Are ANY Gun Laws Legal?

[Double J]

BILL OF RIGHTS;
2nd Amendment: "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."

ARTICLE 4, SECTION 2, US CONSTITUTION :
" The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

This is OUR LAW. And to impose anything other than this on THE PEOPLE would have to be aiding our ENEMIES. Which I believe is covered under the judicial sections as "TREASON".
If some of the polititians were held responsible for their ACTS against THE PEOPLE, maybe we could have a workable CONSTITUTION.

[vranasaurus]

No right is absolute.

[Playboypenguin]

Sure they are...even the most conservative SCOTUS members acknowledged the right of the government to place reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. The problem is that most of them are not reasonable.

[AirForceShooter]

Tell a newspaper reporter that the First Amendment isn't absolute.

I'm still looking for the "The people have right to know" part.


AFS

[Playboypenguin]

The 1st amendment is not absolute.

[Double J]

Under ART. 4, looks like if one state had the "privilege" of CCW, then ALL states have the same privilege. Am I not reading this correctly?

[Technosavant]

PBP is correct- the 1st Amendment is NOT absolute. If it was absolute, it would be legal to libel and slander other people. Both those things are actionable, and as such you can't hide behind the 1st Amendment in order to save your bacon.

Still, though, much of the gun laws out there aren't all that reasonable. They're usually quite inconsistent, illogical, and ineffective. For example, there isn't that much difference between a rifle with a 16" barrel and one with a 15" barrel, but the former is perfectly legal and the latter has rather significant legal hoops to jump through.

[vranasaurus]

You are reading the wrong clause of the constitution.

The clause that best supports your position is the full faith and credit clause:

Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public act, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state

But that clause has not been held to require the recognizing of CCW permits. Take your CCW and your pistol to NYC and you could be the test case.

[Brian Pfleuger]

No right is absolute, ever.

You have the right to "pursue happiness" but if you're happy being a rapist, well, sorry you don't have that right.

There's the obvious "You can't yell fire in a crowded theatre." argument, which is technically a "violation" of free speech but a reasonable one, in this case.

Just the same, there are weapon restrictions that are reasonable. I do think that most any type of total ban is unconstitutional however.

Just like in the theatre example it's not illegal to YELL, it's illegal to yell certain things in certain places. It is equally reasonable to restrict certain types of weapons to certain areas, uses and oversight. RPGs come to mind, along with "machine" guns.

[Double J]

vranasaurus, There are no CCW in my state.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

While debate the legalities of various restrictions on weapons ownership is something we have done repeatedly, the reference to treason is quite a stretch. Treason is defined as:

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

---- So saying that someone wants to levy a fee on full auto guns (for example as one of debates), guility of treason makes this discussion go off the deep end.

If one wants to challenge the Consitutional base of a state forbidding CCW, that's legit. Aren't some on the Heller case folks looking at IL laws?

So if you want to change the situation in IL, saying that legislators are traitors and should be punished for treason as you don't have CCW is a great case of the innoculation effect.

Folks listening to the argument will think you are, shall we say, extreme. Thus, your argument for CCW will be not listened to. Rational arguments for others may be assigned to the same irrational category as the treason claim.

We have restrictions on many 'rights'. So you can belong to a church of your choice. And some religious groups have argued for constitutional protection of some drug usage - and I think they have been successful (but I ain't going to google that). Some religious groups might argue that their faith allows some old toot to marry and have sex five 12 year girls - well, that doesn't sound like a good idea. Or, hey - it's the local Aztec temple - let's skin you alive. Even if you consented - think the state should stop that.

And last but not least, the Constitution changes. Women couldn't vote - now they can. No slaves anymore. If you argued for the women's vote - were you a traitor then?

[levrluvr]

If one wants to challenge the Consitutional base of a state forbidding CCW, that's legit. Aren't some on the Heller case folks looking at IL laws?

Yes. The problem they are running in to is that Commandant Daly is throwing every available resource (i.e.taxpayer money)at battling this both in Cook County and down-state in Springfield. Daly runs the show in this state. Always has, always will. Everyone in this state below him, including governors and senators, are pawns to the Daly machine.
His battle is starting to run into a slight problem as of late; it just so happens that a certain group of elected officials, the sheriffs of every county in this state, have started to petition a change in the CCW law. They are getting alot of support now as well from state police and local. I for one am wishing them success here- it would be a major blow to the liberals and Democrats that have turned Illinausea into a place you want to move away from.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

So if you want to change the situation in IL, saying that legislators are traitors and should be punished for treason as you don't have CCW is a great case of the innoculation effect.
Folks listening to the argument will think you are, shall we say, extreme.

No Glenn, they will think you are as crazy as a bedbug.

Good comments but I am not so polite as you I guess on this type of wild talk.

[als54]

NO! Here's were I see the problem, people pick and choose which amendments are important to him. The problem is in that when they start changing one it effects the integrity of the whole Constitution.

[Evan Thomas]

Good post, Glenn.

If one wants to challenge the Consitutional base of a state forbidding CCW, that's legit. Aren't some on the Heller case folks looking at IL laws?

Exactly. The point is that -- just like any other law -- all gun laws are legal, that's to say valid, until they've been challenged and overturned as unconstitutional. The "rule of law" means that laws apply equally to everyone; there's no justification for saying "Well, I think that one's unconstitutional, so I'm just gonna ignore it," unless you're prepared to do so as an act of civil disobedience: disobey the law publicly, get yourself arrested, and BE the test case.

Tennessee Gentleman wrote:

I am not so polite as you I guess on this type of wild talk.

Yah, TG, I think "crazy as a bedbug" is apt.

[Socrates]

HMMM. You take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, then write laws that are contrary to the plain meaning of that document.

That said:
"United States

To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

However, Congress has, at times, passed statutes creating related offenses which undermine the government or the national security, such as sedition in the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts, or espionage and sedition in the 1917 Espionage Act, which do not require the testimony of two witnesses and have a much broader definition than Article Three treason. For example, some well-known spies have been convicted of espionage rather than treason.

The Constitution does not itself create the offense; it only restricts the definition and permits Congress to create the offense. The crime is prohibited by legislation passed by Congress. Therefore the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. § 2381 states "whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States." The requirement of testimony of two witnesses was inherited from the British Treason Act 1695 (Since 1945, however, this has been abolished in British law and treason cases are now subject to the same rules of evidence and procedure as a murder trial)."

Pretty much sums up the treason issue.

One could argue that we have the fox protecting the chickens, if in fact the politicians are violating the views, and beliefs of their voters. Someone might mention that we have probably half the people, or more in the US owning guns, and, that making such an activity illegal is contrary to our wishes. Someone really needs to remind these people THEY SERVE US.

[EricReynolds]

This is a good argument. Of course no right is absolute. No freedom or liberty is absolute or we would have anarchy. The important thing about the constitution that is so often overlooked is that the founding fathers were wise enough to make the law of the land flexible. Let's not forget what an ammendment is. A change or an add on we made. Times have changed. The founding fathers realized times would change and knew that they needed to make the constitution changeable. I'm no anti, but constitutional ammendments can and do change. No alcohol was once an ammendment. Another ammendment negated that. Outright bans are BS, but some places just have looser or tighter restrictions than other places. The constitution has to be interpretted. If you disagree with how your lawmakers do this, vote them out. If this doesn't work, your neighbors aren't with you. It doesn't always work great. It's actually the most unfair form of government, except for all the rest.

[Mike Irwin]

I was a newspaper reporter, and I understood that even the first amendment isn't absolute, as did my colleagues.

Of course that should not stop people from pushing against those restrictions that are levied.

[Evan Thomas]

Socrates wrote:

You take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, then write laws that are contrary to the plain meaning of that document.

If the meaning of the Constitution were always "plain," I know of nine ladies and gents (hint: they wear flowing black robes a lot) who'd be out of a job.

EricReynolds wrote:

The important thing about the constitution that is so often overlooked is that the founding fathers were wise enough to make the law of the land flexible. Let's not forget what an ammendment is. A change or an add on we made. Times have changed. The founding fathers realized times would change and knew that they needed to make the constitution changeable.

Good point. They also made it rather hard to do, what with needing a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states... it's only been done 27 times in over 200 years, even though hundreds, maybe thousands, of amendments have been proposed. So it's a pretty stable document. But it isn't always clearly written.

[Brian Pfleuger]

So it's a pretty stable document. But it isn't always clearly written.

I see your point but it seems to me that the greatest hinderance to accurate interpretation is over-education. Laymen rarely have trouble with the meaning.

If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense.

[Shane Tuttle]

I'm notorious for rambling to make a succinct point. I'm hoping to make an exception to the rule (especially in a thread like this).

Here's my view on "absolute" however hypocritical:

I believe our Constitutional rights are an absolute as long as my neighbor isn't harmed by my actions. If someone chooses to buy and keep 5000 ARs after a ban is placed on them, for example, I see no problem. The so called "law" is null and void by what the Constitution simply states. That person isn't doing anything to hurt me by simply owning those firearms.

[Mike Irwin]

"This is OUR LAW. And to impose anything other than this on THE PEOPLE would have to be aiding our ENEMIES. Which I believe is covered under the judicial sections as "TREASON".
If some of the polititians were held responsible for their ACTS against THE PEOPLE, maybe we could have a workable CONSTITUTION."

More than just a little overly wrought, and not particularly useful.

The Framers, once they were done writing the Constitution, didn't simply kick back, drink some rum, order up some cheese steaks and go down to the corner for some bodacious Philly hookers.

They were intelligent enough to recognize that the Constitution, as many have tried to interpret it, is NOT the end -- it was the beginning, a framework that required FAR more behind it than 4 simple pages.

So, what you're really saying, then, is that those fine men, the creators of our Representative Republic, were patriots when crafting the Constitution, but the very second that they moved on to the laying out the US code, they became traitors?

What are you smoking, and can I have some?

[Shane Tuttle]

If the plain sense makes sense seek no other sense.

If my sig line is Wildalaska's favorite, then your statement is my favorite I've read in the past year!

[Webleymkv]

Certainly some gun laws are constitutional as no right is unlimited. Examples would be prohibiting people convicted of certain crimes from owning firearms (that person's rights are forfeit upon his conviction), banning of the carry of weapons in "sensitive places," and prohibition on "dangerous or unusual weapons" as SCOTUS chooses to define it. However, the rub lies in the details of what crimes warrant removal of Second Amendment rights, what places are sensitive enough to ban the carry of weapons, and what types of weapons may be considered dangerous or unusual.

[vranasaurus]

However, the rub lies in the details of what crimes warrant removal of Second Amendment rights, what places are sensitive enough to ban the carry of weapons, and what types of weapons may be considered dangerous or unusual.

This is correct. The 2A is not well settled. Heller was a big victory but it could be substantially curtailed should the court in the future decide that while it is an individual right it can be restricted in such a way as to make it not much of a right at all.

I don't believe for instance that a person should permanently lose a right based upon conviction for any crime defined by statute as a misdemeanor. If such crimes were so bad that they warrant forfeiture of rights they ought to be felonies. But there are still further questions like protective orders and can they be the basis for a temporary loss of a right? Also mental Illness?

And while I don't believe that a machine gun is dangerous or unusual but an RPG or hand grenade probably is.

Will the SCOTUS agree with all my thoughts? Probably not.