|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 2, 2015, 12:35 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Gun rights battle turns to state ballots
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/03/us...es.html?ref=us
The article describes a strategy change as federal legislation probably will not happen. Local initiatives on matters such as background checks may be more attractive as happened in WA. I think this points out the dichotomy of gun views in the country that is rarely appreciated by the extreme views of the issue. The article mentions it somewhat. Most people people: 1. Believe in private gun ownership and are against draconian bans. Thus, the harsh measures don't appeal except in specific demographic locations such as core major urban areas. These might dominate a state though when it comes to votes. 2. Those believing in gun rights don't want criminals and mentally unstable folks to have guns and are OK with measures they think will prevent such acquisitions. That's why background checks to close what are seen as loopholes are attractive. It also demonstrates the dichotomy introduced into the current Constitutional debate by Heller. Yes, guns are protected but reasonable restrictions (which seem now to be fought state to state, district to district) are acceptable. I personally doubt a major SCOTUS progun decision to correct this will occur soon. Thus, to recall an older TFL debate, Scalia (called a wily old bird by some fanboy here) left a 'loophole' for new gun restrictions.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
January 2, 2015, 02:35 PM | #2 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
As I wrote some time ago:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
January 2, 2015, 08:04 PM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
The problem with what Frank wrote about constitutional rights historically being subject to "reasonable" regulation is that he's correct. What's missing, however, is that all the precedents on which this view rests are for other parts of the Constitution. And I don't recall any other part of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that comes right out and establishes a point-blank PROHIBITION AGAINST "reasonable" (or any other kind of) regulation. The simple words "shall not be infringed" quite simply do not leave any room for regulations, reasonable or unreasonable. Regulation = infringement. Period. "Shall not be infringed" = "Is not subject to regulation." Consequently, because other constitutional rights have historically been subject to regulation, most people (including, it would appear, Mr. Justice Scalia) presume that the Second Amendment therefore also MUST be subject to regulation. It's a dangerous presumption, because the Second Amendment itself tells us the opposite. We may never know why Scalia threw that little hand grenade into the Heller decision. My suspicion is that it was necessary (or he thought it was) in order to keep the fifth vote. Irrespective of the reason, that seemingly innocuous statement absolutely flies in the face of the intent and the explicit language of the second Amendment. Scalia did not do us any favors when he wrote that. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; January 2, 2015 at 09:18 PM. |
|
January 3, 2015, 12:21 AM | #4 |
Junior member
Join Date: April 22, 2014
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,549
|
The fight is back on in Washington
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/01/saf-...#axzz3NjTTuNiw So I realy have to wonder how much iniative are going to be pressed in other states untill the courts have settled this mess. |
January 3, 2015, 03:51 AM | #5 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
Most Supreme Court decisions I have read have equally frustrating loopholes in them. Places where the legislature and future courts are given leeway to make adjustments without overturning a decision.
This post combined with the gun restrictions map post really has me thinking about some of the political migrations and their effects in the US. I can't remember a time in US history, except possibly reconstruction when "carpetbaggers" were moving as much or more for financial gain, where I read of groups migrating for political reasons such as Free State Project, and there are several others. What kind of polarizing effect could these movements and the legislation that spawned them have in the long term? "Six Californias" failed, but it was given more serious attention than I would have thought possible a few years ago. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; January 3, 2015 at 03:56 AM. |
January 3, 2015, 10:30 AM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2011
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 317
|
Quote:
"actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)." says Google. So, the 2A could be read to say, "...shall not be broken". That reads very differently now, imo. So we can regulate the 2A, and just as long as we don't break your RKBA, we're GTG. Now a given regulation could be viewed as a break -- it's entirely reasonable to conclude so, and the dictionary supports such a view. A break is, among other definitions, an "interruption". Well, if I have to go fill out a form or ask somebody's permission before I can have my RKBA, then this is an interruption, which is a break, which is an infringement. So we go round and round and in the end we have still to wait on the courts. Last edited by speedrrracer; January 3, 2015 at 10:37 AM. |
|
January 3, 2015, 05:30 PM | #7 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
Quote:
Merriam Webster On-Line: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
January 3, 2015, 06:32 PM | #8 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Not all words drastically change meanings over time.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 3, 2015, 07:46 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language (Sixth Edition, 1785) contains the following defintion that is roughly contemporaneous to the Second Amendment's proposal in 1789 and ratification in 1791:
Quote:
Last edited by gc70; January 3, 2015 at 07:56 PM. Reason: added 2A proposal and ratification dates |
|
January 4, 2015, 03:06 PM | #10 |
Member
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Posts: 17
|
"Quote:
To INFRI'NGE. v. a. [infringo, Latin.] 1. To violate ; to break laws or contracts. (quotes from Shakespeare and Waller omitted) 2. To deftroy ; to hinder. (quotes from Hooker and Waller omitted)" Here in NYS I'm not even allowed to touch a handgun without a permit, which in my county (Nassau) would take 2 years to get and require personal references & interviews, and then if/when granted my "right" would be limited to my home or range. Concealed carry? Good luck getting that... Would anyone deny that my right has been infringed, hindered, or reduced to a priveledge that I must ask and receive permission to exercise and which may be revoked at any time?! When Scalia left that door open he may well have done so to secure the 5th vote, but I believe his version of restrictions would be along the lines of "You have the right to own and carry whatever the heck you like, though the government is allowed to criminalize the use of a firearm in the COMMISSION of a forcible felony (which of course includes "brandishing" or verbally threatening to use one) or to prohibit carrying in airports or courtrooms etc" |
|
|