2nd Amendment limitations...

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3238264
This is where things get sticky. A waiting period does not infringe on the right to own a gun, but does a ban on a certain type of gun? I actually think there is a little wiggle room here but I don't think an all out ban on handguns in general can be allowed to stand. If they were to ban any handgun with a capacity of more than 6 rounds it might actually stand.
The state can do what they want as long as it isn't seen as an infringement. Just going to determine who's definition of infringe they use.
Again, agreed. A waiting period is not addressed in the Constitution so, to me, as long as it's still legal to purchase said weapon, no infringement has taken place as a result.
Banning a specific type of weapon, otoh, is a violation of the 2nd as far as I'm concerned. Round capacity is not addressed in the original document. Perhaps it should have been? I don't know.
The core problem in interpretation is that language is fluid. Like it or not, things change: verbiage, semantics, historical context, etc. What was written 200+ or 6000+ years ago is automatically subject to linguistic, contextual, translational and chronographical interpretation - for example, can you read and understand original Chaucer? That was English written only 400 years before the Constitution was. How 'bout Shakespeare? Only 150 years prior.
We're now 230+ years post. Could the language have changed as substantially since as it did prior?
I'd argue yes.
Word usage, definitions, sentence structure, colloquialisms, etc. have changed significantly in all of those interims. This, unfortunately, presents some complicated issues which are impossible to resolve with any sense of positivity.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3239318
Again, agreed. A waiting period is not addressed in the Constitution so, to me, as long as it's still legal to purchase said weapon, no infringement has taken place as a result.
Banning a specific type of weapon, otoh, is a violation of the 2nd as far as I'm concerned. Round capacity is not addressed in the original document. Perhaps it should have been? I don't know.
Things change: verbiage, semantics, historical context, etc. What was written 200+ or 6000+ years ago is automatically subject to linguistic, contextual, translational and chronographical interpretation - for example, can you read and understand original Chaucer? That was English written only 400 years before the Constitution was. How 'bout Shakespeare? Word usage, definitions, sentence structure, colloquialisms, etc. have changed substantially in both interims. This, unfortunately, presents some complicated issues which are impossible to resolve with any sense of positivity.
Yeah but when you have writings from those who created the constitution and the bill of rights spelling out what they intended the linguistics don't really come into play

 

[uneverno]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239325
Yeah but when you have writings from those who created the constitution and the bill of rights spelling out what they intended the linguistics don't really come into play
Really? Then stone your neighbor for his/her mental infidelity and don't eat shellfish or, especially, pork.
That's precisely my point. Language is subject to interpretation. It doesn't matter that we have the writings from those who created the document. The language they used has changed connotatively. It's even changed denotatively. How it's changed is a matter of speculation, not absolute truth.

 

[penpen]

I think I will put in my .02 in on the first post, I would gladly defend my home with an M4A1 or M4A2, both are military issue, why? Because I am trained to use them, being a reservist, I have become comfortable with the weapon and know how well it can be used in home defense. Yes, I agree that there should be limitations, and I see why these are illegal for civilian use. But what I don't understand is how a state can ban handguns (like in Chicago), the ones doing the illegal gun crime have a gun, why cant someone have a handgun in their home for self defense? Why not ban carrying permits in the city? I personally own a few "arms" myself, and I do not like the idea of the government trying to take away my rights to bear them. Its a touchy issue, one that is being handled in the supreme court at this time. By no means should anyone personally own a fully automatic weapon, or one with burst (3 rounds per trigger pull). One thing that would really help with control, is if they actually put more effort into the process of getting a permit, not to the point where its impossible for one to do so, but like here in Indiana, if I wanted to get a carrying permit, all I have to do is pay a fee or 2 at the sheriffs station, takes about 2 months in processing, and BAM, got a permit to carry, no class or anything, its crazy! Thats where the problem lies I think, no classes on when its ok to defend yourself, or someone else, example; you come upon someone being held at gunpoint, you pull your gun on the assailant , things escalate, you shoot the "assailant" and it turns out to be an undercover officer, now your in a deep stinky creek with no paddle. You all may not agree, but thats what these debates are about, to make others think, and hopefully agree with other peoples reasoning, or vice versa.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by uneverno
http:///forum/post/3239335
Really? Then stone your neighbor for his/her mental infidelity and don't eat shellfish or, especially, pork.
That's precisely my point. Language is subject to interpretation. It doesn't matter that we have the writings from those who created the document. The language they used has changed connotatively. It's even changed denotatively. How it's changed is a matter of speculation, not absolute truth.
Ahh, but we are not dealing with a lost language, we know exactly how the words were used at the time.
The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
You tell me which of the words had a different meaning in the 1700's than today.
The other writings speak of the need for an armed citizenry to prevent the government from drifting into tyranny. That in of itself backs up the interpretation that the founders intended that the citizens be armed.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by penpen
http:///forum/post/3239384
I think I will put in my .02 in on the first post, I would gladly defend my home with an M4A1 or M4A2, both are military issue, why? Because I am trained to use them, being a reservist, I have become comfortable with the weapon and know how well it can be used in home defense. Yes, I agree that there should be limitations, and I see why these are illegal for civilian use. But what I don't understand is how a state can ban handguns (like in Chicago), the ones doing the illegal gun crime have a gun, why cant someone have a handgun in their home for self defense? Why not ban carrying permits in the city? I personally own a few "arms" myself, and I do not like the idea of the government trying to take away my rights to bear them. Its a touchy issue, one that is being handled in the supreme court at this time. By no means should anyone personally own a fully automatic weapon, or one with burst (3 rounds per trigger pull). One thing that would really help with control, is if they actually put more effort into the process of getting a permit, not to the point where its impossible for one to do so, but like here in Indiana, if I wanted to get a carrying permit, all I have to do is pay a fee or 2 at the sheriffs station, takes about 2 months in processing, and BAM, got a permit to carry, no class or anything, its crazy! Thats where the problem lies I think, no classes on when its ok to defend yourself, or someone else, example; you come upon someone being held at gunpoint, you pull your gun on the assailant , things escalate, you shoot the "assailant" and it turns out to be an undercover officer, now your in a deep stinky creek with no paddle. You all may not agree, but thats what these debates are about, to make others think, and hopefully agree with other peoples reasoning, or vice versa.
I don't think it would be a bad idea to make every person who wants to possess a gun take a safety class. It would likely be found unconstitutional but a good idea. I think a lot of states do require hunters safety courses to get a concealed carry permit. Better than nothing but I would be strongly in favor of at a minimum making people take a day long class if for nothing else to teach them when lethal force is legally justified.
A good friend of the wife's makes his living teaching gun safety classes in for people looking to get a concealed carry permit. I don't believe it is a strict requirement but the local sheriff requests people wanting to get one takes a course.

 

[penpen]

True, a safety class at least, I wonder what the accidental fire injuries are to the public community when it comes to people carrying a weapon, and what percentage of those people that carried the weapon, didn't take a class.
And what is a militia? Look at the revolutionary war, and study on the colony militiamen? Militia to me, is a city militant group, not controlled by the government, but by the people in the community, but I can see chaos happening if things like this happened.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by penpen
http:///forum/post/3239389
True, a safety class at least, I wonder what the accidental fire injuries are to the public community when it comes to people carrying a weapon, and what percentage of those people that carried the weapon, didn't take a class.
And what is a militia? Look at the revolutionary war, and study on the colony militiamen? Militia to me, is a city militant group, not controlled by the government, but by the people in the community, but I can see chaos happening if things like this happened.
I think a very high percentage of those getting the concealed carry permits must be very knowledgeable. If one of them were to use their weapon in an inappropriate manner I am sure the left wingers in the media would be all over it.
I believe it was the act that disbanded militias that created the national guard in their place. The basic idea was the same though. They would organize and train under local control but once activated be under the control of the central government.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239386
Ahh, but we are not dealing with a lost language, we know exactly how the words were used at the time.
The right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.
That is a misquote, it doesn't begin with a capital "T", but with the phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the..". SCOTUS has said “Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well–regulated militia.” It is always about a well-regulated militia, so a bunch of survivalists running around in the Montana wilderness wouldn't qualify, IMHO.

 

[penpen]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239393
I think a very high percentage of those getting the concealed carry permits must be very knowledgeable. If one of them were to use their weapon in an inappropriate manner I am sure the left wingers in the media would be all over it.
I believe it was the act that disbanded militias that created the national guard in their place. The basic idea was the same though. They would organize and train under local control but once activated be under the control of the central government.
You would be surprised on who can get a permit in Indiana, I know a few people who I wouldn't trust with a bb gun that has carrying permits.
The National Guard should not count as a militia, why? Because, they can be controlled by the government, yes, they answer to the State Governor, but, the President can take control of that states National Guard if needed, and it is happening.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by penpen
http:///forum/post/3239480
You would be surprised on who can get a permit in Indiana, I know a few people who I wouldn't trust with a bb gun that has carrying permits.
The National Guard should not count as a militia, why? Because, they can be controlled by the government, yes, they answer to the State Governor, but, the President can take control of that states National Guard if needed, and it is happening.
No kidding, my father-in-law has absolutely no business with a concealed carry permit, yet this idiot has his gun on him 24/7 and with his beliefs concerning government and hatred of non-white people and gays it is a very bad thing and I am suprised he has not done anything stupid yet.
He is the poster child for those who want restrictions on gun ownership and as a responsible gun owner, when it comes to people like this I have to admit they have a point. I could very easily see him making an anti-gay or bigoted comment and very quickly get to the point of getting a well deserved beat-down and pulling his gun and shooting someone which is why he got his concealed carry permit anyway.
In case your wondering, nope he is not allowed in my household and my wife has very little to nothing to do with him.
Fishtaco

 

[penpen]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3239502
No kidding, my father-in-law has absolutely no business with a concealed carry permit, yet this idiot has his gun on him 24/7 and with his beliefs concerning government and hatred of non-white people and gays it is a very bad thing and I am suprised he has not done anything stupid yet.
He is the poster child for those who want restrictions on gun ownership and as a responsible gun owner, when it comes to people like this I have to admit they have a point. I could very easily see him making an anti-gay or bigoted comment and very quickly get to the point of getting a well deserved beat-down and pulling his gun and shooting someone which is why he got his concealed carry permit anyway.
In case your wondering, nope he is not allowed in my household and my wife has very little to nothing to do with him.
Fishtaco
There is a lot of that in the town that I live in as well, that shows that there is not enough screening to get a permit right there. you have to be careful even when you have a permit when you draw the weapon for defense, I have a Great Uncle in prison for life for shooting his neighbor who had harassed him for quite a while, even documented with the police, but he shot him in the back after the neighbor pushed him down on the ground and kicked him several times, as the neighbor was walking back to his vehicle to get a gun (and yes, the police did find a gun in the vehicle). It is the select few people that make the stupid decisions and have radical views that give guns of any type a bad image.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by penpen
http:///forum/post/3239520
There is a lot of that in the town that I live in as well, that shows that there is not enough screening to get a permit right there. you have to be careful even when you have a permit when you draw the weapon for defense, I have a Great Uncle in prison for life for shooting his neighbor who had harassed him for quite a while, even documented with the police, but he shot him in the back after the neighbor pushed him down on the ground and kicked him several times, as the neighbor was walking back to his vehicle to get a gun (and yes, the police did find a gun in the vehicle). It is the select few people that make the stupid decisions and have radical views that give guns of any type a bad image.
Sounds to me like he's living in the wrong state...

 

[penpen]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3239521
Sounds to me like he's living in the wrong state...
Well, Indiana is weird, I have a friend who's dad was killed by 2 guys, a hit and run, they got caught, and they got more jail time for breaking probation (consecutive times) than the murder. It was weird.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/3239434
That is a misquote, it doesn't begin with a capital "T", but with the phrase "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the..". SCOTUS has said “Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well–regulated militia.” It is always about a well-regulated militia, so a bunch of survivalists running around in the Montana wilderness wouldn't qualify, IMHO.

What has changed in the meaning "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed"? The court has ruled "A well regulated militia" has no bearing on the operative clause.
The Heller decision, which is the most recent (and therefor law of the land) by the supreme court disagrees with your interpretation above. I like your interpretation, it would allow me to have a grenade launcher and a machine gun as they are common military weapons

"that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with, but does not detract from, the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;"
In fact this is the language they used regarding the limits in the Heller decision
"However, "like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not 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."
They did affirm the right to ban dangerous and unusual weapons such as sawed off shotguns and machine guns.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by penpen
http:///forum/post/3239480
You would be surprised on who can get a permit in Indiana, I know a few people who I wouldn't trust with a bb gun that has carrying permits.
The National Guard should not count as a militia, why? Because, they can be controlled by the government, yes, they answer to the State Governor, but, the President can take control of that states National Guard if needed, and it is happening.
The militia act of 1903
Like I said, if those goofs getting those concealed carry permits were abusing their privilege I think you would agree that the media would be all over it.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3239502
No kidding, my father-in-law has absolutely no business with a concealed carry permit, yet this idiot has his gun on him 24/7 and with his beliefs concerning government and hatred of non-white people and gays it is a very bad thing and I am suprised he has not done anything stupid yet.
He is the poster child for those who want restrictions on gun ownership and as a responsible gun owner, when it comes to people like this I have to admit they have a point. I could very easily see him making an anti-gay or bigoted comment and very quickly get to the point of getting a well deserved beat-down and pulling his gun and shooting someone which is why he got his concealed carry permit anyway.
In case your wondering, nope he is not allowed in my household and my wife has very little to nothing to do with him.
Fishtaco
How long has he been carrying? How many people has he shot? As scary as it may seem those who do all the talking usually aren't much of the threat. Not saying you aren't right about him though, sounds like a beautiful human being

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by penpen
http:///forum/post/3239528
Well, Indiana is weird, I have a friend who's dad was killed by 2 guys, a hit and run, they got caught, and they got more jail time for breaking probation (consecutive times) than the murder. It was weird.
So the guy issues a beat down on your uncle, walks back to his car to get a gun and you uncle gets life for shooting him in the back? I don't even think California would issue that harsh a punishment for that. Either there is more to the story then you were told or Indiana is one screwed up place to live.

 

[penpen]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3239536
The militia act of 1903
Like I said, if those goofs getting those concealed carry permits were abusing their privilege I think you would agree that the media would be all over it.
The media does jump on it, and I think that the media sometimes blows it of proportion. I really think that more screening would prevent a lot of problems for the government, and the people.

 

[el guapo]

I see your problem ...
You read the constitution in a manner that gives the government power. The constitution was written to provide "THE PEOPLE" with power against the government. The constitution is not out dated at all. It was a very well thought out document by people who had just lived through some rough times . Who had been over taxed and abused by a government that was ruling over them.
Originally Posted by TheClemsonKid
http:///forum/post/3234379
If you misinterpreted what I said, let me be very clear. I in no way would want a COMPLETE ban on weapons. I would be in favor of restrictions for sure, but never, EVER a complete ban...
"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" I see nothing in there that even remotely mentions the ability to modify partially or in whole this right.
So say we let the government INFRINGE upon our right because people like you think its in our best interest as a nation. Then when the Government continues to infringe upon our rights to a point that they become totalitarian in every aspect of life , How then do we take back what is essentially god given rights?