quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:
Well, this is not good...

quote:

Police across Maine were alerted just last month to “veiled threats” by the U.S. Army reservist who would go on to carry out the worst mass shooting in the state’s history, one of a string of missed red flags that preceded the massacre.

Two local law enforcement chiefs told The Associated Press that a statewide awareness alert was sent in mid-September to be on the lookout for Robert Card after the firearms instructor made threats against his base and fellow soldiers. But after stepped-up patrols of the base and a visit to Card’s home – neither of which turned up any sign of him – they moved on.

Link

quote:

We couldn’t locate him,” Merry said, adding that he couldn’t recall if there was any follow-up because “I don’t have any reports in front of me.”

They stopped by his house, he wasn't home.....so they just bagged it?????

Now deposits want my guns? Because law enforcement screwed the pooch?

They don't prosecute gun crimes as it is......but they want to take my legally owned and legally used firearms???? And you lefties are good with that? Really?

.

I don't want the government to ever take anybody's legally owned and legally used firearms.

I want them to change what firearms (or accessories) can be legally owned.

yeah, that's the ticket..... When will it be scopes...you know making a hunting rifle a "sniper weapon"????

I can’t believe any red blooded American would ever support gun bans, unnecessary regulations etc.
That’s about as anti American as they come

quote:

Originally posted by Bivoj:
I can’t believe any red blooded American would ever support gun bans, unnecessary regulations etc.
That’s about as anti American as they come

Agreed!

.

[quote]That's why I would ban magazines, not firearms. Requiring a one-to-one exchange would not be an unconstitutional "taking" and would not implicate anyone's right to bear arms.[/quote
And who's going to pay for it.

Being forced to do it is highly probably unconstitutional.


What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
[quote]That's why I would ban magazines, not firearms. Requiring a one-to-one exchange would not be an unconstitutional "taking" and would not implicate anyone's right to bear arms.[/quote
And who's going to pay for it.

Being forced to do it is highly probably unconstitutional.


What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand.

None of it, but you seem to have trouble with "infringed".

When the Framers were addressing individual Rights they used the term "abridged", when addressing collective or State Rights they used "infringed".

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
[quote]That's why I would ban magazines, not firearms. Requiring a one-to-one exchange would not be an unconstitutional "taking" and would not implicate anyone's right to bear arms.[/quote
And who's going to pay for it.

Being forced to do it is highly probably unconstitutional.


What part of shall not be infringed do you not understand.

The Courts early and long established the 2nd Amendment was not an individual right. It was nearly a restriction upon the Fed Government.

Cases previously provided.

The court has established in Heller, Mc Donald, Caetano and now Bruen.

That it is an individual right.

LHeym500 from the North Fork thread You stated

"I would be in violation. I can’t take the heat as an asst. prosecutor and lawyer."

I would say you need to up date your reading of Supreme court cases on the 2nd amendment.


For some one who has taken a oath to up hold the constitution your recent knowledge seems to ne lacking

Not really. That is not the traditional understanding.

The Court had established you have a fundamental right to self defense that requires 2nd amendment incorporation. As one can posses arms in common use for legal purposes is the fundamental right. To do restrict, the state has to show the restriction is historically recognized, or survives strict scrutiny.

Unlike you, I have read all those cases and more. I have also briefed them in criminal trials.

The historic, original intent of the 2nd is clear in the case law. Go read the cars I provided earlier.

Oh, and the trial judge has stated on the record my identification of assumed permissible place of restriction being a school board of education office on the campus of two schools was correct. He was/is concerned at the actual language of the statute that extends to all school property.

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That's now settled law. Heller.

"Abridge" and "infringe" share some synonyms and are similar words.

Again, you are half right. Go read Heller. The how is as important as the result.

Justice Scalia never said nor overruled the pre incorporation cases. He expressly wrote we will not disturb the Slaughter House Cases. He found, created from the bench s fundamental right to self defense. This, incorporated the 2nd to give effect to this fundamental right.

That is what it says.

Also, you are completely wrong implying the 2nd was intended to create an individual right. No case says that. In fact, they say the opposite expressly prior to Incorporation. Go read them. I have given everyone the citations.

It could be my knowledge of Constitutional law is rusty. But I thought a "fundamental right" was the same thing as an individual right.

If that's wrong, can you name some "individual rights" the Court has recognized, using that term?

If the Court hasn't recognized the right to keep and bear arms as an individual right, then why did the Court in Bruen rule that the individual plaintiffs have a right to a license from New York?

I don't have time to go read these cases. I'm supposed to be working. I know you know how to read a case, I'm just suggesting your memory may be off. If not, mine sure is. Why don't you read them again and report back. I'll take your word for it.

quote:

Not really. That is not the traditional understanding.

Tradition has nothing to do with it.

The supreme court has made it very clear. Text as informed by history.

Frist the text.

Then the history as the founding father's saw it. Or a relevant law from that time period.

Again traditional liberal thinking or wishing has absolutely nothing to do with it.

If a law cannot survive the plain reading of the text. Then the burden is on the government to prove there. was a relevant law at the time of the founding.

Not some theory, not some wishful thinking, not a made up story, not a tradition.

But an actual relevant law on the books at the time of the founding.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. That's now settled law. Heller.

"Abridge" and "infringe" share some synonyms and are similar words.

The Framers were not careless with the words they used in writing the Constitution. They used different language in the First and Second Amendments because they meant to, not for literary variety.

Please define the difference between "infringed" and "abridged." Their meaning is quite close, but perhaps you can distinguish them without making an unjustifiable assumption the Framers intended a different scope for two different rights.

There wasn't any one Framers' intent. The Constitution was a compromise between competing interests and opinions. The language isn't always precise; instead it's ambiguous at times, which allows each side an argument for later interpretation.

What does the first clause of the Second Amendment mean? How does it affect the right to keep and bear arms, if at all? Or is it just precatory language? Must you belong to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms? I believe the Court shot down that argument.

I'm surprised that a hunter/shooter would take your positions.

quote:

What does the first clause of the Second Amendment mean? How does it affect the right to keep and bear arms, if at all? Or is it just precatory language? Must you belong to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms? I believe the Court shot down that argument.

It is simple except for those who want to disarm us.

The first part allows the states to maintain a Militia.

The second part. Makes sure that the people can have and bear arms. With out government interference.

Again only those who want more government power and want the people to be disarmed. Have a hard time understanding the 2nd amendment.

O dog: This is not arguable.

The original intent is clear in the case law. Heller and its lineage does not overturn that original intent.

Scalia does not say the original intent was to create an individual right, and overturn near 200 years of judicial understanding.

Read the cases Scilla says he is using a bench made legal doctrine being selective incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

He actually never says firearm possession is the fundamental right. He wrote self defense was the fundamental right that required incorporating the 2nd Amendment to give affect to this fundamental right. He later declared the right to possess for legal purposes is fundamental. He restricts this right to arms in common use, historically recognized restrictions and sensitive places. The sensitive places per Bruen is not an exhaustive list. In addition, Scalia’s opinions presume restrictions on felons, not just the violent, were constitutional.


Finally as stated on Bruen, “ No right is absolute.”

There is no point in arguing this. You are simply wrong. To continue to state, the original intent was to create an individual federally protected right is wrong. At this point, to continue to say that is a lie because you know better. Go read the cases.

Historically, you had more of a recognized right to privacy and an abortion than to carry a handgun. The reasonable expectation of privacy is all over English Common Law, and the state’s originally allowed abortions up to 15ish weeks.

However, those rights were subject ti the whim of the state. Like the possession of handguns were subject to the whim of the state. Go read all those cases I have provided on the first page; including Heller and its lineage.

I would submit that there is daylight between "not an absolute right" and not an individual right... i mean, it's sort of hard to avoid the actual wording of the 2a

quote:

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

yes, i know you'll refer back to the prior sentence fragment, however, at the time, the word militia meant everyone not in a "select militia" which included the standing army AND formal state militias - I've posted the link to the Senate prior, but here it is again
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

On may note the publish date of 1982, almost 42 years ago

of interesting note is that one of it's members was JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Please define the difference between "infringed" and "abridged." Their meaning is quite close, but perhaps you can distinguish them without making an unjustifiable assumption the Framers intended a different scope for two different rights.

There wasn't any one Framers' intent. The Constitution was a compromise between competing interests and opinions. The language isn't always precise; instead it's ambiguous at times, which allows each side an argument for later interpretation.

What does the first clause of the Second Amendment mean? How does it affect the right to keep and bear arms, if at all? Or is it just precatory language? Must you belong to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms? I believe the Court shot down that argument.

I'm surprised that a hunter/shooter would take your positions.

"Abridged" was used to refer to individual rights, "infringed" to collective rights. The meanings have largely merged in the intervening nearly 250 years but since the Roberts Court wants to examine what was served at breakfast each day during the drafting of the Constitution to divine meaning the common usage of the day is important.

I am a hunter and shooter by choice, tradition and training; I am an American Citizen by birth and loyal to the Constitution by Oath.

It is a bill of rights.

Governments to not have rights.

The constitution and the bill of rights are a check on governmental power.

Not the other way around.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
It is a bill of rights.

Governments to not have rights.

The constitution and the bill of rights are a check on governmental power.

Not the other way around.

The 10th Amendment would like a word...

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Please define the difference between "infringed" and "abridged." Their meaning is quite close, but perhaps you can distinguish them without making an unjustifiable assumption the Framers intended a different scope for two different rights.

There wasn't any one Framers' intent. The Constitution was a compromise between competing interests and opinions. The language isn't always precise; instead it's ambiguous at times, which allows each side an argument for later interpretation.

What does the first clause of the Second Amendment mean? How does it affect the right to keep and bear arms, if at all? Or is it just precatory language? Must you belong to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms? I believe the Court shot down that argument.

I'm surprised that a hunter/shooter would take your positions.

"Abridged" was used to refer to individual rights, "infringed" to collective rights. The meanings have largely merged in the intervening nearly 250 years but since the Roberts Court wants to examine what was served at breakfast each day during the drafting of the Constitution to divine meaning the common usage of the day is important.

I am a hunter and shooter by choice, tradition and training; I am an American Citizen by birth and loyal to the Constitution by Oath.

This is your opinion only. You haven't offered any authority, legal, historical, or otherwise for your interpretation.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
Please define the difference between "infringed" and "abridged." Their meaning is quite close, but perhaps you can distinguish them without making an unjustifiable assumption the Framers intended a different scope for two different rights.

There wasn't any one Framers' intent. The Constitution was a compromise between competing interests and opinions. The language isn't always precise; instead it's ambiguous at times, which allows each side an argument for later interpretation.

What does the first clause of the Second Amendment mean? How does it affect the right to keep and bear arms, if at all? Or is it just precatory language? Must you belong to a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms? I believe the Court shot down that argument.

I'm surprised that a hunter/shooter would take your positions.

"Abridged" was used to refer to individual rights, "infringed" to collective rights. The meanings have largely merged in the intervening nearly 250 years but since the Roberts Court wants to examine what was served at breakfast each day during the drafting of the Constitution to divine meaning the common usage of the day is important.

I am a hunter and shooter by choice, tradition and training; I am an American Citizen by birth and loyal to the Constitution by Oath.

This is your opinion only. You haven't offered any authority, legal, historical, or otherwise for your interpretation.

Because I have gotten tired of spoon-feeding people who do not argue in good faith.

I make an assertion, they dispute it, I provide links backing my assertion and they either simply disappear or ignore the mass of whatever source I provide to nitpick a minor side point rather than offer a simple "Oh, you were right, I was wrong, I must adjust my worldview to conform to reality".

A fine example is now on display in the "Placate evil" thread. I make an assertion, get all but called a liar by two people, including an Administrator, I post three links showing my assertion was fact and they simply don't respond but Dr. Easter, without reading the linked articles, challenges my initial assertion, reads the articles which couldn't be clearer including a quote from the individual in question and pronounces them "ambiguous".

Fuck that. I'm all caught up on spoon-feeding supposed adults. Google "abridged vs infringed" for yourself and decide if it's "just my opinion".

quote:

Also, you are completely wrong implying the 2nd was intended to create an individual right. No case says that. In fact, they say the opposite expressly prior to Incorporation. Go read them. I have given everyone the citations.

The first case I just read was Bruen, where J. Thomas says at p. 8:

"In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense."

"After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found “no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment con- ferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Id., at 595."

Bruen, at 11.

For Jeffive: In Bruen, the Court treated Constitutional analysis as the same for the First and Second Amendments.


"When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The gov- ernment must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amend- ment’s “unqualified command.” Konigsberg, 366 U. S., at 50, n. 10.
C
"This Second Amendment standard accords with how we protect other constitutional rights. Take, for instance, the freedom of speech in the First Amendment, to which Heller repeatedly compared the right to keep and bear arms. 554 U. S., at 582, 595, 606, 618, 634–635. [additional citations omitted.]"