USA TODAY: Fact check: Would a U.S. House bill ban assault weapons?

Legal & Second Amendment
21

The ‘stimulus’ spending is still spending, and money the government does not have. We are already at unsustainable debt.

Mike’s analysis is good and spot on, for the purpose of legal discussions, and as such there is much he can provide to assist. It is not that his analysis is wrong or I disagree with it… I disagree that the courts should even consider such things.
The Constitution is clear, and while you seem to accept some limitations on our right to keep and bear arms, can you state clearly where the authority for those limitations comes from?
Would you also accept limitations on your right to freedom of movement, perhaps the government tells you that you are prohibited or banned from traveling across town, at least without a permit, or that you can not travel to the neighboring town, or another state.
Would you accept limitations on your right to freedom of religion, prohibitions or banning of your church, or your beliefs, or prohibiting you from attending church unless you have a permit and carry your Religious Identification Card.

President Grover Cleveland vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, which was to assist farmers and people who were suffering from a severe drought, whose livestock had died, who were starving, and Cleveland vetoed it and in his veto message he stated he found no authority in the Constitution. That covers both gun control and this Covid-19 massive spending.

There are limits on the power of government, not limits on our rights (except for the limit that my rights end when they meet your rights… in other words, equal rights. I can swing my fist… but my right to swing my fist ends just before it impacts you… you have a right to speak, but not on another person’s private property, and you have a right to life, but that right becomes surrendered, or you risk the surrendering of that right it you attack someone and they have their right to self defense, which might lead to your demise.)… No legislated limitations. If government can legislate limitations on our rights, they are not rights, but privileges and grants offered by the government, and revoked just as easily.

You are correct, the wheels are coming off. We did not shutter the industry of the nation, did not shut down the engines of our country … due to the flu… and we have had in excess of 24K fatalities from the flu. We need to take precautions, and those at risk need to be careful due to this Coronavirus, but that is true of the flu. We seem to simply be expecting government to be our saviors, and you are correct, they seem to have to pass it to know what is in it.

1 Like
22

I am not happy with limitations or even ok with it. What I am is pragmatic enough to know that, it is simply the way it is, and no I don’t want them to pass the stimulus bill and then find out to late there were some gotchas in it.

My Congressman’s staff here locally and in DC know me either on sight or by voice. Senator not so much. But I talk to his staff. I am doing what I can to keep my elected representatives aware that their stance on 2A is key to whether I vote for them or not.

One I’ve told I’m not going to vote for when I asked he said he was pro 2A, and an avid hunter. BUT…you know where it went from there.

2 Likes
23

Perhaps to be persuasive you can alter the argument some.

Ask the Representative if he accepts limitations on rights, (such as the ones they impose on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms)… Legislative acts or Judicial Decrees that limit a right.

Such as a limit on Religious Freedom… requiring a Religious Identification Card (similar to those states that require a Firearms Owner Identification Card)
Or limits on the Right to Liberty, where a law is passed that states you can be detained, imprisoned and put to manual labor, without due process… (we already have something close)
Or limits legislated judicially decreed on the Right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, where they can bust down your door at any time without a warrant…

Or, a limit legislated or decided in court… that there is a limit to the right to life… and say the age of 45 you must be euthanized.

They sound absurd… but there seems to be no limits to the limits they impose on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Just an idea. If we throw their absurdity back at them, it might wake them up a little.

2 Likes
24

There will never be “one set of laws” in the United States under our current Constitution. There are 50 sovereign states that have powers the federal government has and there is a sovereign federal government that has powers the state governments do not have. There are so called “Uniform” laws that are not even uniform, i.e. the Uniform Commercial Code, The Uniform Notary Act, Uniform Landlord and Tenant Act and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Most states have their own variations of the “uniform” acts.

This can be very irritating, but, what is good for Kentucky is not necessarily good for Florida, Maine or California. I doubt there are many ordinances in Florida and parts of California requiring snow to be shoveled from sidewalks and it is a lot different in Kentucky than it is Maine.

And I can say with absolute certainty that the anti gun caucus and anti gun groups feel the same way about us. The problem (or not) that we have is that we do not all think the same and we have varying opinions on many topics. And as long as peoples opinions differ, what is “reasonable” will always be debatable.

2 Likes
25

One thing to remember is before the 14th Amendment, the states could and did legislate with respect to those rights that the federal government could not. Firearms was one of those rights that have a long history of state prohibitions.
Historically, open carry was allowed in most states and concealed carry was prohibited. Vermont is the only state whose Constitution has always forbidden the regulation of carrying firearms. It is truly a Constitutional Carry state.
It wasn’t until 1987 that Florida became the first “shall issue” concealed carry state when the tide started to turn. Since then, all but a few states have implemented shall carry statutes.
Some of the questions that need to be answered by SCOTUS involve the transportation of firearms and the carrying of firearms on your person for self defense. The only questions answered so far are that the 2nd Amendment allows the possession of firearms in your home for self defense and the 2nd Amendment is a fundamental right that applies to both the federal government and the states.

2 Likes
26

Indeed, there were different laws in different states, and prior to the Fourteenth Amendment the states were not under the umbrella of the Constitution in the sense that the rights could not be denied… the states were not ‘incorporated’.
While I disagree with that to some extent, as there are state’s rights, there is also the inalienable rights we all have and the Constitution guarantees. I still find it difficult to see the founders fighting for their liberty, and rights, only to surrender those rights at the state line. However, that was the case prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Since that time, the states are held to the same standards as the federal government, yet we still seem to lack any coherent supreme law of the land that guarantees rights.

We do, but it seems to have far too many areas of vagueness that allow courts and states to play loose with the rights we have.

I find it frustrating that clear English is so difficult for the courts and politicians.

KEEP : Own, Have, Possess
Bear : Carry, Open or Concealed

Combined with the right to self defense, it take extreme effort to distort that and issue decisions and opinions that we have had to deal with.

I am in Virginia, and I see a reversal in the early stages, thanks to our wonderful Governor. As long as the Supreme Court remains at least marginally Constitutionally Conservative, we may do well, but the federal courts may cause problems .

1 Like
27

There are thousands and thousands of pages discussing the interpretation of the Second Amendment including state and federal court cases and scholarly articles with varying arguments with respect to it being an individual or collective right and how far the right extends.
I understand your frustration @Kevin29, but it is still up to the Courts to refine the meaning of this right, as well as others. And the states, as sovereign entities, even with the 14th Amendment, still hold the primary “police power” which allows them to enact laws for the general welfare of the public. Under our federal system, the state, not the federal government, is responsible for enacting and enforcing the majority of the laws requiring or criminalizing specific actions or behaviors.

2 Likes