2nd Amendent

[cmgnp]

Why is it that the only right not consistent across the country is the right to keep and bear arms ?
It is insane that a right codified by the 2nd amendment is subject to so many local rules and regs.
Anyone have any reasoning or thoughts on it.

 

[chromedome1954]

The unfortunate answer is, too many years of the growing power of Liberals.

 

[nogods]

I don't think your premise is correct. The First amendment is regularly violated in some states with the never ending attempts to use government facilities to spread religious beliefs, while in other states such violations are few and far between. Other states are on a never ending mission to infringe on the right to privacy, constantly enacting laws infringing on that right, while other states have laws promoting the right to privacy.

 

[Double4s]

I think it's because to many states, counties, and localities (governed by liberals) believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights only restrains the Federal government and not the States sovereignty. Therefore, they pass laws as they see fit. While I do not want a Federal CCW to be created, I would like to see all states honor a CCW issued by other states as is with a driver license.

 

[Drzzit]

I don't think your premise is correct. The First amendment is regularly violated in some states with the never ending attempts to use government facilities to spread religious beliefs, while in other states such violations are few and far between. Other states are on a never ending mission to infringe on the right to privacy, constantly enacting laws infringing on that right, while other states have laws promoting the right to privacy.

There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of Church and State. It says the Government cannot establish a mandated religion. And as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened yet. So people who say this are WRONG. What they base this on is a letter written ( I believe) by Jefferson to clergymen in CT. And as I said earlier, this isn't attached to the Constitution. I know the SCOTUS has reaffirmed this, but they are also WRONG.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Drzzit]

The Constitution and Bill of rights does only restrain the Federal gov't, that's why each state has their own state constitution.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[mappow]

Why is it that the only right not consistent across the country is the right to keep and bear arms ?
It is insane that a right codified by the 2nd amendment is subject to so many local rules and regs.
Anyone have any reasoning or thoughts on it.

YOU have not been following the incursion by the Leftists over the last couple decades or so. The agenda is simple, disarm the populace, the Gov't rules unfettered. Unabridged by revolt or resistance. This is not a new idea but one that has been done over and over again though out man kinds existence. You're evil if you own a gun (s) and you're even more evil if you think that self defense, ie.. meeting violence with violence, is a cure all to societies ills of preditors.
The next step is to ensure you have a strong enough Gov't to quell any out break of dissent using laws enacted during "emergency" times.
The last step is to cull those dissenters.

Any questions? Please refer to the Constitution of the United States.

 

[nosreme]

There is nothing in the Constitution about separation of Church and State. It says the Government cannot establish a mandated religion. And as far as I can tell, that hasn't happened yet. So people who say this are WRONG. What they base this on is a letter written ( I believe) by Jefferson to clergymen in CT. And as I said earlier, this isn't attached to the Constitution. I know the SCOTUS has reaffirmed this, but they are also WRONG.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Of course, you are fully aware that this is nonsense--a simplistic and popular (among christians, particularly evangelicals these days) patently disingenuous argument. The establishment clause is commonly referred to as the source of the "separation of church and state" slogan. That the latter words don't appear in the constitution is irrelevant. That you don't like the Supreme Court's interpretation is really interesting as its interpretation of the constitution is authoritative--per the constitution. I guess this means you don't support the constitution.

 

[Drzzit]

Nosreme SCOTUS isn't supposed to interpret the Constitution. It job is to deem if laws are constitutional or not. NO LESS, NO MORE. But if that's what You believe, You need to read and understand what the Constitution really says, not what You've been taught and think it says.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[nosreme]

Nosreme SCOTUS isn't supposed to interpret the Constitution. It job is to deem if laws are constitutional or not. NO LESS, NO MORE. But if that's what You believe, You need to read and understand what the Constitution really says, not what You've been taught and think it says.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

(1) That's complete BS (2) I think you'd be surprised how much background and experience I have in the area of constitutional law (not that anything contrary to willfully uninformed lay notions would make any difference).

 

[Drzzit]

Don't care if You think it BS. It is what it is.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[BC1]

I think our 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th amendment rights are routinely violated. The current hacks have torn-up the United States Constitution.

 

[BC1]

Nosreme SCOTUS isn't supposed to interpret the Constitution. It job is to deem if laws are constitutional or not. NO LESS, NO MORE.

All law is subject to interpretation by the courts. Be it local, state or federal court. For example, assault has a definition in penal law. A prosecutor will apply the facts of a case against the definition to determine if a charge applies. He may research other similar cases for rulings to support his findings. Defense counsel will seek to show based on the actions of the parties and prior case law that no crime was committed or that his client's actions were justified in some way (affirmative defense).
.
The job of the SCOTUS is absolutely to review cases to determine if the issue at the center of the appeal is supported or not supported by the constitution, including the amendments thereto. In interpreting whether something passes constitutional muster the court reviews past cases, rulings, the merits of those cases, the intent of the parties and even what our founding fathers were thinking hen they enacted the bill of rights. Interpreting the amendments to the constitution is subjective in nature and different legal minds may see different issues. That is precisely the reason the powers of government are split between executive, judicial and legislative branches of government... to preserve the integrity of the law. It all works well until justices start legislating from the bench.
.
The second amendment preserves a God-given right from interference by government. It has been debated for decades. The vernacular used by people in colonial times differs greatly from today. But laws aren't read, interpreted and defined in some purely objective definition. It's not like a dictionary entry. America has a long history of gun control, especially in the mid 19th century. Many cities throughout Kansas and Missouri had very strict laws against the carrying of weapons in town. Violate their provisions and you were "buffaloed".., cracked over the head with the but of the gun of the LEO.

 

[Drzzit]

All law is subject to interpretation by the courts. Be it local, state or federal court. For example, assault has a definition in penal law. A prosecutor will apply the facts of a case against the definition to determine if a charge applies. He may research other similar cases for rulings to support his findings. Defense counsel will seek to show based on the actions of the parties and prior case law that no crime was committed or that his client's actions were justified in some way (affirmative defense).
.
The job of the SCOTUS is absolutely to review cases to determine if the issue at the center of the appeal is supported or not supported by the constitution, including the amendments thereto. In interpreting whether something passes constitutional muster the court reviews past cases, rulings, the merits of those cases, the intent of the parties and even what our founding fathers were thinking hen they enacted the bill of rights. Interpreting the amendments to the constitution is subjective in nature and different legal minds may see different issues. That is precisely the reason the powers of government are split between executive, judicial and legislative branches of government... to preserve the integrity of the law. It all works well until justices start legislating from the bench.
.
The second amendment preserves a God-given right from interference by government. It has been debated for decades. The vernacular used by people in colonial times differs greatly from today. But laws aren't read, interpreted and defined in some purely objective definition. It's not like a dictionary entry. America has a long history of gun control, especially in the mid 19th century. Many cities throughout Kansas and Missouri had very strict laws against the carrying of weapons in town. Violate their provisions and you were "buffaloed".., cracked over the head with the but of the gun of the LEO.

I guess I was schooled then. But still believe the original intent was for SCOTUS to deem if laws were constitutional or not. Not to make new laws by their interpretation of existing ones.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[S&W645]

(1) That's complete BS (2) I think you'd be surprised how much background and experience I have in the area of constitutional law (not that anything contrary to willfully uninformed lay notions would make any difference).

So you admit you're 0bama huh? And if not, then you are just as smug an idiot. Quit trying to interpret the Constitution and just read it as written.

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.

What it says is that Congress may not do this. The 10th Amendment says that anything not granted to the Federal Gov't is reserved to the States and the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[[email protected]]

What is the deal in CT? How far away are we from having our front door kicked in and our weapons being taken away? Is this bad thoughts or perhaps a sad reality????

 

[S&W645]

Read Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland. Caution: they are long and have some long sentences and big words. The underscore the conspicuous ignorance of the bumper sticker slogans the far right loves to substitute for thought, analysis, and expression.

No one has ever said that the courts are always 100% right. Bumper stickers are often short so that those on the left do not lose their train of thought when reading them. Rspect, what 0bama thinks he deserves.

 

[cmgnp]

true , some regulation may be the case but the need to apply for the right, be fingerprinted and have a background search done or be denied simply because they demand a reason other than to exercise your right ....
no other right is so regulated and without it the others are useless and meaningless ...
our rights are ours not the gov't to give us but granted by our creator, if we exist we have them however our creation came about.

 

[S&W645]

true , some regulation may be the case but the need to apply for the right, be fingerprinted and have a background search done or be denied simply because they demand a reason other than to exercise your right ....
no other right is so regulated and without it the others are useless and meaningless ...
our rights are ours not the gov't to give us but granted by our creator, if we exist we have them however our creation came about.

And if the progressives think that we need to jump through hoops to enjoy that right, why do they oppose a voter showing legal photo ID that they are eligible to vote? Maybe we do need tests for the right to vote.

 

[nosreme]

No one has ever said that the courts are always 100% right. Bumper stickers are often short so that those on the left do not lose their train of thought when reading them. Rspect, what 0bama thinks he deserves.

100% right isn't the standard.

Leftish bumper sticker slogans are obnoxious. Rightwing (and religious, but then I repeat myself) ones are simplistic.