The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 20, 2013, 06:28 AM   #51
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
That would be the part that was interpreted by the Supreme Court in 2008.
And your fellow moderator, Frank Ettin, periodically reminds me that the Constitution doesn't say what it says, it says what the Supreme Court says it says. (Okay, that's not exactly what Frank tells me ... but close.) I understand that Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller said that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is subject to reasonable regulation. But ... that's what Justice Scalia said, that is NOT what the 2nd Amendment said. That only means for now we must proceed as if that's what the 2nd Amendment says, but the reality is (if I may be so bold): Justice Scalia was wrong.

There is quite simply nothing in the 2nd Amendment that opens the door in any way to regulation -- reasonable or unreasonable. Frank points to precedent, to the fact that other rights have historically been regulated. So what? The language is clear and unequivocal: "Shall not be infringed." A regulation IS an infringement. I have pointed out before that the Founders knew the concept of reasonableness. They clearly wrote in the 4th Amendment that we are to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Certainly, then, if they had intended for the RKBA to be free from "unreasonable" infringement they would have said so. But they didn't. They wrote a clear, complete, unrestricted prohibition against ALL regulation of the RKBA.

It has also been pointed out that, historically, in the "old west" there were a lot of towns that prohibited guns within city limits. Again, so what? The fact it was done and not challenged does not make it correct or proper or constitutional. It's unlikely Joe Cowpoke in 1873 Abilene had any idea that he could sue the town marshal and take his case to some bunch of old men in Washington. Joe Cowpoke may not even have known where Washington was.

Reasonable regulation is what we have to live with, but it is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 08:12 AM   #52
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
It has also been pointed out that, historically, in the "old west" there were a lot of towns that prohibited guns within city limits. Again, so what? The fact it was done and not challenged does not make it correct or proper or constitutional.
Though I'm not the scholar most of the learned folks here are, I recall that a lot of those towns were in territories, not states. Some weren't even territories when such regulations were enacted at the local level. I fail to see how a challenge could even be made to SCOTUS since they were not part of the United States of America.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 08:20 AM   #53
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,650
Quote:
Reasonable regulation is what we have to live with, but it is NOT what the 2nd Amendment says.
The 1st Amendment reads,

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
There's nothing in there about parade permits, hate speech, or shouting fire in a crowded theater. Yet, such laws have been passed and found constitutional.

Like it or not, there we are. Statements like "where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment" or "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they understand" might carry some philosophical weight, but they're naive in light of the contemporary situation.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 06:04 PM   #54
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Like it or not, there we are. Statements like "where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment" or "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't they understand" might carry some philosophical weight, but they're naive in light of the contemporary situation.
No, not naive at all. I acknowledge that "reasonable regulation" is what we have to live with because that's what the SCOTUS has ruled, but that doesn't mean we have to forget Reading Comprehension 101 and ignore the reality that the SCOTUS opinion simply is not supported by the language of the law itself.

While I fully acknowledge that we're stuck with it for now, I prefer to always keep in mind what the 2nd Amendment actually says as a reminder to keep the pressure on at all times and at all levels in an effort to move us back to where we should be.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 02:33 PM   #55
nazshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 151
Re: It's Time to Choose a Side

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post

It has also been pointed out that, historically, in the "old west" there were a lot of towns that prohibited guns within city limits. Again, so what? The fact it was done and not challenged does not make it correct or proper or constitutional.
It's worth noting that the whole point of the BOR was to restrict the Federal Government. Surely the states wouldn't have insisted on the BOR in order to restrict themselves nor would they have ratified the Constitution if they didn't think they could leave at any time.

A big part of our political trouble today is that everything has been federalized so a person who feels strongly about something no longer has the option of just moving to a state that does things their way.
nazshooter is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 02:54 PM   #56
sig220mw
Member
 
Join Date: April 16, 2011
Location: Marshall, Texas
Posts: 77
I have written and called my congressman and two senators numerous times. I have also signed up four new members to the NRA. Of course there are opinion blogs on the internet also. We need to be very vocal.
sig220mw is offline  
Old February 22, 2013, 03:22 PM   #57
SC4006
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 27, 2012
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 347
I chose my side the first time I ever pulled the trigger on a firearm, and it put a smile on my face when I discovered the beginning of my new favorite hobby, collecting guns and plinking with them. I have written to my government officials numerous times, and while I don't see a full ban happening anytime soon, if guns are outlawed... I'll be an outlaw.
__________________
Army National Guard Infantry Nov. 2013 - Pesent

They say 5 out of 4 people are bad at math, but what do I know?
SC4006 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08326 seconds with 7 queries