The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited...

The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 7:35:32 AM)
Another case where the SCOTUS upholds a state`s right/obligation to regulate firearms..... "Justices decline N.Y. case restricting guns in public" Or in gunutterspeak....OBAMA`S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.....[:D] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/supreme-court-guns-new-york-law/2083907/

Huruma -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 7:42:52 AM)
I can see the NRA and gun owners screaming their 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away. [sm=tantrum.gif]

Yachtie -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 8:18:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Justices decline N.Y. case restricting guns in public" So what? You act as if anti-gunnners won some big decision or something. Hardly.

TricklessMagic -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 8:52:51 AM)
You do realize that the SCOTUS may not consider this matter ripe yet to have a ruling on. There is an appeal out of Illinois likely coming which will create the necessary split decision that will make the matter ripe for review. If you live in NY your rights have already been taken away. Look at the Sullivan act of 1911, it's widely acknowledged to have been created by a syphlitic demented corrupt politician that created the law to suppress religious and ethic minorities while ensuring job security for his criminal gangster buddies. The question is whether or not a corrupt bloated government can arbitrarily deny the public the right to carry guns for its own protection in the face of ever ineffective and incompetent law enforcement, when the applicant is an otherwise law abiding individual with no history of criminal acts or mental disease. People in Costa Rica have more gun rights than people in New York City. Either way the question needs to be answered, is it "Shall Issue" or "May Issue"? When it comes to May Issue I shudder given how little politicians tend to know or understand about guns and gun violence in these "May Issue" states.

Huruma -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 9:27:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic You do realize that the SCOTUS may not consider this matter ripe yet to have a ruling on. There is an appeal out of Illinois likely coming which will create the necessary split decision that will make the matter ripe for review. If you live in NY your rights have already been taken away. Look at the Sullivan act of 1911, it's widely acknowledged to have been created by a syphlitic demented corrupt politician that created the law to suppress religious and ethic minorities while ensuring job security for his criminal gangster buddies. The question is whether or not a corrupt bloated government can arbitrarily deny the public the right to carry guns for its own protection in the face of ever ineffective and incompetent law enforcement, when the applicant is an otherwise law abiding individual with no history of criminal acts or mental disease. People in Costa Rica have more gun rights than people in New York City. Either way the question needs to be answered, is it "Shall Issue" or "May Issue"? When it comes to May Issue I shudder given how little politicians tend to know or understand about guns and gun violence in these "May Issue" states. Costa Rica is currently considering changes in their laws to restrict guns. Their gun homicide rate has been going up. http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/Top-Story/Costa-Rica-to-tighten-gun-control_Friday-January-25-2013 No matter how you look at the Supreme Court has allowed the New York law to stand and your opinions lack any bases. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/court-finds-no-right-to-conceal-a-firearm.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/federal-appeals-court-restores-marylands-concealed/?page=all

TricklessMagic -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 9:37:28 AM)
The eight year prison sentence for owning an illegal gun, in Costa Rica, is a good idea. If Chicago had that law, more people would be alive, instead they release criminals back onto the street to drum up support for gun control. If Costa Rica passes the stricter laws it'll be curious to see what happens next. Brazil has some pretty strong anti-liberty laws and gun ownership is heavily infringed (regulated) yet the murder rate is very high. But hey New York City can say its laws are like that of Central America. Not free America. I'm still curious why the SCOTUS didn't take this one. Oh well. quote: ORIGINAL: Huruma quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic You do realize that the SCOTUS may not consider this matter ripe yet to have a ruling on. There is an appeal out of Illinois likely coming which will create the necessary split decision that will make the matter ripe for review. If you live in NY your rights have already been taken away. Look at the Sullivan act of 1911, it's widely acknowledged to have been created by a syphlitic demented corrupt politician that created the law to suppress religious and ethic minorities while ensuring job security for his criminal gangster buddies. The question is whether or not a corrupt bloated government can arbitrarily deny the public the right to carry guns for its own protection in the face of ever ineffective and incompetent law enforcement, when the applicant is an otherwise law abiding individual with no history of criminal acts or mental disease. People in Costa Rica have more gun rights than people in New York City. Either way the question needs to be answered, is it "Shall Issue" or "May Issue"? When it comes to May Issue I shudder given how little politicians tend to know or understand about guns and gun violence in these "May Issue" states. Costa Rica is currently considering changes in their laws to restrict guns. Their gun homicide rate has been going up. http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/Top-Story/Costa-Rica-to-tighten-gun-control_Friday-January-25-2013 No matter how you look at the Supreme Court has allowed the New York law to stand and your opinions lack any bases. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/court-finds-no-right-to-conceal-a-firearm.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/federal-appeals-court-restores-marylands-concealed/?page=all

Huruma -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 9:54:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic The eight year prison sentence for owning an illegal gun, in Costa Rica, is a good idea. If Chicago had that law, more people would be alive, instead they release criminals back onto the street to drum up support for gun control. If Costa Rica passes the stricter laws it'll be curious to see what happens next. Brazil has some pretty strong anti-liberty laws and gun ownership is heavily infringed (regulated) yet the murder rate is very high. But hey New York City can say its laws are like that of Central America. Not free America. I'm still curious why the SCOTUS didn't take this one. Oh well. quote: ORIGINAL: Huruma quote: ORIGINAL: TricklessMagic You do realize that the SCOTUS may not consider this matter ripe yet to have a ruling on. There is an appeal out of Illinois likely coming which will create the necessary split decision that will make the matter ripe for review. If you live in NY your rights have already been taken away. Look at the Sullivan act of 1911, it's widely acknowledged to have been created by a syphlitic demented corrupt politician that created the law to suppress religious and ethic minorities while ensuring job security for his criminal gangster buddies. The question is whether or not a corrupt bloated government can arbitrarily deny the public the right to carry guns for its own protection in the face of ever ineffective and incompetent law enforcement, when the applicant is an otherwise law abiding individual with no history of criminal acts or mental disease. People in Costa Rica have more gun rights than people in New York City. Either way the question needs to be answered, is it "Shall Issue" or "May Issue"? When it comes to May Issue I shudder given how little politicians tend to know or understand about guns and gun violence in these "May Issue" states. Costa Rica is currently considering changes in their laws to restrict guns. Their gun homicide rate has been going up. http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/Top-Story/Costa-Rica-to-tighten-gun-control_Friday-January-25-2013 No matter how you look at the Supreme Court has allowed the New York law to stand and your opinions lack any bases. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/court-finds-no-right-to-conceal-a-firearm.html?_r=0 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/federal-appeals-court-restores-marylands-concealed/?page=all First of all a city can not enact a law that is a felony just misdemeanors, mean nothing punishable by more than a year in jail. The State would have to pass the law, and they have, some of the violations of their gun laws carry a penalty of 7 years in prison. I am going to assume you know the difference between jail and prison. I would think the reason the Supreme Court let stand the ruling is do to various previous ruling, two of which I have posted. And again you make statements that lack any validity.

muhly22222 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 2:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Another case where the SCOTUS upholds a state`s right/obligation to regulate firearms..... "Justices decline N.Y. case restricting guns in public" Or in gunutterspeak....OBAMA`S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.....[:D] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/supreme-court-guns-new-york-law/2083907/ Don't read too much into a simple denial of certiorari. That doesn't mean the justices on the Court like the decision that was made in the lower court, it merely means they didn't want to take that particular case. There could be any number of reasons...maybe the Court doesn't want to get involved with such a hot-button issue right now, and wants to wait and see what sort of steps the various states take and gauge public opinion. Maybe the Court wants to let more circuits weigh in on similar issues. Maybe the Court saw issues with standing in this case. It's not a victory for the anti-gun side, and it's not a defeat for the anti-gun-control side (the lower court decision was, though that only has limited applicability).

Owner59 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 4:21:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 "Justices decline N.Y. case restricting guns in public" So what? You act as if anti-gunnners won some big decision or something. Hardly. You`re projecting your own flaws.... You have no idea how I think or act....

Real0ne -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/15/2013 5:08:20 PM)
quote: The eight year prison sentence for owning an illegal gun, in Costa Rica, is a good idea. exactly what is an ilegal gun?

Powergamz1 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/16/2013 3:06:53 PM)
In addition to the obvious, The Supreme Court made the definitive ruling binding the states to follow the 2nd Amendment a few years ago, I suggest you read it. There is no 'state's right' there, any more than there is a 'state's right' to enact slavery, or limit the 1st Amendment to 'special cases', etc. And declining to hear a case may mean that the Court is letting the status quo prevail, or it may mean that they are waiting for a better case to come along... or it may mean nothing at all. In this specific instance, The 'may issue' laws that New York wants, were products of the same forces as putting rebel flags on state flags, enacting Jim Crow laws, and so forth... white Sheriffs/Chiefs handing out permits to overwhelmingly white citizens. That 'heritage' may be worthy of celebration to some folks, but I'll wait and see what the final word is down the road. quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Another case where the SCOTUS upholds a state`s right/obligation to regulate firearms..... "Justices decline N.Y. case restricting guns in public" Or in gunutterspeak....OBAMA`S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.....[:D] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/supreme-court-guns-new-york-law/2083907/

DomKen -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/16/2013 3:13:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In addition to the obvious, The Supreme Court made the definitive ruling binding the states to follow the 2nd Amendment a few years ago, I suggest you read it. There is no 'state's right' there, any more than there is a 'state's right' to enact slavery, or limit the 1st Amendment to 'special cases', etc. I did read the ruling in Heller v DC. It quite specifically allows states to regulate gun ownership and carry. It specifically says that state laws forbidding gun ownership to ex cons and the menatlly ill are ok and that laws restricting carrying guns are ok as well (the example was about courthouses but the ruling does not specify just that).

LookieNoNookie -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/16/2013 7:06:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Another case where the SCOTUS upholds a state`s right/obligation to regulate firearms..... "Justices decline N.Y. case restricting guns in public" Or in gunutterspeak....OBAMA`S COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.....[:D] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/supreme-court-guns-new-york-law/2083907/ Actually, the second amendment is "unlimited" in so much as what it covers (it doesn't, however, and rather specifically by exclusion, cover weapons of mass destruction). Truly, the framers couldn't have foreseen the weapons we have today so, of course, it needs to be taken into context but, without context, simply reading and interpreting the words for what they say, with the exception of owning your own private battleship....it's pretty much unlimited...within the scope of having personal weaponry. Of any size or capacity. But to be a true Constitutionalist, context is irrelevant. Sad, but factual. (And, when I refer to "context", I mean the time the document was written, and by men who couldn't foresee technological change that was beyond their scope or ability).

Powergamz1 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/16/2013 7:23:57 PM)
Men who had just successfully fought a war against the military of a superpower, in the age of chain shot, 30+ gun ships of the line, enfilade guns, and so forth? They knew what they were authorizing when they specified 'arms' (weapons of a warrior).

muhly22222 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/16/2013 7:31:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In addition to the obvious, The Supreme Court made the definitive ruling binding the states to follow the 2nd Amendment a few years ago, I suggest you read it. There is no 'state's right' there, any more than there is a 'state's right' to enact slavery, or limit the 1st Amendment to 'special cases', etc. I did read the ruling in Heller v DC. It quite specifically allows states to regulate gun ownership and carry. It specifically says that state laws forbidding gun ownership to ex cons and the menatlly ill are ok and that laws restricting carrying guns are ok as well (the example was about courthouses but the ruling does not specify just that). While the Court did say that in the Heller case, Heller doesn't have anything to do with the states. The case that applied the ideas behind Heller's decision to the states was McDonald v. Chicago. Just to be clear, I'm not contesting the idea that there are already recognized (and entirely reasonable) limits on gun ownership, merely making a correction.

Powergamz1 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/16/2013 8:05:14 PM)
In other words, you didn't read the ruling I was talking about. The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521 And incorporation to the states doesn't mean 'no limits'', it means that the state set limits have to pass constitutional muster. Nice try though. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In addition to the obvious, The Supreme Court made the definitive ruling binding the states to follow the 2nd Amendment a few years ago, I suggest you read it. There is no 'state's right' there, any more than there is a 'state's right' to enact slavery, or limit the 1st Amendment to 'special cases', etc. I did read the ruling in Heller v DC. It quite specifically allows states to regulate gun ownership and carry. It specifically says that state laws forbidding gun ownership to ex cons and the menatlly ill are ok and that laws restricting carrying guns are ok as well (the example was about courthouses but the ruling does not specify just that).

Kirata -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/17/2013 12:56:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 You have no idea how I think or act.... Don't be naive. After 15+ thousand posts, everybody does. [:)] K.

Owner59 -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/17/2013 7:40:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 You have no idea how I think or act.... Don't be naive. After 15+ thousand posts, everybody does. [:)] K. I was quoting you btw(it`s true). You`ve said this many, many times......at which point I thought the same thing..... Ineteresting,that you should respond.

Kirata -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/17/2013 8:44:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 You`ve said this many, many times......at which point I thought the same thing..... The difference is, I only say it to crazy people. [:D] K.

DomKen -> RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... (4/17/2013 10:49:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In other words, you didn't read the ruling I was talking about. The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1521 And incorporation to the states doesn't mean 'no limits'', it means that the state set limits have to pass constitutional muster. Nice try though. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Powergamz1 In addition to the obvious, The Supreme Court made the definitive ruling binding the states to follow the 2nd Amendment a few years ago, I suggest you read it. There is no 'state's right' there, any more than there is a 'state's right' to enact slavery, or limit the 1st Amendment to 'special cases', etc. I did read the ruling in Heller v DC. It quite specifically allows states to regulate gun ownership and carry. It specifically says that state laws forbidding gun ownership to ex cons and the menatlly ill are ok and that laws restricting carrying guns are ok as well (the example was about courthouses but the ruling does not specify just that). You failed to actually read McDonald. From the ruing quote: Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States. That means Heller is the preceent. Therefore everything I wrote is correct. In the future try to actually have some tiny clue about what you're talking about before writing that someone else is wrong.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625