[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Prior to the Civil War, if Pennsylvania passed a law that said “We’re pacifists. We think weapons are atrocious and sinful. No one can own any kind of cannon, and all hand-held firearms shall not he stored in your own home, but in a community warehouse next to the courthouse.”…
…it would not have violated the federal Constitution or its Bill of Rights.
[/quote]
At the least it would have violated the Pennsylvania Constitution:
“The right of citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.”
[/quote]
Even assuming so, are we talking about the Pennsylvania right or the Second Amendment? If we’re talking about the Second Amendment, the point is that, as a matter of original intent, it only placed a restriction on the federal government and left the states to regulate as they chose.
The only way this intent could have been changed (along with the scope of the right) was with the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As for the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment - can anyone make a legitimate argument that at the time of the ratification of that Amendment that the intent was that any state laws and regulations that had been adopted to the Fourteenth Amendment were suddenly eviscerated by its passage?
Don’t forget it was ans amendment and that state legislatures ratified on their own - were the states intending that their existing gun control laws (whatever their makeup) be washed away by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment?
I am happy to hear that case made, but I don’t think anyone can make it.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve noticed somewhat of a contradiction with a lot of 2nd amendment advocates. They are often the ones complaining about the police having “military” weapons and I’ve even seen them slip up and use forbidden liberal terms like “assault rifle” and “machine gun”. It seems weapons can fall into a military or civilian category when it’s the police but those lines are blurred or non-existent for the private owner.
Note: I’m not advocating anyone take away your guns. Just looking at things dispassionately as an outside observer. Personally I hate our restrictive gun laws and would like to see a 2nd Amendment right here(never gonna happen though).[/quote]
I think its a valid complaint that the police have military weapons when you can’t own one privately. They are just complaining in context of the current laws, not what they want the laws to be. Its only about equaling the playing field by restricting to others what you don’t have, or giving to yourself what others have.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’ve noticed somewhat of a contradiction with a lot of 2nd amendment advocates. They are often the ones complaining about the police having “military” weapons and I’ve even seen them slip up and use forbidden liberal terms like “assault rifle” and “machine gun”. It seems weapons can fall into a military or civilian category when it’s the police but those lines are blurred or non-existent for the private owner.
Note: I’m not advocating anyone take away your guns. Just looking at things dispassionately as an outside observer. Personally I hate our restrictive gun laws and would like to see a 2nd Amendment right here(never gonna happen though).[/quote]
I think its a valid complaint that the police have military weapons when you can’t own one privately. They are just complaining in context of the current laws, not what they want the laws to be. Its only about equaling the playing field by restricting to others what you don’t have, or giving to yourself what others have.[/quote]
Yes I understand the concept(although don’t necessarily agree with it), but I just thought its ironic that gun advocates sound very much like the liberals they hate when they’re talking about the police force and their weapons.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not so sure I understand you, SM. Rephrase for me.[/quote]
Oh dear. I think I’m in trouble now…
Okay, I just noticed a lot of 2nd Amendment advocates complaining about the police having “military” weapons and using terms such as “assault rifles” and “military rifles” and so on. It reminded me of liberals complaining about the guns that private gun owners are allowed. But I guess it’s inline with the philosophy of an armed citizenry and a minimally armed police force.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
We both know the Incorporation doctrine is and was a mess… [/quote]
But that isn’t especially relevant to the question. Set aside what has been decided on that doctrine and zero straight in on the issue.
Does the Second Amendment provide a right even as against state law? If you think the answer is yes, the only way it could get there is through the Fourteenth Amendment. Well, does the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment suggest that states intended to allow any and all state laws on gun control (whatever their extent) to be washed away when they ratified the amendment?
What do you (or anyone else) think?
EDITED to make sense.
Not generally throughout the thread, right? The talk was all about what the Second Amendment provided or didn’t provide, right? That is the issue.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not so sure I understand you, SM. Rephrase for me.[/quote]
Oh dear. I think I’m in trouble now…
Okay, I just noticed a lot of 2nd Amendment advocates complaining about the police having “military” weapons and using terms such as “assault rifles” and “military rifles” and so on. It reminded me of liberals complaining about the guns that private gun owners are allowed. But I guess it’s inline with the philosophy of an armed citizenry and a minimally armed police force.[/quote]
Just a technical point:
The term “assault rifle” is valid. An assault rifle is a light, typically short-barrelled select-fire (both semi- and fully-automatic) rifle firing a medium-power cartridge like the 5.56 NATO or the 7.62x39. The most typical examples of the breed are the Kalashnikov and the M16/M4 families.
It is to be distinguished from the “battle rifle” which is heavier and more powerful, firing a full-powered round such as the .30-06 or the 7.62 NATO. Examples include the G3, the FAL, the Garand, and the M14.
And a “machine gun” differs from the above two in that it is designed for sustained automatic fire, with quickly changeable barrels and the ability to feed from a belt rather than (or in the case of the FN Minimi/SAW, in addition to) a magazine.
The made-up media scare tactic term is “assault weapon”, which nobody who actually knows anything about firearms would actually use.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not so sure I understand you, SM. Rephrase for me.[/quote]
Oh dear. I think I’m in trouble now…
Okay, I just noticed a lot of 2nd Amendment advocates complaining about the police having “military” weapons and using terms such as “assault rifles” and “military rifles” and so on. It reminded me of liberals complaining about the guns that private gun owners are allowed. But I guess it’s inline with the philosophy of an armed citizenry and a minimally armed police force.[/quote]
Just a technical point:
The term “assault rifle” is valid. An assault rifle is a light, typically short-barrelled select-fire (both semi- and fully-automatic) rifle firing a medium-power cartridge like the 5.56 NATO or the 7.62x39. The most typical examples of the breed are the Kalashnikov and the M16/M4 families.
It is to be distinguished from the “battle rifle” which is heavier and more powerful, firing a full-powered round such as the .30-06 or the 7.62 NATO. Examples include the G3, the FAL, the Garand, and the M14.
The made-up media scare tactic term is “assault weapon”, which nobody who actually knows anything about firearms would actually use.[/quote]
Yes but they’re complaining about the use of the term to distinguish and ban/regulate rifles that are identical to legal rifles with the exception of pistol grip or some other innocuous feature.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I’m not so sure I understand you, SM. Rephrase for me.[/quote]
Oh dear. I think I’m in trouble now…
Okay, I just noticed a lot of 2nd Amendment advocates complaining about the police having “military” weapons and using terms such as “assault rifles” and “military rifles” and so on. It reminded me of liberals complaining about the guns that private gun owners are allowed. But I guess it’s inline with the philosophy of an armed citizenry and a minimally armed police force.[/quote]
Just a technical point:
The term “assault rifle” is valid. An assault rifle is a light, typically short-barrelled select-fire (both semi- and fully-automatic) rifle firing a medium-power cartridge like the 5.56 NATO or the 7.62x39. The most typical examples of the breed are the Kalashnikov and the M16/M4 families.
It is to be distinguished from the “battle rifle” which is heavier and more powerful, firing a full-powered round such as the .30-06 or the 7.62 NATO. Examples include the G3, the FAL, the Garand, and the M14.
The made-up media scare tactic term is “assault weapon”, which nobody who actually knows anything about firearms would actually use.[/quote]
Yes but they’re complaining about the use of the term to distinguish and ban/regulate rifles that are identical to legal rifles with the exception of pistol grip or some other innocuous feature.[/quote]
Right. And that’s the crux of the matter. An assault rifle is a real thing that has an actual definition. An “assault weapon” can be anything that the legislators might decide it is, usually based on what cosmetic features are the most intimidating to them.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Does the Second Amendment provide a right even as against state law?[/quote]
-Yes. Of course, an unconstitutional state law is not law.
-No.
-Edit: I misread this. I believe that the Second Amendment was intended not to allow state gun control laws. The Fourteenth Amendment clarified that former slaves(as well as naturalized citizens, etc.) were to be equal under the law.
-The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow states to violate the right of people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment to the Unites States Constitution says merely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be violated. The United States Constitution does trump state law.
-The Fourteenth Amendment was not needed to allow the United States Constitution to trump state law.
-The Second Amendment means that no state gun controls were legal.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
(Hello all.)[/quote]
Hey, welcome back.
Please argue more history, I like learning.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Prior to the Civil War, if Pennsylvania passed a law that said “We’re pacifists. We think weapons are atrocious and sinful. No one can own any kind of cannon, and all hand-held firearms shall not he stored in your own home, but in a community warehouse next to the courthouse.”…
…it would not have violated the federal Constitution or its Bill of Rights.
Looking at original intent is fine, as long as you look at all of it. In pre-Civil War America, you didn’t have a right to cannon unless the state you lived recognized said right. The Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government.
(Hello all.)[/quote]
I’m no scholar, but it is my understanding that the Supremacy Clause would render any state law that violates the Bill of Rights unconstitutional.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
I’m no scholar, but it is my understanding that the Supremacy Clause would render any state law that violates the Bill of Rights unconstitutional.
[/quote]
Correct… if and only if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Prior to the Civil War and the resulting Reconstruction Amendments, the Bill of Rights (in its entirety) had no application to the states or their laws. The limitations were strictly on the federal government. And therefore, the Supremacy Clause wasn’t triggered.
So, the Second Amendment was only a restriction on the United States Congress to pass laws that ran afoul of the right to keep and bear arms. States were free to pass any laws they wanted regarding arms.
[quote] NickViar wrote:
-The Second Amendment means that no state gun controls were legal.[/quote]
Not prior to the Fourteenth Amendment it didn’t mean that. (And maybe not even after the Fourteenth Amendment. But certainly not before. )
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
I’m no scholar, but it is my understanding that the Supremacy Clause would render any state law that violates the Bill of Rights unconstitutional.
[/quote]
Correct… if and only if the Bill of Rights applied to the states. Prior to the Civil War and the resulting Reconstruction Amendments, the Bill of Rights (in its entirety) had no application to the states or their laws. The limitations were strictly on the federal government. And therefore, the Supremacy Clause wasn’t triggered.
So, the Second Amendment was only a restriction on the United States Congress to pass laws that ran afoul of the right to keep and bear arms. States were free to pass any laws they wanted regarding arms.[/quote]
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, NOR PROHIBITED BY IT TO THE STATES, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
-The Second Amendment does prohibit both state governments and the national government from violating the people’s right to keep and bear arms.
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: either
a. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
OR
b. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
-The right to bear arms is a right reserved to the PEOPLE.