Drlee wrote:And the Supreme court does not even rule on constitution amendments.
Yeah, the Court has never uttered a word about the 14th Amendment . . .
Drlee wrote:They could not, for example, reinstate slavery or even rule on the idea of it.
Do you think they would take a case and rule on a law that reinstated slavery?
Drlee wrote:If we the people ratify the total abolition of firearm ownership by constitutional amendment then that is the deal.
Would an amendment, as long as it followed the Article V process, be automatically legitimate even if it violates foundational principles of the Constitution?
Let's say an amendment was ratified that rescinded requiring warrants, right to counsel, holding fair trials and forbidding unusual punishments. Would you argue it would then be constitutional to round people up, hold kangaroo trials and immediately after conviction, hang, draw and quarter the "guilty"?
Drlee wrote:The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the state and local right to regulate the ownership of firearms including where they may be carried, what kinds of weapons may be owned and how they may be used.
The Supreme Court affirmed? You really
I know Heller said "19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment
". Is that what you mean?
That isn't really saying much because the 2nd Amendment had no binding effect on state law until 2010. Any case you can point to before
2010 that says a state or city law does not violate the 2nd, is just saying the 2nd had no impact on the law. There are hundreds of state and local gun laws on the books now only because a court sustained them against a 2nd Amendment challenge because the 2nd Amendment had no operation on state law.
There's only been one SCOTUS 2nd Amendment case since 2010 (deciding a state law banning a stun device
) and the Court invalidated it, quoting Heller
, "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,”.
Drlee wrote:The assault weapons ban, for example, was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Was that in the Axios / MSNBC /CNN / MotherJones /OccupyDemocrats / MoveOn notes you read for that?
Please cite the Supreme Court case that upheld the federal assault weapons ban.
Drlee wrote:Further, in the 2008 decision that affirmed the right to personal ownership of firearms, the SCOTUS specifically excluded "dangerous and unusual" weapons.
Yup. No problem with that.
Can you tell me how "dangerous and unusual" is determined?
What is the constitutional status of arms that do not fall under "dangerous and unusual" . . . Which is to ask, what is the status of laws that seek to restrict the possession and use of guns that do not fall under the "dangerous and unusual" type?
Drlee wrote:So what you did not say, and what you should in candor admit, is that the government (state, local and federal) has broad power to limit the ownership of weapons as long as they do not create an absolute ban.
We can revisit that after
we discuss "dangerous and unusual".
Drlee wrote:There is absolutely no legitimate reason for a civilian to own such a weapon except to use it to fight the soldiers of our country.
And who are you to decide the object of the 2nd Amendment is no longer valid?
Drlee wrote:My personal opinion as a gun owner and one who can carry concealed if I desire, is that the government should license handgun ownership in the first place. I also believe that all firearm transactions should be processed through a FFP holder and comply with all background check requirements.
And you and other like-minded people can advocate for the laws you want and me and other like-minded people I can take my/our stand, OK?
Drlee wrote:But if you are one of those unmitigated idiots who have contrived to believe that you ought to carry a pistol under your coat, then have at it. Get a permit and undergo the same training required of a policeman who wants to do the same thing.
I have the permit (in multiple states) and carry routinely but I have no desire to enforce any laws, why do I need police training. I can tell you, I am a better shot than most cops.
Drlee wrote:Enough high sounding language from you.
I won't apologize nor retreat from discussing the Constitution and the law, I'm sad to hear you denigrate it like that.
Drlee wrote:We live in the real world. The absolute bottom line is this. If the people of the US want to ban firearms then they have the absolute right to do it through amendment.
The thought that 38 states would ratify an amendment surrendering the rights of their citizens to the federal government is ludicrous. In July, Iowa will join the green "unrestricted" constitutional carry states, bringing to 19 the states that require no permit to carry concealed. Idaho, North Dakota and Wyoming limit Constitutional Carry for their residents only.
With my permits and multi-state reciprocity, I can carry in 35 states right now, where are the 38 you need going to come from?
Drlee wrote:They won't. They don't want to.
Of course they would if they thought they could.
Drlee wrote:But they do overwhelmingly favor limits and someday we will have them.
The recent 9th Circuit en banc decision guarantees SCOTUS will take a carry case. You have no clue just how close you are to having wide swaths of gun control wiped out. Your side did not heed Heller
's warning, there are literally thousands of gun laws on the thinnest of ice.