Posted on 03/01/2018 4:17:36 AM PST by SoFloFreeper
It’s a Constitutional Law case.
“Infringement.”
A. Point 1 will probably not happen, so we don't need to waste too much time arguing whether or not it is an infringement.
Point 1 was: "1) 18 and active military no limits."
I bought a handgun at the age of 18, from a retail establishment, before the 1968 law went into effect. After the 1968 law went into effect, I was not able to buy a handgun from a retail establishment till I became 21. Through no fault of my own, I no longer had the right to do something that I previously had the right to do. I want reasons why that wasn't an infringement.
B. Point 2. Handguns purchases have been prohibited by those under 21 since the Gun Control Act of 1968, and has never been successfully challenged in court. Given that, I wouldn't hold out much hope that the court would feel that adding all firearms to the under 21 prohibition would be an infringement under the Second Amendment.
See my response in regard to Point 1 in A. above. Further, that the GCA of 1968 has never been successfully challenged in court may only mean the challenges were weak. In regard to the second sentence, I'd like to see reasons why it would not be an infringement under the Second Amendment.
C. Point 3 is current law for handguns. Given point 2 above, point 3 would be a reasonable extension of current law, and most likely will not be found to be an infringement by the current court. The prohibition is in the purchase, not the possession. Having parental supervision on ownership of all firearms and firearm ammunition would probably sit just fine with the current court.
Since you write "Given point 2 above, point 3 would be a reasonable extension...", see my response regarding point 2 in B. above, which also refers to A. above. Further, I want to see reasons why it would not be an infringement.
D. Points 4 and 5 are already covered under current law and more or less affirmed as constitutional under Heller.
That they are confirmed under current law does not mean they are not infringements. If I recall correctly, they are affirmed as constitutional under Heller in principle, not in detail.
What's a "NUTBAG"? Does that include anyone who wants a firearm for personal protection since they're obviously paranoid? You can probably find some who say it includes anyone who wants a firearm period. Assuming "NUTBAG" means someone with mental health issues, who gets to decide what mental health issues are? "They" used to say homosexuality was a mental health issue. Now they don't. Body dysmorphia is a mental health issue unless you think your body is wrong because you believe you are a different biological sex.
Why should a non violent felon be deprived of a means of self-defense?
I've read of people being accused of domestic violence for "yelling".
There can be reasons why depriving a nutbag, felon, or person who has a domestic violence conviction of the right to keep and bear arms, but there should be some criteria, some standards, some reasons why it's not an infringement.
E. Point 6. Given the highlighted passage in Heller that I posted above, I doubt that universal background checks will be deemed an infringement by the current court, either.
I want to see reasons why it's not an infringement. And there are other problems with universal background checks if by that is meant they are needed every time one loans, gifts, etc. a firearm.
F. Point 7...
No comment.
G. Point 8 is sort of covered already under point 3, so I don't see that with much chance of being enacted.
Since you write "Point 8 is sort of covered already under point 3", see my response regarding point 3 in C. above which refers to B. above and by extension to A.
H. A point 9 (not mine, mind you, but one proposed by others) would be another 'Assault Weapons' ban. Well, the Supreme Court failed to take up the challenge of Maryland's "assault weapons" ban, so we can start there. The current Supreme Court feels that banning AR style rifles is constitutional.
The Supreme Court has over ruled itself more than 100 times. I want to know the reasons as to why an "Assault Weapons" (whatever that means) ban is not an infringement.
I. But it all depends on what the Courts think, not what you or I think, is an infringement of the Second Amendment.
Your post was prompted by my words "Which should impel discussion on our part of the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that we will be prepared to argue our case in the event of such litigation."
True, Heller says "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited", but we have to understand what the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in order to determine the limits. We need to understand the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in order to know what might or might not be an infringement. For instance, if the words extend to an 18 year old, changing the age at which it is legal to buy a firearm might be an infringement. If they don't extend to an 18 year old it wouldn't. Why would they or why would they not extend to an 18 year old?
Above, I've repeatedly used words like "I want reasons why that wasn't an infringement." It appears to me that you have presented various things that might be considered infringements by some, with a view that they are to be acquiesced to, not that you have addressed the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
It does depend on what the Courts think, but that depends at least in part, on the arguments presented to them, which depend on proper understanding of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" .
I see the issue here, Kris. You want to hear arguments why something isn’t an infringement when you feel it most certainly is, but nobody will ever be able to give you a satisfactory reason.
The reality is that we live in a society, and part of that society is we must live under what 9 Justices ultimately decide what is right and what is wrong.
What I have listed isn’t what you or I feel is infringement, but what they would most likely find infringement, and short of civil war, that is the final word on the matter, no matter how much you or I disagree.
Were it up to me, felons would have their rights restored, including voting rights, the moment they have completed their sentences. Were it up to me the entire GCA and NFA would be repealed. Were it up to me you wouldn’t need a ‘mother may I’ piece of paper to bear arms.
But it isn’t up to me. The most I can do is elect representatives that most closely align to the way I think about issues. I can write those representatives to convey my thoughts about issues in hopes of persuading them to act as I would wish. I can join with like-thinking individuals to form a group that has a collective cout that is more than I would have as an individual. And I must abide by what has been decided, else face the very real consequences.
You've missed the issue, if you want to call it that. You responded to my words:
Which should impel discussion on our part of the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that we will be prepared to argue our case in the event of such litigation.
The word "infringement" is not among those words. You brought up "infringement". I think it's too early in the discussion to discuss infringement.
The reality is that we live in a society, and part of that society is we must live under what 9 Justices ultimately decide what is right and what is wrong.
The 9 Justices don't get to decide what is right and what is wrong, except for themselves. They decide what is Constitutional and what is not Constitutional, what is legal and what is not legal. And they've been known to overturn themselves and previous sets of Justices.
What I have listed...
Isn't what I was after.
The most I can do is elect representatives that most closely align to the way I think about issues. I can write those representatives to convey my thoughts about issues in hopes of persuading them to act as I would wish. I can join with like-thinking individuals to form a group that has a collective cout that is more than I would have as an individual.
Which brings us back to:
Which should impel discussion on our part of the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that we will be prepared to argue our case in the event of such litigation.
And I must abide by what has been decided, else face the very real consequences.
There are consequences either way.
I don’t think there was really much of a Second Amendment movement back then. Haynes and Freed came in 1968 and 1971, really at the very beginning of the gun control era, before gun owners really started pushing back in the late 70s and 80s. Also, Haynes and Freed were criminal defendants represented by court appointed counsel, not activist plaintiffs represented by activist lawyers like the plaintiffs in Heller and McDonald.
Also, Haynes was arrested with a short-barreled shotgun, and the regulation of short-barreled shotguns is exactly what was upheld in Miller. Freed was arrested with hand grenades—few even today argue that regulation of those offends the Second Amendment. Even if they had been motivated to raise Second Amendment challenges, that Supreme Court would have been unlikely to grant cert on those issues, and thank God for that. Could you imagine what the Second Amendment jurisprudence would look like if it was decided by the Warren Court under those facts?
Even the Second Amendment challenge in Miller was half-hearted at best. The Miller defendants’ lawyer did not even file a brief or attend oral argument because his clients weren’t paying him. That case was decided solely on the government’s brief, which helps explain its absurd reasoning.
The case would never even have made it to the Supreme Court today. It was there under a New-Deal-era law allowing the government to file a direct appeal to the Supreme Court if a district court held a law unconstitutional (those appeals have since been narrowed just to redistricting cases). The Supreme Court probably never would have granted cert or, had it done so, probably would have dismissed cert as improvidently granted under these circumstances.
There was not a lot of Second Amendment scholarship or activism until fairly recently, for the same reason there is not a lot of Third Amendment scholarship or activism today. It wasn’t until fairly recently that the government started violating it. I think the NFA contains multiple violations of the Second Amendment, but pre-1968, those violations were relatively mild and not enough to motivate a great deal of resistance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.