Posted on 06/11/2024 3:58:14 PM PDT by impimp
Hunter Biden’s conviction on federal gun charges Tuesday ignited a feverish debate, including among conservatives, over the constitutionality of the law he was found guilty of violating.
Thanks to a 2022 Supreme Court ruling, courts are taking a new look at the federal government’s main gun control law that bars felons, illegal immigrants, dishonorably discharged veterans, fugitives and unlawful drug users, among others, from possessing a firearm.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Hate those damned videos. What I could easily read over in two minutes or so, I have to sit through eight minutes of. Bummer.
Is there a transcript somewhere?
I don’t know…I mentioned it earlier because I thought it was one of the disqualifiers on the gun form.
No. He’s not... Which is why the prosecution did it this way.
The first Congress purposely changed that. The second amendment made clear that we moved away from the English armory and to the personal ownership and possession of any arms that an army might deploy against the People.
Infringed ?
Foreign Affairs, Treason, and Crime protect our RKBA?
Put down the bong...
And leave out the personal attacks next time. Didn't you read Jim Robinson's thread on the nature of discourse on Free Republic?
-PJ
-PJ
Google AI causing issues.
Even still, the 16th allows for calling for the the militia, but without the concomitant ability to show up for militia service with appropriate armaments... You’re still screwed.
And no... I didn’t. And no, I won’t.
https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/amendIIs9.html
“The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
Never trust an AI to compile a list for a human...
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its
powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the
beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the
following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when
ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several
States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
You think I hit the bong? You accused me of being a drug user because you mis-counted the clauses of Article I Section 8?
The 16th allows for calling the militia, which Hamilton and Madison already explained in Federalist #8, #29, and #46 are the people at large with their own arms.
The 11th allows Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which assumes private merchant ships that are armed with cannons.
The 15th calls for the armed populace to be called to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
So yes, the right of the people to be armed was already in the Constitution and pre-dated the second amendment. As I said, the second amendment made clear that the people had the right to own and keep their arms instead of storing them in government armories until approved by the government for use. Hamilton said in #29 that the people were expected to proficient in the use of their arms and to keep them in good working order.
Madison wrote in Federalist #43 that the federal government expected the several states to police themselves, and that insurrections or invasions in one state would be met by the armed people of nearby states to quell.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people.
I don't understand why we're arguing with each other. I never said there was a prohibition on owning guns; I only suggested that not all gun owners are qualified to be called into national service via the militia clauses. Show me where I said something else.
In fact, I suggested that both the federal question on drug use and the ownership of arms can coexist. I implied that being a drug user does not infringe on the ownership of guns but it could disqualify the person from being called into national service because they fail the "regulated militia" requirement.
Again, show me where I said something else, because I think we're arguing past each other when we are really agreeing with each other.
-PJ
“You accused me of being a drug user because you mis-counted the clauses of Article I Section 8?”
No... Because you think the 2A is not needed and your reasoning that the M&R and militia clauses constitute a protection for our RKBA is literally... non-sensical.
I never said that. I said that 2A is where the right to personally own and possess guns is codified in the Bill of Rights. It was the states that asked for it to be spelled out clearly that it was an individual right. I said it separated Americans from the English because the English kept their arms locked up away from the people, and 2A was about individual ownership and possession of arms. Why do you keep skipping over this part?
Prior to the second amendment, despite the writings of Madison and Hamilton that the Articles' reference to "militia" meant the armed populace and the causes of calling the armed populace into service, the states still wanted it in writing that it was an individual right that could not be infringed.
But if you read the Federalist essays that I cited, it should be clear that Madison and Hamilton all knew that it was an individual right to keep and bear arms even before 2A.
I don't know why you're being so pedantic about this. I will add that if only the first Congress had added an amendment defining a natural born citizen the way they added 2A to clarify "militia" and the right of individual gun ownership, we'd be in a much better place.
-PJ
Okay, so you admit that you made a personal attack?
-PJ
On that we can agree.
I made an observation. It stands, as you’ve provided no data for me to draw a conclusion to the contrary.
You made a personal attack, and I don't continue discussions with bad faith debaters.
-PJ
... and yet... here you are. :-)
My observation stands.
It is rather hilarious that a Democrat like Hunter is extoling the 2nd amendment.
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.