Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 7:35:32 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
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.....



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/supreme-court-guns-new-york-law/2083907/

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 7:42:52 AM   
Huruma


Posts: 65
Joined: 4/12/2013
Status: offline 		I can see the NRA and gun owners screaming their 2nd Amendment rights are being taken away.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 8:18:19 AM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 8:52:51 AM   
TricklessMagic


Posts: 248
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline 		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.

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 9:27:58 AM   
Huruma


Posts: 65
Joined: 4/12/2013
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by Huruma -- 4/15/2013 9:31:15 AM >

(in reply to TricklessMagic)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 9:37:28 AM   
TricklessMagic


Posts: 248
Joined: 9/14/2009
Status: offline 		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


(in reply to Huruma)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 9:54:19 AM   
Huruma


Posts: 65
Joined: 4/12/2013
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to TricklessMagic)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 2:16:37 PM   
muhly22222


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline
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.....

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).

_____________________________

I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.
-Woodrow Wilson

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 4:21:15 PM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
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....

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/15/2013 5:08:20 PM   
Real0ne


Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
quote:

The eight year prison sentence for owning an illegal gun, in Costa Rica, is a good idea.


exactly what is an ilegal gun?

_____________________________

"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile

Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?

Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!

"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session

(in reply to TricklessMagic)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/16/2013 3:06:53 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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.....



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/15/supreme-court-guns-new-york-law/2083907/



_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/16/2013 3:13:24 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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).

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/16/2013 7:06:51 PM   
LookieNoNookie


Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline
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.....

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).


< Message edited by LookieNoNookie -- 4/16/2013 7:08:05 PM >

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/16/2013 7:23:57 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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).

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/16/2013 7:31:59 PM   
muhly22222


Posts: 463
Joined: 3/25/2010
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I have always been among those who believed that the greatest freedom of speech was the greatest safety, because if a man is a fool, the best thing to do is to encourage him to advertise the fact by speaking.
-Woodrow Wilson

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/16/2013 8:05:14 PM   
Powergamz1


Posts: 1927
Joined: 9/3/2011
Status: offline 		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).



< Message edited by Powergamz1 -- 4/16/2013 8:32:41 PM >

_____________________________

"DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the equal liberty of persons that is protected by the Fifth Amendment" Anthony McLeod Kennedy

" About damn time...wooot!!' Me

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/17/2013 12:56:44 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

You have no idea how I think or act....

Don't be naive. After 15+ thousand posts, everybody does.

K.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/17/2013 7:40:51 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/17/2013 8:44:49 AM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline
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.

K.

(in reply to Owner59)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 4/17/2013 10:49:43 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Powergamz1)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109