television, typewriters etc. are still free. Using them is still a freedom we enjoy.
Arms should be the same way. They can regulate how we use them only if it breaks another law (murder, robbery, etc.) or infringes on another's rights, but they should not be allowed to regulate 'keeping and bearing'. We should be allowed to keep and bear arms as we see fit.

In direct answer to your question: NO.

 

[Ridgerunner]

1shot(bob)
Well.. one man with the courage to speak up...and speak loudly and clearly and CORRECTLY.
I believe it insanity to allow a government to control the means to control IT...if all else fails.
I also believe that the Founders ALSO considered it insanity...thuse 'Shall Not Be Infringed'.

20,000+++++ laws later...and they STILL are not happy..wishing for yet more.

Were we still a Nation of men...instead of mice..we would never accept the present controls.

 

[KevinAbbeyTech]

Were we still a Nation of men...instead of mice..we would never accept the present controls.

Indeed. Sadly True Men are becoming a rarity. We have become a race of sheep and mice.

"Gone are the days of wooden ships, and Iron men.
I doubt we'll see either of their likes again".

 

[crazy8]

We feminize/passify our boys with mood altering drugs,into being wussies
"billy,take your drugs and sit still ,talk about your feeeeelings and be a good boy like sally,see she's behaving".This is the reason revolution has been medicated out of a generation.

 

[shootinpreacher48]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means no laws of any kind, on any gun, on any person, or anywhere, our founding fathers did not want the government to be able to control firearms which is why the Bill of Rights is there.

 

[vvvvvvv]

We all know that the Heller decision codified into law the premise that indeed government has the authority to enact 'reasonable' gun control.

Heller did not codify anything into law.

The part that I am sure you are referencing was the Court's leaving open of incorporation of the Second Amendment via the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is up to the lower courts now to incorporate the Second, and we'll likely need a split for the SCOTUS to consider it.

From Heller...

Similar discussion attended the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and the Fourteenth Amendment. For example, Representative Butler said of the Act: “Section eight is intended to enforce the well-known constitutional provision guaranteeing the right of the citizen to ‘keep and bear arms,’ and provides that whoever shall take away, by force or violence, or by threats and intimidation, the arms and weapons which any person may have for his defense, shall be deemed guilty of larceny of the same.” H. R. Rep. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3d Sess., pp. 7–8 (1871). With respect to the proposed Amendment, Senator Pomeroy described as one of the three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty . . . under the Constitution” a man’s “right to bear arms for the defense of himself and family and his homestead.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1182 (1866). Representative Nye thought the Fourteenth Amendment unnecessary because “[a]s citizens of the United States [blacks] have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” Id., at 1073 (1866). It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

We all know that the Heller decision codified into law the premise that indeed government has the authority to enact 'reasonable' gun control.

A closer look at DC v. Heller says differently.


In DC v. Heller. at 54, Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

This excerpt contains "purpose" which the Second Amendment does not protect. It is also pertinent to note that it doesn't make much difference whether the right secured by the Second Amendment should be unlimited or not. The Founding Fathers secured the right as if it is unlimited. I, for one, believe it is unlimited as did the Founding Fathers. How else could We the People grant unlimited power to the Union to defend us if we didn't have that unlimited power ourselves?

Further along at 54 and 55, Scalia wrote:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion 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.26

(Note the footnote #26 which we'll get to in a minute.) Scalia did not say all the 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 are sacrosanct or are "reasonable restrictions". He wrote that they didn't do a complete analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment and could not say those "restrictions" were in doubt without a complete analysis. He left it wide open for a future analysis to make such a definitive call. All he said was that such a call wasn't made in this deliberation(DC v. Heller).

Now I'll address Footnote 26 in which Scalia wrote:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

What can we glean from this? That his list of restrictions was incomplete? Yes, but more important is the inclusion of the phrase "presumptively lawful". The opinion of the Court is only PRESUMING these regulatory measures("reasonable restrictions") are constitutional. That's twice Scalia made that point. This is the Court passing the buck on to the next case to come along that would address the issue of the constitutionality of all of these presumptively - for the time being - lawful regulatory measures.

There is a reason the issue of these presumptively lawful regulatory measures was not addressed. My guess would be to secure a fifth concurrence, and I would further guess that the fifth concurrence would be that of Justice Kennedy.

It can be said of Justice Antonin Scalia that he artfully crafted the majority opinion in DC v. Heller and secured the fact that the Second Amendment protects a right of the individual, and made it clear that this is just the beginning of the denouement.

Woody

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ain't lawyers wonderful ?

The fact remains...the Heller decision codified into law that 'reasonable restrictions' are perfectly within the scope of government. The NEXT case/court will use THIS case/court as 'settled law'...for the first time in history, the supreme court stated that government has the authority to restrict ALL weapons to the citizens at large...with some nebulous 'reasonable' attached to it.

 

[vvvvvvv]

Ain't lawyers wonderful ?

The fact remains...the Heller decision codified into law that 'reasonable restrictions' are perfectly within the scope of government. The NEXT case/court will use THIS case/court as 'settled law'...for the first time in history, the supreme court stated that government has the authority to restrict ALL weapons to the citizens at large...with some nebulous 'reasonable' attached to it.

I suggest you study how our government works. After you learn that the judicial branch does not "codify" law, take a chance to read DC v. Heller. It is one of the easier opinions put out by the Supreme Court.

Even if the Court had said what you claim, it would not have been "the first time in history."