Trump - 4 more years of this at least...

[husaberg]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I'm simply pointing out that it is indeed a change in America's constitution that would be required to legally remove 'guns that you don't like' from ownership by 'the people'.

Unfortunately the US supreme court disagrees with you.(Well the current balanced one does)

The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up a series of cases seeking to expand gun rights, showing that even with its conservative majority it remains hesitant about wading into the contentious issue.
The court rejected 10 different appeals that had piled up in recent months challenging whether various firearms restrictions violated the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.
The court also declined to take up appeals challenging assault weapon bans in Massachusetts and Cook County, Illinois, a jurisdiction that includes Chicago.

including the The Massachusetts ban, enacted in 1998, which was modeled after a federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 and was not renewed, largely because of Republican opposition in Congress. Cook County enacted its ban in 2006. Both measures barred specific firearms including AK-47s and AR-15s.

But also the Federal court.

Since the June 2008 ruling, over 80 different cases have been heard in lower federal courts on the constitutionality of a wide variety of gun control laws.These courts have heard lawsuits in regard to bans of firearm possession by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. Also, cases have been heard on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting certain types of weapons, such as machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and/or specific types of weapons attachments. In addition, courts have heard challenges to laws barring guns in post offices and near schools and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, carrying of concealed weapons, types of ammunition and possession of unregistered firearms.

Consistently since the Heller ruling, the lower federal courts have ruled that almost all gun control measures as presently legislated are lawful and that according to UCLA professor of constitutional law Adam Winkler: "What gun rights advocates are discovering is that the vast majority of gun control laws fit within these categories."

The courts have upheld most of these laws as being constitutional


So if you disagree what is it that makes you a better judge of the US constitution than the US supreme court.
do you work in IT or something that gives you superpowers.

[FJRider]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I'm simply pointing out that it is indeed a change in America's constitution that would be required to legally remove 'guns that you don't like' from ownership by 'the people'.

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

The Constitution never specified any particular weapons the "People" could (or couldn't) carry. Thus the Constitution cannot be affected by any law change to ban particular weapons ... or weapons types.

[FJRider]

And I'm not defending those who are currently wandering the streets carrying weapons - or trying to claim they're a 'well regulated militia'.

I'm merely commenting on the wording of the Constitution and pointing out that it would take a significant change to that Constitution to be legally allowed to demand that 'the people' hand over 'guns that other people don't like'.

Read post #617

[FJRider]

It does not matter how I describe it, only how the US Supreme Court describes it.

The latter referencing the surrounding and supporting documentation that the purpose is both for an individual's right to self-defense and to give the populace a means to overthrow the government.

You may disagree with that interpretation, however since it is the interpretation repeatedly upheld by the US Supreme Court, it is for intents and purposes, the 'Correct interpretation'

The term "Self Defense" differs from the term "Attack". The term "Overthrow" is not "Defense".

The subtlety of the differences between the two ... may be over your head ...


Just saying ...

[TheDemonLord]

The term "Self Defense" differs from the term "Attack". The term "Overthrow" is not "Defense".

The subtlety of the differences between the two ... may be over your head ...


Just saying ...

I'll be sure to pass your critique onto the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court.

I again refer you to the Federalist papers which states, quite explicitly, that one of the purposes IS to:

tyranny... would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.

[TheDemonLord]

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

The Constitution never specified any particular weapons the "People" could (or couldn't) carry. Thus the Constitution cannot be affected by any law change to ban particular weapons ... or weapons types.

Then how come California's Magazine capacity laws were recently declared unconstitutional?

If you listen to any of Justice Scalia's lectures on Youtube (which ironically I'd been listening to before this arose) he articulates it very clearly (in line with his Originalist interpretation):

The constitution is to be read in the manner it was intended, the surrounding history of when it was written informs us as to what the intent was. Language and definitions may change over time (he gives the example of the prohibition of 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' now being read to exclude execution, whereas when written Execution was not considered Cruel nor unusual), however the intent is clear and judgements should be made in the spirit of that intent.

The Challenge on particular weapon types flows from the intent, which is why a Magazine limit can be unconstitutional, even if there is no reference in the Constitution

As Katman rightly points out - One can disagree with either what the constitution says or how the Supreme court interpret it, but the fact is, given we know the recent precedents they have set (and for Husa's benefit, declining to hear a case is not the same as making a decision on a case), we have to defer to their interpretation.

[Katman]

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

Then Joe Biden should probably just be up front about his plan to amend the 2nd Amendment - instead of just saying "damn straight we're coming for your AR15s".

[FJRider]

I'll be sure to pass your critique onto the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court.

I again refer you to the Federalist papers which states, quite explicitly, that one of the purposes IS to:

So you think untrained but (well ??) armed citizens should fight alongside (or instead of) the already well formed ... and well armed National Guard .. ???

National Guard units are in the Army and Air Force. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States. National Guard units are under the dual control of the State governments and the federal government.

as defined by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_...ed_States_Code



Control by STATE government can give separation from Federal control in times of Political unrest ... with a lesser degree of the chance of having an "Armed mob" making rash decisions regarding any military actions ... "on the peoples" behalf.

[FJRider]

Then Joe Biden should probably just be up front about his plan to amend the 2nd Amendment - instead of just saying "damn straight we're coming for your AR15s".

You think ...


Probably ... he announced his intention ... without actually having a plan on how he can actually achieve it.

Probably ... to gauge how much support (or resistance [and where the resistance comes from])


Not unlike a few political "Promises" made in THIS country by those holding some power.

[TheDemonLord]

So you think untrained but (well ??) armed citizens should fight alongside (or instead of) the already well formed ... and well armed National Guard .. ???

National Guard units are in the Army and Air Force. All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States. National Guard units are under the dual control of the State governments and the federal government.

as defined by
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_...ed_States_Code



Control by STATE government can give separation from Federal control in times of Political unrest ... with a lesser degree of the chance of having an "Armed mob" making rash decisions regarding any military actions ... "on the peoples" behalf.

Again.

It doesn't matter what I think.

It's what the Supreme Court and the Founding Fathers think. All I am doing is pointing to their interpretation as the one that holds weight and deferring to it.

[sugilite:Me]

'And so on' - Now, I know this is a figure of speech and I'm sure this isn't deliberate, but there's something in there that rankles me, Probably because it's the part where good intentions can get hi-jacked. It's also where people who have experienced the negative effects before tend to take the line 'Give them an Inch, they'll take a mile, never give them an inch'.

'and so on' can be assumed as continuing along the common sense pathway I was talking about. My post was not meant as a rough draft to be passed on to the supreme court, hence the inference to common sense. Note: I used the word "path" as against the term "obstacle course".

[FJRider]

Then how come California's Magazine capacity laws were recently declared unconstitutional?

So ... were the "Laws" there amended to change it back ... ??

The constitution is to be read in the manner it was intended, the surrounding history of when it was written informs us as to what the intent was.

Should we do the same ... as per the Treaty of Waitangi ... WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN here in New Zealand ... in "The manner it was INTENDED ... THEN ... ???

Language and definitions may change over time (he gives the example of the prohibition of 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' now being read to exclude execution, whereas when written Execution was not considered Cruel nor unusual), however the intent is clear and judgements should be made in the spirit of that intent.

You can't have "The manner in which it was intended" and then say ... "Language and definitions may change". The constitution is not LAW.

Amendments can (and have been) be made in the past. This point has already been made in this thread.

Watching American politics from the comfort of our couches here in NZ ... and discussing it ... is similar to watching a game of Chess from the sidelines ... and having no capability to change (or advise) any of those playing the game. Any vehement argument/opinions/discussion will have little effect on the later outcome of any political decisions made there.

But you could post a link to this thread to those there you feel need your opinion.


Good luck with that.

The Challenge on particular weapon types flows from the intent, which is why a Magazine limit can be unconstitutional, even if there is no reference in the Constitution

Laws or constitutional "Intent" ... I have already commented on. Not mentioned in the constitution means there was NO intent OR NEED to mention it.

Simple really. Any implication there was "intent" is in only the imagination of some. The imagination of some is quite vivid as you will agree ... just on that point alone.

As Katman rightly points out - One can disagree with either what the constitution says or how the Supreme court interpret it, but the fact is, given we know the recent precedents they have set (and for Husa's benefit, declining to hear a case is not the same as making a decision on a case), we have to defer to their interpretation.

If your agreement (if you agree with Katman) suddenly makes it correct ... it may supprise you to learn ... it actually might not necessarily concur as being "the Letter of the Law". Or even be in any way correct.

You HAVE been known to be wrong you know ... as he has been ... on more than one occasion.



Just saying ...

[FJRider]

Again.

It doesn't matter what I think.

I've ALWAYS held that belief.


I'm glad we concur on THAT ...





Just saying ...

[TheDemonLord]

So ... were the "Laws" there amended to change it back ... ??

My understanding is there is no requirement to have it be amended, only that it cannot be enforced

Should we do the same ... as per the Treaty of Waitangi ... WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN here in New Zealand ... in "The manner it was INTENDED ... THEN ... ???

Well, we already do in a way - consider Commercial Fishing quotas granted by the Treaty or the allocation of frequencies for Mobile phone use.

Personally, I believe that the buyback breached the Treaty, so I'd be tempted to advocate an originalist reading of the Treater.

You can't have "The manner in which it was intended" and then say ... "Language and definitions may change". The constitution is not LAW.

I really can, because I'm citing Supreme Courts Justices in both instances. Some of whom are Originalist (Justice Scalia types) who take the 'as intended' view, others like Justice Ginsberg took the opposite view.

I tend to lean more on the Originalist view, but with a caveat that there comes a point where times have changed to the point that an amending of an amendment may be needed.

Amendments can (and have been) be made in the past. This point has already been made in this thread.

So then the solution is simple, Amend the Amendment. Except to outright state that, especially if it was to amend anything in the Bill of Rights, would be political Suicide in the US, hence why no one has the balls to outright state it.

Laws or constitutional "Intent" ... I have already commented on. Not mentioned in the constitution means there was NO intent OR NEED to mention it.
Simple really. Any implication there was "intent" is in only the imagination of some. The imagination of some is quite vivid as you will agree ... just on that point alone.

And that is simply not true. We know this because when writing their opinion, Supreme Court Justices frequently cite other works from which either the item being debated is derived from or is relevant to. If Memory serves, the Magna Carta has been frequently cited in Legal Opinion, despite it not being part of any Law or Constitution in the US but specifically because the US Constitution was derived from it.

Same too with the Federalist Papers, they expand upon the ideas that were codified into the Constitution, so when there is a question that the letter of the Constitution does not directly address, we can look to the intent that is rather clearly spelled out.

We can also look to legal precedent and opinion - namely that if previously, the consensus as to what the meaning was, was X, then it should hold true that for future decisions, an interpretation of X should be used and not Y.

If your agreement (if you agree with Katman) suddenly makes it correct ... it may supprise you to learn ... it actually might not necessarily concur as being "the Letter of the Law". Or even be in any way correct.

You HAVE been known to be wrong you know ... as he has been ... on more than one occasion.

Just saying ...

There are things in the Constitution that I personally don't entirely agree with. However, those disagreements are trumped by what the interpretation of the Supreme court is. I keep coming back to this point because all of your post is attributing to me what I'm deferring to the actual authority and arbiters of the Constitution.

[jasonu]

You mean ... just as the New Zealand Government has recently done ... ??

Except gang guns of course because they are only used in gang business, no threat to the ordinary man.

Then again that was a buy back not a gun grab that cost the country a shit ton and didn't really achieve anything and definitely didn't achieve the Labour government's goal of making the country safer.