April 7, 2018, 04:35 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
|
Federal Republic
disclaimer, so I might be opening up and exposing my own ignorance here, but I'm just a regular guy and no legal eagle trying to wrap my head around the ever increasing gun politics happening. I don't know how to say it, and don't have the hours, perhaps weeks free right not to try to wrap my head around all the legalese, so I'm just gonna say it with prose. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me... in layman's terms of course :P
What does it mean to be a Federal Republic? I hear all the time that were a Democracy. In a Democracy the majority rules, and if the majority votes to take away your property they can. But the United States is a Federal Republic, not a democracy. We elect our officials by a democratic process only, and our republic is governed by our constitution which our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights such as the Second Amendment as well as other rights retained by the people. So then why is it that most people over here have the right to own AR15s, while a few over there do not? Massachusetts recently ruled their ban on AR15s constitutional. Some states its illegal to bear arms, but others are "shall issue" or open carry... Deerfield Illinois just outlawed AR15s.... Oregon is working on putting a complete statewide prohibition, registration and surrender of AR15s. Its worth noting that Oregon's own state constitution preserves the people a right to bear arms.... So how is it that these local laws and initiatives can be upheld in courts as legal? And what part of "infringed" is not clear to our courts?
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
April 7, 2018, 05:11 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2013
Location: SW IN
Posts: 438
|
The 2nd say it all and the 1st you need to study all of them this will help you. good reading !!!
__________________
Man that likes guns. Navy. USS Ponchatoula AO 148 USS Vesuvius AE 15 |
April 7, 2018, 05:12 PM | #3 | ||||||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
II. Regulation of Constitutionally Protected Rights.
__________________
"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 |
||||||||||
April 7, 2018, 05:21 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
|
Frank, thank you... thats a lot to read but I will take my time to soak it all in. I'm still contemplating how all that fits in with the "shall not infringe" part though.
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
April 7, 2018, 05:22 PM | #5 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
April 7, 2018, 05:35 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
|
thank you for clarifying the Massachusetts ruling Aguila... but that makes it worse in my opinion. A federal judge should uphold the constitution which says "shall not infringe"
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
April 7, 2018, 05:39 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2012
Location: Cascadia
Posts: 1,288
|
another thing I don't understand has to do with the 9th Amendment. If the constitution cannot be used to deny other rights granted by the people, then how can these local laws infringe on their rights to bear arms when literally millions of people in the US can still own AR15s (et al, whatever else is on the list)?
In other words its one thing to say we have the right to "regulate" (prohibit) AR15s, but another to say these people do, but you do not...
__________________
lightweight, cheap, strong... pick 2 |
April 7, 2018, 05:54 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Yes, thank you.
This quote from your post is why I have said that for me, the only issue in 2016 was the Supreme Court and who would be appointing future justices. Quote:
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
|
April 7, 2018, 08:02 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Just curious, why do you think that? The current moral panic seems a powerful movement.
It might be the case that owning rather 'calm' or 'relatively' nonthreatening guns might be supported by a majority of citizens. So something like an SW Model 10 or a Double Barreled Biden special would be ok but will the country continue to support owning weapons of war or weapons of mass destruction? That will be the battle of the next few years. Even with the recent SCOTUS decisions, buying a handgun in some states is heavily regulated and not guaranteed. Certainly, carry is not seen as constitutionally protected. IMHO, carry and owning the higher capacity firearms are challenge. I hope it turns around and that good messaging is developed to portray the importance of gun rights.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 7, 2018, 08:56 PM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
There are a significant number of mis-informed and under-informed people, and then there are true believer zealots who think that as long as we have the ability to have a gun (single shot, muzzleloader preferred) that our right to arms is not being infringed. Some of these people are in Congress, and some sit on judges's benches. The rest are scattered throughout society but tend to be most prevalent in certain socio-economic strata.
Ones of those is the "Ivory tower" mentality. They have their ideas, and the rest of the world is (to them) simply, wrong... the other side of the coin are those who feel that any kind of regulation, at all, is an infringement. Neither side is entirely correct. No rights are unlimited, and all rights have restrictions, otherwise society can not function. WE voluntarily adhere to certain restrictions on our rights in many and diverse ways every single day, most of us, without even realizing it. One of the reasons our system of government has worked as well as it has, with that it was set up with an understanding of the communication technology of the times. For a lot of our nations history, news (real or false) could only travel as fast and as far as a ship or a horse could carry it. Telegraph and steam locomotives increased that rate and range, but still required a degree of time for the news to get around. This meant that there was a good chance that mob rule (tyranny of the masses) was difficult, because the amount of time needed for information to get to the public, and their response to get back to those doing the governing allowed for logic and reason to have a chance to prevail, and for hotheads to cool off before passing laws or making public policy changes. Didn't always work, but often did. Today, we have a much different situation, and both our system of government and our society is having a difficult time dealing with it. Today, millions upon millions of people can both get the news, and send their opinions to the government (and the rest of the world at large) essentially instantly. In other words, the mob gets its angry strident voice heard in the halls of power within minutes of any issue reaching the public stage. There is no time lag to allow reason a chance to combat "moral panic". Our system is based on the will of the people, but was created with the understanding that the will of the people would be tempered over time, before it was presented to the representatives. writing letters to politicians takes more effort and time than texting, tweeting, and sending your opinions (on any subject) world wide with the press of a button. Which brings up the other point, which is, IS the current anti-gun movement actually as powerful as it seems to be??? After all, its the same people selling us the "news". Do you think that there might, possibly, be some bias there??? Despite the fact that its a running joke, there are people who operate on the level of "It must be true, I read it on the Internet". And, their vote counts just as much as yours does. Many of those people claiming how powerful the current anti-gun frenzy is and how much it will accomplish also claimed with certainly that Hillary would handily win election to the Presidency. When that didn't happen, they were stunned. They could be just as wrong about the "inevitable" success of their gun control campaign. I certainly hope so. Though I think we are certain to lose ground in those places politically controlled by urban numbers. Not entirely because of left/right (or up/down or sideways) political leanings but simply because of the numbers of people who know nearly nothing about guns and even the rest of our rights, save what the media tells them on various screens 24/7. The truth never sells as well as a slickly packaged lie, and that's just part of what we're up against today.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 7, 2018, 09:27 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
That makes it seem more powerful than it really is. I have nothing to back up my certainty that before our current President leaves office, he will appoint a total of three SCOTUS justices including his first appointment of Gorsuch to replace Scalia. I am certain, but that doesn't mean anyone has to believe me, though it's not any kind of a stretch to imagine it to be a real possibility. I am also certain that the next two appointments will be replacements for current justices who tend to believe that our constitution is a living document, which we know it is not. Only time is going to prove me right or prove me a fool, claiming me either now accomplishes nothing but you're obviously free to do so, no worries. If I am right, what would be the likelihood that the SCOTUS would finally begin to define what limits are and are not constitutional in regulating the RKBA? A SCOTUS holding a majority of constitutionally minded justices. I realize that most everyone believes that we as gun owners are in a minority. Hogwash. I realize as well that everyone believes the this vocal group that is our opposition is the majority. Hogwash. Ever looked at an electoral map of the 2016 election by precinct? https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...s-vote-n740616 If you compare it to 2012 and then 2008, it's only grown more red. I don't believe that is a trend that is going to change anytime soon. Color me crazy, but what if I'm right and there is a very positive change on the horizon?
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! Last edited by turkeestalker; April 7, 2018 at 09:40 PM. Reason: correct terminology |
|
April 7, 2018, 10:39 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 280
|
Quote:
|
|
April 8, 2018, 12:04 AM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
|
I suppose you can take some comfort in the fact that, the majority of the time, things are not as bad as they look, nor as good as they seem.....
Even the major gun control activists fell essentially silent for quite a while after Sept 11, 2001. Some even went so far as to abandon the crusade against privately owned weapons, saying "what was I thinking???" Enough time has passed now, and in relative safety, that the "usual suspects" or their generational ideological replacements have forgotten how a couple THOUSAND people were killed and the Twin Towers brought down by terrorists who didn't use a single gun to do it. Guns, and especially military looking guns are their target de jour, but that's not really what they're after in the long run, as I see it.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 8, 2018, 09:10 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
18 months ago, there was an election that looked to reverse all these trends of both anti gun laws and public viewpoints but it never happened, in fact, it looks more like a springboard for limiting our rights and losing positive public opinion.
The last election along with control of house and senate couldn't slow this down and that is why I am truly concerned. And someone please tell me what the term is for the 'feeling we have to do something" that has obsessed those in the news.
__________________
L2R |
April 8, 2018, 09:35 AM | #15 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,434
|
Quote:
And now that we have the teen-age demonstrators running the anti-gun narrative, politicians of both parties are paralyzed. They don't dare do anything these loud-mouthed children oppose, because CHILDREN! |
|
April 8, 2018, 09:57 AM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
April 8, 2018, 10:27 AM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 2, 2015
Location: Cottleville, Missouri
Posts: 1,115
|
Quote:
So what is the solution? We're going to find out in seven more months.
__________________
Vegetarian... primitive word for lousy hunter! |
|
April 8, 2018, 10:59 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Are gun owners in the minority? That's an empirical question and number of households that have guns is supposedly below 50%. Can we trust polling?
Second, are gun owners dedicated to the RKBA as a major issue? That's a different story. We have seen 'gun owners' of the type derogatorily labeled as 'Fudds' come out against the ARs, higher capacity guns, etc. Some proclaim they are gun owners, veterans, etc. Not hard to find. I've said this a thousand times, it seems, and it causes some folks to write gigantic spews of prose that miss the point. The progun 'side' has not come up with good messaging or a legislative strategy. One can make excuses why if you want. However, this is a thread drift and I contributed to it. We should get back to the initial topic and let our standard debate go.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 8, 2018, 08:25 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
Thank you Frank for your time and thorough explanation. I knew quite a bit from a high level but you explained it very well.
The OPs other question, how is it we have conflicting laws with lack of resolution. Maybe someone here with better knowledge could explain how judges have latitude to interpret law and that it often reflects their own politics. No different really to all of us witnessing a shooting but coming away with opposing thoughts on how to minimize it. So too, judges opinions vary widely. Someone here also noted that Lincoln passed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 but took over 100 years to really take hold. A silver lining that goes largely unnoticed is that our POTUS is assigning conservative judges at various levels that may level the field in the future. Hoping someone here can say it better or more accurately but I think that helps explain why our constituation isn't simple and the answers may not be resolved in our life times.
__________________
L2R |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|