Why would the Founders Regulate a TOOL ?

[Howland]

In my lizard brain opinion, the current fight is what governmental actions trigger 2A protections. And, if 2A protections are triggered, what is the proper level of scrutiny for evaluating the governmental action.

It was in either Heller or McDonald that SCOTUS answered this. Strict scrutiny as keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right.

Miller would have won his case had his lawyer said "Gentlemen of the court I introduce to you the standard Infantry Trench shotgun, My client is innocent as less than 18 inch barrels are endemic to the Infantry squad." but Miller died and the case was dismissed.

Miller was a no show for the arguments before SCOTUS. His conviction had already been overturned, he was free and clear. Nor did any attorney present any arguments against the government's appeal of the decision of the Appeals Court that overturned that conviction. Only one side was heard, that of the government which had just erected in 1934 a bureaucratic scheme to tax and regulate short barreled shotguns and rifles and fully automatic firearms. Of course they would neglect to mention trench shotguns. By 1939, those weapons were no longer in common use by the general public despite their common use in military services. The consensus in Congress then was that they didn't have the power to criminalize possession due to 2A, but they could tax. They chose $200 because they felt that the vast majority wouldn't be able to afford it in 1934 (still during the Depression). This gave the opening to Scalia to say that only arms in common use are protected and not those that are unusual or dangerous.

This is how we got here!

Strict scrutiny means short barreled, full auto and artillery!

 

[TurboTrout]

It was in either Heller or McDonald that SCOTUS answered this. Strict scrutiny as keeping and bearing arms is a fundamental right.



Miller was a no show for the arguments before SCOTUS. His conviction had already been overturned, he was free and clear. Nor did any attorney present any arguments against the government's appeal of the decision of the Appeals Court that overturned that conviction. Only one side was heard, that of the government which had just erected in 1934 a bureaucratic scheme to tax and regulate short barreled shotguns and rifles and fully automatic firearms. Of course they would neglect to mention trench shotguns. By 1939, those weapons were no longer in common use by the general public despite their common use in military services. The consensus in Congress then was that they didn't have the power to criminalize possession due to 2A, but they could tax. They chose $200 because they felt that the vast majority wouldn't be able to afford it in 1934 (still during the Depression). This gave the opening to Scalia to say that only arms in common use are protected and not those that are unusual or dangerous.

This is how we got here!

Strict scrutiny means short barreled, full auto and artillery!

Or just read the bill of rights and federalist papers. It’s written very simply and clearly for a good reason.

scotus opinions on this have been about what’d you’d expect from the daily view hags. It’s a shame gun folks won’t just laugh and toss a finger like the hippies did with smoking weed, guess we know how has more fight in them

 

[pmclaine]

Im understanding that the second Amendment has yet to be fully incorporated to apply to all the states whatever that means.

Im guessing States Constitions still apply to states issues. Its the schism between states rights and federalism.

The constitution applies to Fed Gov....BOR applies to Fed Gov.....State constitutions apply to states. States only apply BOR once SJC rules BOR applies to an argues case.

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

Thing is most state Constitutions have their version of the 2A without any clauses to fight over, they are clearer on the natural right.

The sackless SCOTUS has avoided cases that would have implications to settle any argument.

There have been relatively few SCOTUS 2A cases.

The Caetano vs Massachusetts case is amazing.....but gets crickets.

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

 

[Doc68]

That’s not the way I would read Heller or the way the appellate courts have read it but I hope you’re right next time there is a SCOTUS case deciding a 2A issue.

It doesnt matter the next time we have a SCOTUS ruling, we know they are bought and paid for.

We all know what has to be done but we cant talk about that here

Doc

 

[TurboTrout]

When rights are trampled, laws are laughable

 

[Choid]

Im understanding that the second Amendment has yet to be fully incorporated to apply to all the states whatever that means.

Im guessing States Constitions still apply to states issues. Its the schism between states rights and federalism.

The constitution applies to Fed Gov....BOR applies to Fed Gov.....State constitutions apply to states. States only apply BOR once SJC rules BOR applies to an argues case.

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

Thing is most state Constitutions have their version of the 2A without any clauses to fight over, they are clearer on the natural right.

The sackless SCOTUS has avoided cases that would have implications to settle any argument.

There have been relatively few SCOTUS 2A cases.

The Caetano vs Massachusetts case is amazing.....but gets crickets.

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

McDonald incorporated the second, at least in word. We haven't seen if it did in deed, or more words, depending on how you want to understand that.

Basically, pre civil war the states had broad leeway to restrict enumerated rights, as long as it was in keeping with state constitutions. States could, and did, restrict guns, speech and other things. The Constitution wasn't seen as applying to the states at that time. The 14th amendment basically said that the states could grant no fewer rights to their citizens than did the Constitution, thus incorporating the guarantees in the federal constitution to the states. In theory, that sounds great, in practice not so much.

It does bring into play a lot of bad faith liberal arguments. They will say that, for example, states restricted firearms in many ways in the early days of the republic, thus the founders didn't see the second amendment stopping all restrictions. True! But the founders didn't see the states as bound as strenuously by the constitution. After the 14th, that changes, so those arguments are null and void.

That incorporation, along with the findings of Heller, are why Caetano was reversed.

 

[Choid]

That’s not the way I would read Heller or the way the appellate courts have read it but I hope you’re right next time there is a SCOTUS case deciding a 2A issue.

You are correct here. Heller really just identified the second as an individual right and made some attempt at a lame half assed test based on history, text and tradition, which has basically meant no test at all.

 

[SilentStalkr]

Im understanding that the second Amendment has yet to be fully incorporated to apply to all the states whatever that means.

Im guessing States Constitions still apply to states issues. Its the schism between states rights and federalism.

The constitution applies to Fed Gov....BOR applies to Fed Gov.....State constitutions apply to states. States only apply BOR once SJC rules BOR applies to an argues case.

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

Thing is most state Constitutions have their version of the 2A without any clauses to fight over, they are clearer on the natural right.

The sackless SCOTUS has avoided cases that would have implications to settle any argument.

There have been relatively few SCOTUS 2A cases.

The Caetano vs Massachusetts case is amazing.....but gets crickets.

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

This has long been a problem of our modern day rulers. I call them rulers because that’s pretty much what they’ve become. You see if they simply followed the constitution then this would not be a problem. The federal gov is supposed to be very limited and states run themselves how they see fit, short of a few things. One of those things is that the states cannot trample on the rights guaranteed by the constitution. In that case, the feds supercedes the states. But only on those few cases. That’s why it’s not supposed to be amended 7 ways to Sunday. Any amendment should be very carefully considered and scrutinized. For the most part federal gov is only supposed to be responsible for security of the states and citizenry and to protect free trade and commerce and that’s pretty much it. Somehow it has grown into the self serving behemoth that it is today. That behemoth continues to grow and gain more power.

The states are meant to have the real power, or are supposed to. Simply put, if KY agrees that everyone should be able to have FA weapons and they all vote and agree on that then they should be able to without interference from the feds. If you live in KY and don’t like that then you are free to move to another state that more closely aligns to your ideals. The issue we have today is that obviously the feds have somehow started controlling things that they were never really intended to control and people move places and then want that place to conform to them instead of the other way around. Same goes for all these people moving to America and then wanting to make it like where they just left. That’s not the way this is supposed to work.

If they simply enforced the basic laws they have then we wouldn’t be in this mess. The fact is the basics are put in simple language so that anyone can understand it. There is so many laws in the books that they don’t know what they have already. In short, we have simply allowed them to take control. The checks and balances that were supposed to be never got upheld by the people. It’s that simple. And now it’s gotten to a point where anyone that speaks like I am right now is made public enemy #1 because it’s true and they don’t want to lose their powers.

If 10,000,000 people decided to March on DC tomorrow armed, technically speaking the law is on their side. It clearly says that any gov that runs amuck should be abolished by the people and a new one set forth whether they (DC) like it or not that’s what it says, clear as day. And they are supposed to work for the people, meaning we give them the power and therefore we can take it away. The thing is, you have to convince the majority to be on your side in order for this to fly. That’s exactly why they have gotten so powerful. They own pretty much most of the major companies, the education system, the media, local governments because most rely on fed money. They literally have their hands in everything a d have been working towards this behind the scenes for a long time. They have positioned themselves well.

 

[MK20]

All a man has to do, and can do, honestly, when faced with tyranny is to say, “No.” and leave the rest to God.

It doesn’t matter what anyone else does. Winston Churchill almost single handedly twisted the world’s arm into fighting Hitler by repeatedly saying he was evil and that he (Churchill) would oppose him no matter the end.

 

[Choid]

Im understanding that the second Amendment has yet to be fully incorporated to apply to all the states whatever that means.

Im guessing States Constitions still apply to states issues. Its the schism between states rights and federalism.

The constitution applies to Fed Gov....BOR applies to Fed Gov.....State constitutions apply to states. States only apply BOR once SJC rules BOR applies to an argues case.

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

Thing is most state Constitutions have their version of the 2A without any clauses to fight over, they are clearer on the natural right.

The sackless SCOTUS has avoided cases that would have implications to settle any argument.

There have been relatively few SCOTUS 2A cases.

The Caetano vs Massachusetts case is amazing.....but gets crickets.

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I dont really get this point.....Does the Constitution apply or doesnt it?

incorporation doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

This is quite a good resource to understand the concept and history as it applies to the bill of rights.