California "Assault Weapon" ban struck down - for now

[Spats McGee]

I already pointed out that I disagree with him. What he wrote is an op-ed piece, so it's an opinion-editorial piece. What I was trying to get across, as AB pointed out, is that he's not a hack journalist who doesn't understand the law. And there's a whole lot more to the Constitution than the 2A. We can always disagree with our ideological opponents, but it would be foolhardy to underestimate them.

ETA: One real problem with someone like Chemerinsky writing op-eds like this is that his word will be taken as gospel by large segments of the legal community. It ain't right, but it is what it is.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Metal god

As far as supporting the militia aspect of the second . I have never heard one anti-gun politician support the militia part of the 2nd and not conclude that that is the national guard . So although on paper it sounds like they support it they really do not as intended by our founders “ at ratification “

Most anti-gunners do, indeed, claim that the 2A only protects guns in the National Guard. That only demonstrates their ignorance. First, there was no National Guard for more than a century after the Bill of Rights was adopted, so the 2A obviously wasn't talking about the National Guard. Second, the Militia as it exists under current federal law is not limited to the National Guard. The NG is the "organized" militia -- there is also a body of the populace that comprises the "unorganized" militia -- and many anti-gunners might be shocked to learn that they ARE "the Militia." BY FEDERAL LAW.

[KyJim]

About Cherminsky's comment: I have to believe his political views have so influenced him that he cannot even come close to viewing the district court decision impartially. IMO, he has deliberately misrepresented the judge's swiss knife metaphor as a literal comparison of a gun to a knife in order to undercut the decision's credibility. That may get him ink in a toady newspaper, but no reasonable jurist would so interpret the district judge's comment. Reasonable jurists might disagree with it, but they would at least understand the judge's comment as a metaphor.

The district judge put a lot of work in trying to touch all the bases and make extensive factual findings based on evidence at trial. Factual findings are reviewed on appeal in federal court only for clear error. That's not to say the opinion will stand because Cherminsky got at least one thing right---no federal court of appeals has found a ban on "assault weapons" unconstitutional.

Turning to an earlier comment:

even heard the argument from the anti's that because of the 21st amendment you can't ban alcohol I MEAN Well I guess irony has lost all meaning lol

Can't ban it nationally, but you can certainly ban it locally under the 21st Amendment. Or you could start a drive to amend the Constitution again and ban it nationally. I doubt many of the vocal gun grabbers would want to ban alcohol locally, say at the county level. And fewer still would want to revisit the failed experiment called Prohibition.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by KyJim

Can't ban it nationally, but you can certainly ban it locally under the 21st Amendment. Or you could start a drive to amend the Constitution again and ban it nationally. I doubt many of the vocal gun grabbers would want to ban alcohol locally, say at the county level. And fewer still would want to revisit the failed experiment called Prohibition.

I thought about commenting on this before, got sidetracked, and didn't. Now I will.

Anyone who thinks alcohol "can't" be banned because of the 21st amendment doesn't understand how laws and constitutional amendments work. Alcoholic beverages were banned, by the 18th amendment -- prohibition. As KyJim described it, it was a failed experiment. The 18th Amendment said:

Amendment 18 - Liquor Abolished

1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It was ratified, it went into effect, and a few years later there was a determined effort mounted to repeal it. That effort resulted in the 21st amendment, which said:

Amendment 21 - 18th Amendment Repealed

1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The 21st amendment does not in any way prohibit the possibility of a repeat of the 18th amendment, or the enactment of a national ban on alcoholic beverages by the Congress. The 21st amendment specifically provides that "The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited." Obviously, then, this means that the states and their political subdivisions are allowed to have or to enact laws prohibiting "intoxicating liquors."

When some people read a law (or anything else, for that matter), they see in it only what they want to see, not what it says.

[44 AMP]

Cherminsky got at least one thing right---no federal court of appeals has found a ban on "assault weapons" unconstitutional.

Did he??

get that right, I mean??

Or has he just taken the lack of evidence as proof???

One of his points is the amount of time during which "no court" ruled gun control law(s) unconstitutional. The whole "from 1789 to 2008,," is a red herring (aka intentionally misleading).

He IMPLIES that in ALL THAT TIME, no court found gun control unconstitutional, because it isn't unconstitutional, and that compared to the bulk of time our "modern" view (2008, Heller, etc.) must be an aberation.

Reality is that, in all that time, there have been very, very few gun control laws taken to court, and considering the first national (Federal) gun control law was the 1934 NFA, its pretty obvious why there were no rulings on guncontrol between 1789 and 1934, there simply were no laws to be challenged.

Another point to consider is "ban". Most of the assault weapon laws are restrictions, not total bans on a complete class of firearm.
Even the 1934 NFA is not a ban. It is severe regulation and restriction, but it is not a complete and total ban on ownership of the covered items.

The DC law struck down in Heller WAS a total ban of an entire class of arms (handguns), and that still took several decades to finally be ruled on.

Cherminsky may be a noted constitutional scholar, but if what he writes is the same drivel churned out by hack writers, then he's just a well educated hack writer...

[zukiphile]

Cherminsky may be a noted constitutional scholar, but if what he writes is the same drivel churned out by hack writers, then he's just a well educated hack writer...

Law, economics and art all have the quality that a person may be very well versed in them, yet have an agenda that should keep them well away from any practical applications of that agenda. Paul Krugman wrote an economics textbook, yet he is a public figure for some seriously shabby policy advocacy. Marx wrote on economics, but made his name for other reasons. Picasso may be a big deal in the art world, but I'm not attracted by the images for which he is best known.

Lawrence Tribe is a very smart fellow and undeniably a legal scholar; he is also wrong on most issues on which he publicly opines. It's the nature of the field that makes being well read and being right different things.

I wonder about the perspicacity of someone who would write post Heller:

Originally Posted by Chemerinsky

When dealing with 2nd Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the provision meant what it said: It was solely a right to have guns for the purpose of militia service.

Everyone in this thread is aware that the 2d Am. doesn't say that at all, so it's hard to see how a very well read person would assert that in the absence of an agenda at odds with the text.

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by Chemerinsky
When dealing with 2nd Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the provision meant what it said:

This part is certainly true.

It was solely a right to have guns for the purpose of militia service.

This part is NOT true.

The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right of the people to keep and bear arms is necessary (because of militia use), and that is why it restricts the Govt from "infringing" on that right.

NOWHERE in the 2nd Amendment or anywhere is the Founders other writings is there ANY mention that the right to arms for militia use is the ONLY right to arms that exists.

THAT is a concept only in certain people's minds, not in the Constitution.

In point of fact, the 9th Amendment specifically states that not all our rights are enumerated, and the 10th states that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are the province of the states, or THE PEOPLE.

SO, yes, technically, the Second Amendment only covers govt regulation of the right to militia class arms. This does not mean we have NO right to anything else, as some people seem to think.

Our right to arms for purposes other than militia use exists and always has.

People telling you otherwise are lying. They may not think they are, but, they are.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

SO, yes, technically, the Second Amendment only covers govt regulation of the right to militia class arms. This does not mean we have NO right to anything else, as some people seem to think.

No, it doesn't say that, either. The prefatory clause (which Heller dissected grammatically and concluded does NOT alter or affect the meaning of the primary clause) just says that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. It doesn't say the [federal] government has a right to regulate militia class arms.

The main [operative] clause of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Period. Full stop. It doesn't say "shall not be unreasonably infringed." It says "SHALL ... NOT ... BE ... INFRINGED." Taken as it was intended (and assumed to be obvious) by the Framers, that means the right to keep and bear arms is simply NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION -- reasonable or otherwise.

[mehavey]

A civil populace well-versed in weapons suitable for defense of their lawful state* shall not have their possession of those weapons compromised....

(or something like that)




* in every sense of the term and/or turn of phrase
[think about it]

[Aguila Blanca]

It can be instructive to consider what the influential people at the time the Constitution was written thought about the right to keep and bear arms:


Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
-- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms."
-- Constitutional scholar and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1840

Men trained in arms from their infancy, and animated by the love of liberty, will afford neither a cheap or easy conquest.
-- From the Declaration of the Continental Congress, July 1775.

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
-- Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. [...] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.
-- "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia" referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the "government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.
-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression.
-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.
-- Noah Webster

The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
-- Henry St. George Tucker (in Blackstone's Commentaries)

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

[DaleA]

I remember you were working on a list of quotes and I'm happy to see you've got one now. Nice work. It's a list that is hard to argue with! Again, well done.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

Period. Full stop. It doesn't say "shall not be unreasonably infringed." It says "SHALL ... NOT ... BE ... INFRINGED." Taken as it was intended (and assumed to be obvious) by the Framers, that means the right to keep and bear arms is simply NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION -- reasonable or otherwise.

I am sympathetic to that reading, but let's recognize that "shall not be infringed" leaves room for argument and that the position you state and I like isn't current law. It's whether the explanation of our position coheres that should give the position weight rather than the credentials of the the people advancing it. Both we and Chemerinsky are entitled to our critiques and should have those critiques evaluated on their merits.

The point at which Chemerinsky's position fails to cohere is his its disconnect from text. It's an example of Bork's explanation of the Olympian project of "smarter" people telling us which policy choices are better, as opposed to the Court settling disputes between parties according to the text of the documents involved.

The point at which our leaning on those four words risks over-extension comes to interpreting the last word. Is a right infringed if its use is regulated in any way at all? I wouldn't consider a law against using a firearm in a robbery to be an infringement even though that is a regulation of use. Does the right remain uninfringed if the government has seven common traits it prohibits and and you need to pat your head and rub your stomach to reload it? Some will say that the right is uninfringed because you still get to have a gun, as if the word infringed is equivalent to "obliterated". I would protest that impairing the utility of the item infringes the right, limiting the right itself in a material way. A law that prohibits flash hiders and normal grips no more leave my 2d Am. right intact than would be an election law that prohibits some speech within 60 days of an election leave my 1st Am rights intact.

My reading of "infringed" is nearly synonymous with "limited"; it strikes me as sensible and coherent even as I acknowledge that it isn't the current state of the law.

[USAFNoDak]

Then I move onto you don't need a Lic if you never go on public roads

In addition to that point, if you are licensed in any state to drive a car, you can drive a car into any state you darn well please to. I seriously doubt that people who argue for gun licensing because we license cars and drivers, would agree to allow unfettered carrying of guns into all 50 states by anyone who has a license to carry a gun.

[44 AMP]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP
SO, yes, technically, the Second Amendment only covers govt regulation of the right to militia class arms. This does not mean we have NO right to anything else, as some people seem to think.

No, it doesn't say that, either. The prefatory clause (which Heller dissected grammatically and concluded does NOT alter or affect the meaning of the primary clause) just says that a well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state. It doesn't say the [federal] government has a right to regulate militia class arms.

I feel I'm being misunderstood here. I never said the Fed has a right to regulate militia class arms, (or any others) and I didn't say the 2nd says it does, either.

I'll try to be "More clearer"....

The opening clause states that a militia is necessary. This is an explanation of why the main clause states the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The overall subject is why the govt should not infringe on people's right to arms, because doing so would adversely affect the militia, which were/are people who show up with their own personal arms and equipment.

NOT govt issued guns or gear, but their own personally owned stuff. Stuff which was suitable for militia service. This included clothing, camp gear (cooking and eating) and your bedroll gear, as well as your arm and ammo.

IF the Govt was allowed to infringe on the right to arms, this would reduce or even eliminate the pool of armed citizens who are the ones called to militia service. SO the 2nd amendment specifically prohibits that.

It tells the Fed govt to keep its hands off our guns, and why the Fed needs to do that. That's all it does. It doesn't address anything else, and it doesn't need to.

The Heller ruling made a clear distinction, that our right to arms for personal use and protection exists APART from militia use or service.

This right was something known and accepted since day one, something never questioned or even considered needed to be spelled out specifically in law, for most of the first couple hundred years of our republic.

Until a certain political faction seized on the idea that the only "valid" reason for gun ownership was militia service (a false premise). We spent decades arguing back and forth, because the Constitution's 2nd Amendment does not specifically state anything beyond "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and lacking that, the "guns for militia use only" crowd felt they were justified and could do damn near anything they wanted regarding regulation and even banning arms from private hands.

I think Heller settled that argument, but many people on their side sill cling to that concept, despite it being refuted by the Supreme Court's ruling.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

I think Heller settled that argument, but many people on their side sill cling to that concept, despite it being refuted by the Supreme Court's ruling.

You accurately describe the Heller ruling. Heller was a 5-4 decision. 5-4 decisions aren't going to hold a lot of precedential weight in future Sup Ct cases unless the majority in those cases want it to.

Any future majority can reverse Heller. It was better to win than to lose, but it was metaphorically written in erasable marker, not chiseled into stone. Presidents, senators and Sup Ct nominees matter.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

I am sympathetic to that reading, but let's recognize that "shall not be infringed" leaves room for argument and that the position you state and I like isn't current law. It's whether the explanation of our position coheres that should give the position weight rather than the credentials of the the people advancing it. Both we and Chemerinsky are entitled to our critiques and should have those critiques evaluated on their merits.

Yes, I understand. And I know that Justice Scalia said in the Heller decision that the RKBA is not unlimited (or something to that effect). And I know that my fellow moderator, Frank Ettin, has pointed out that, historically, all the rights in the Bill of Rights have been subject to reasonable regulation.

Justice Scalia was constrained by having to write an opinion that was acceptable to Justice Kennedy in order to keep the majority. I am not so constrained. My view is that the 2A should be interpreted as meaning what it meant to the old dudes who wrote it, and history and context make it abundantly plain that what they intended was nothing less than that the law-abiding populace would NEVER be disarmed. In fact, this was considered to be so obvious that the Federalists among the Founders didn't think a Second Amendment (among the other rights in the Bill of Rights) was even needed, because it was so obvious (to them) that the Constitution didn't give the government any power to disarm the People. We got a Bill of Rights only because some states rebelled, and agreed to ratify the new constitution only with the promise that a Bill of Rights would be added.

So now we need to determine what "shall not be infringed" meant to the Framers. To me, in 2021, it means "shall not be limited or regulated." A better clue might be Samuel Johnson's Dictionary from 1785.

To Infringe:

1. To violate; to break laws or contracts.
2. To destroy; to hinder.

Infringement:

Breach; violation.

Seems pretty clear to me, but I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a wordsmith.

[44 AMP]

I have my own explanation, I think its fairly apt, but feel free to take it for what you think its worth.

Where is the fringe??? On a flag or a carpet, or a blanket, or the surry with a fringe on top..its on the outer edges.

when you are infringing something, you are (almost literally) treading on the outer edges.
I think the Founders chose that word with the thought that the right to arms was so important that the Govt should be prohibited from even treading on the outer fringes, and since it govt was forbidden even the outer edges of the right, then the core of the right would always remain inviolate.

it was a grand idea. worked for almost a couple hundred years...

Its not what we've got today, but then, neither is our republic what it was set up to be....

One of our main problems is that there are a significant number of people (and people in authority) who feel that as long as you can get some kind of gun, (single shot preferred) no matter the cost, or the complexity required to meet regulatory requirements, then your rights are not being violated or even infringed.

One of my friends has been working part time in a local gunshop for the past few years, and has seen first hand the wave of new to guns buyers, who are amazed that they can't just buy a gun like buying groceries at WalMart.

Very, very few of them had any idea the required forms waiting periods and background checks a legal FFL dealer has to do for every gun they sell.

some even get a deer in the headlights look when its explained that they voted for it. A few seem to get it, so there is hope....

[Metal god]

I think there's a part of the 2nd amendment people forget . That is , how the words work together especially in law and contracts . It's been my understanding since I first started writing proposals/contracts for construction work . When you use the word "shall" in a sentence , anything proceeding it must be done or not done with out exception . There is literally no wiggle room if I write in a contract " I shall remove all trees on the property " I must remove all trees regardless . If I were to write I "will" remove all trees , that does not hold the same legal weight . At least that's what I was told 30 years ago by a contractor who had been writing contracts and proposals for decades .

Anyways , my point is that you can't just look at one word in a document and dissect it as if it's the only thing relevant in the document . It all matters especially the words preceding it , They put context to the the meaning of the sentience and word in question .

[TomNJVA]

Our founding fathers were very smart men. I am sure every Article and Amendment in our constitution was discussed, debated, and wordsmithed to death before the final version was put to ink. If they intended that our right to keep and bear arms was for militia use only, all they had to say was "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms for use in the militia shall not be infringed". They didn't, and to me it's what they didn't say that offers the clearest understanding of their intent.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by TomNJVA

Our founding fathers were very smart men. I am sure every Article and Amendment in our constitution was discussed, debated, and wordsmithed to death before the final version was put to ink. If they intended that our right to keep and bear arms was for militia use only, all they had to say was "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms for use in the militia shall not be infringed". They didn't, and to me it's what they didn't say that offers the clearest understanding of their intent.

The state constitutions of several of the original thirteen colonies have 2A analogs that mention keeping and bearing arms "in defense of the self and of the state," or words similar thereto. Early drafts of the Bill or Rights were longer -- the language of the 2A was edited down as part of an overall effort to shorten the overall length of the Bill of Rights.

At the time the then-proposed new constitution was being discussed, both those who favored a strong central government (the Federalists) and those who feared a strong central government (the Anti-Federalists) wrote large numbers of articles that were circulated around the country for the purpose of influencing the populace. Since history is written by the winners, The Federalist Papers are much better known than the Anti-Federalist papers, but collections of both have been compiled, organized, and published.

The Federalist Papers were all written by three men: James Madison, John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton. Remember: the Federalists were the side who didn't think the new constitution even needed a bill of rights, because they were so certain that all those rights were so well understood and that the constitution provided sufficient limits on the central government that a BOR was completely unnecessary. [How wrong they were!]

In The Federalist #46, James Madison wrote the following:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

In other words, the intent of the very men who created our Constitution was that the entire populace be armed, and armed sufficiently that the People would always be stronger than any standing Army.

[HiBC]

For reasons stated in the Declaration of Independence,our Founders forged a Constitution based on Individual Liberty and Limited Government.
Through long patterns of history,they recognised governments are comprised of flawed human beings who inevitably act on all sides of human nature.
We will always have people who seek power and control.
They tend to gravitate toward government.

Wise People,our Founders.

They chose the words "The Right of the People" . The People. That pretty much tells me WHO has the Right.

"To Keep and Bear Arms" They did NOT say "Such arms as are deemed approved" . In fact,it included warships. It was not till the NFA of 1934 that some arms were not actually outlawed, the slimy workaround of a "tax stamp" was applied.

" Shall Not Be Infringed" ...How does it get more clear?

Now lets look at Oath of Office

To Uphold and Defend the Constitution,against all enemies, foreign and domestic....

How can the Senate,in good faith,even consider approving any official who has spoken against provisions of the Constitution?

[DaleA]

How can the Senate,in good faith,even consider approving any official who has spoken against provisions of the Constitution?

Gimme an-'H'
Gimme a---'Y'
Gimme a---'P'
Gimme an-'O'
Gimme a---'C'
Gimme a---'R'
Gimme an--'I'
Gimme an--'S'
Gimme a---'Y'

Them and the main stream media ESPECIALLY Public Broadcasting!

Also don't forget these old sayings:
The hypocrisy of their position is breathtaking!
If it wasn’t for double standards they wouldn’t have any.

[Metal god]

All the talking heads held a news conference today stating among many things there plan to appeal the recent AWB lawsuit .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP3XIO1sN_U

[44 AMP]

of course, they're going to appeal, but what can they use for an argument?

"We want it back because you have been letting us get away with it since 1989??"

The majority of the Judge's ruling relied on the obvious fact that the state's claimed justification has proven false over the past 30+ years. The guns are not what the state claimed they are, and the state cannot provide any real facts showing any public benefit from their regulation and ban.

It is exactly as he described it, a failed experiment, one which has infringed on the rights of law abiding citizens for no discernable public gain.

[ghbucky]

How can the Senate,in good faith,even consider approving any official who has spoken against provisions of the Constitution?

There was a time, within my memory, when elected politicians worked in good faith to enact the will of the voters. The minority party took it as a given that the public put them in the minority on purpose, so they worked with the majority to enact the policies that they ran on. They would of course try to compromise to represent their interests, but it was done in (mostly) good faith.

Those days are gone, maybe for good. Now it is just brute force will to power with no interest in what the 'other side' wants.

The actual spoken motto of the opposition to Trump was "by any means necessary" and they meant exactly that.