WATCH: Bloomberg Attempts to School People on Gun Laws. There's Just One Problem.

townhall.com ^ | 2/26/2020 | Beth Baumann

[Vaquero]

Yes. My tagline says it.

[karnage]

That’s where I’m headed... wherever it is!

[karnage]

I have reached that stage...

[JoeFromSidney]

I have to laugh. I awoke one night to find an intruder rummaging among my wife's jewelry on the top of the dresser. I can just imagine the struggle I'd have had if I'd tried to use a phone. Instead I grabbed my gun and started yelling. He ran out the bedroom door and down the stairs. He made it to the front door before I had a clear shot at him. Gun? Yes. Phone? Forget it. The phone is for after the incident is over. The cops came and took our story. Insurance covered the loss. It took a long time before I could sleep well again. I now have an alarm, and still keep a gun at my bedside.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

“it’d be much easier if we could do it at a federal level”.

Sounds like Nelson “Pete” Shields, founder of Handgun Control Inc. now the Brady Center, back in 1976 on how he would ban handguns (now rifles) in the USA.

Nelson T. ‘Pete’ Shields
Founder of Handgun Control, Inc.

“I’m convinced that we have to have FEDERAL LEGISLATION to build on. We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest.

Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, ‘This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time.

So then we’ll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.

My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — TOTALLY ILLEGAL.”

-Pete Shields, Chairman and founder, Handgun Control Inc., “A Reporter At Large: Handguns,” The New Yorker, July 26, 1976, 57-58

“Yes, I’m for an outright ban [on handguns].”(Now rifles)

-Pete Shields, Chairman emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc., 60 Minutes interview

HCI, around 1984, made a grab for the semi-auto rifles and shotguns, and missed. Then Josh Sugarmann tuned in. This has been the mantra ever since.
“ Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons —anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

– Josh Sugarmann

[P8riot]

I’m at the age where life in prison is no longer a deterrent

[The Bishop]

I know the feeling, I can no longer teach lessons as I used to but I can still dismiss the Class.

[The Bishop]

If they had to pay for my prescriptions for a month the prison board would be pleading with the governor for clemency. Save the prisoner, save the prison budget, cut him loose.

[karnage]

Starting to think the same way.

[justme4now]

FEDERAL LEGISLATION

I am so d@mn tired of these @$$holes who seem to think that our Constitution doesn't prevent the Feds from doing exactly what they want to do!

Even the SCOTUS has ruled these gun grabbing laws unconstitutional.
(They, the gun grabbers just ignore the rulings ... and the constitution because 'we' allow them to.)

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

Then there is this:

Heller, Caetano v Massachusetts
It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States.

And this:

McDonald v. City of Chicago
A case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

And:

District of Columbia v. Heller

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.

Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
(If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.)

The one thing that I don't agree with on these Constitutional Rights rulings is that, Our Rights Do not come from the Constitution!

THE 2ND AND THE CONSTITUTION

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

You need to read the Senate Report on the 2nd Amendment from 1982. Now suppressed and out of print here is the important part on line. I have a paper copy. Great 1800s court cases on the 2nd.

https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

[Maris Crane]

Oh, sure, have a cellphone by your bed so.....

YOU CAN CALL SOMEONE WHO HAS A GUN AND WAIT FOR THEM TO ARRIVE.

It really steams me that such stupid people are able to get rich..ain’t fair.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It is shocking, in a way, to really understand the intent of the first eight amendments to the Constitution.

The reason that is true is that the first cut at a “bill of rights” was simply the unamended Constitution. That is, it was the Federalists’ position that under the Constitution as written, the federal government had no authority to violate anyone’s rights.

The fallback from that position, to which the Federalists were pushed by the AntiFederalists, was to codify the above sentiment in the Ninth Amendment,

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

The virtue of the Ninth Amendment approach is that it does not attempt to enumerate what had not then, and still is not, ever enumerated in one place. Truth be told, rights are matters of Common Law, and as such they are adjusted in court all the time.

The full Bill of Rights Approach obviously includes the Ninth Amendment, but does enumerate some rights. Which rights? Amendments 1 thru 8, Antonin Scalia pointed out, are only the rights which tyrants had historically abused.

The crucial point which Scalia made was that the first eight amendments were crafted not to impinge on rights defended by the Ninth Amendment. Once explained and pointed out, this is very clear in the First and Second Amendments.

Freedom of the press existed before the ratification of the Constitution, let alone the First Amendment. But libel, and other, restrictions also pre-existed the Constitution and Bill of Rights. One word in the First Amendment recognizes, and respects, that fact. The definite article, “the”:

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.

“The” freedom of the press is not unlimited, because we not only have the right to print our opinions and understandings, we have the right not to have our reputations separated from our actual actions by malicious (or even careless) printing of opinions by others.

The unenumerated right, protected by the Ninth Amendment, to sue for libelous damages secures that right. And was always understood to do so, from before the Constitution all the way to 1964. Notoriously, in 1964 the Warren Court asserted

". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”

that 1A did limit the right to reputation of politicians and judges. Justice William Brennan made that whopper up, and the Warren Court unanimously signed on to it.

There is an obvious connection between “the” freedom of the press, and “the” right to keep and bear arms. We have the right to express our opinions, but may not abuse people in the process - and likewise, we have the RKBA but may not inspire fear in reasonable people - that’s called “assault.”

[justme4now]

I have it in PDF form in my Arms folder. 😁

I have a ton of information in the folder that is no longer accessible or really hard to find on line.

[Captain7seas]

Dear Mayor Bloomberg.

If you really want to be PRESIDENT of The United States which FYI is a Constitutional Republic.

You would be WELL ADVISED to study and understand the U.S. Constitution.

Please pay special attention to the part about JURISDICTION, which you apparently do not comprehend.

Until then, go pound sand.

Have a really nice day.

Capt7seas

[Captain7seas]

You left out,,,

Marbury v. Madison

-if any law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is null and void.

[justme4now]

I have tons of info that I could post but there is way to much to do so.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
The Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.

[Captain7seas]

“... a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution”.

Thanks to Donald J. Trump I believe that we will be seeing more of the above.

[Ez2BRepub]

My response to a criminal, travels at 1000fps

[colorado tanker]

Hey, Mini Mike, there already is a background check system and the checks are done at the federal level.

We don't know what gun this guy used or where he got it, but the background check system didn't stop him.

Say there, Mini, is your security armed with more than cell phones?