The same idiots whose constitutional interpretation would render any gun legislation unconstitutional
offer no cases to back it up at all. Not a one.
The absolute truth is, there is no constitutional support for any federal gun law that impacts the personal arms of the private citizen.
One of the federal decisions that sustained 20th Century gun control (
Cases v US) admitted that but then opined away their own statement, saying (without any support) that the framers couldn't have intended such a result.
Suffice it to say there is gun control legislation that passed passed muster with even conservative courts. The right to keep and bear arms has only been adjudicated to be a personal right by scotus recently. That means for 200 years it was not adjudicated to be a personal right at all.
Wrong.
SCOTUS has never wavered in describing a personal, individual right.
Cruikshank described the right to arms of two former slaves,
Presser reaffirmed that the right to arms does not depend on the 2nd, it described the right of private citizens to own guns but that the 2nd Amendment did not protect any right to form themselves into armed groups and march in a city.
Miller made no statement regarding the militia status of Layton and Miller as being of any importance to either their standing before the Court or the private ownership of the shotgun; the only thing the Court considered decisive was the type of arm and if it could be effective in battle. In
Lewis the Court discussed remedies that would permit a felon to own a gun . . . nowhere was being a member of the militia or the need to join the militia mentioned as being a requirement to exercise the right secured by the 2nd Amendment.
Where is this 200 year history of non-individual right precedent? Please, Please, Please, explain it to me, quote and cite the case.
The truth is, the "collective right" nonsense was inserted in the
federal courts in 1942 --
Cases v US for the "militia right" &
US v Tot for the "state's right" interpretations.
Heller just slapped the lower courts back into the constitutional fold.
Setting right 66 years of legal perversion is going to take some time. A shit-ton of bad federal, state and local law was built upon and sustained by
Cases and
Tot and their illegitimate progeny
I'm not debating any finer points when I'm speaking with people who would not know how to analyze a case anymore than they could fly a mission to mars. They argue with cartoon and use alliterative insulting nicknames. as a matter of course.
I have been debating gun rights for 24 years; I cut my teeth on USENET in talk.politics.guns. Back in the 90's the anti-gun side could actually formulate some reasoned arguments (you did have some law on your side) without the bullshit that this thread demonstrates. I yearn to have those debates again. I lurk on over 30 boards looking for an anti that can actually debate without descending into gobbledygook and bullshit.
Could you be my unicorn, a post
Emerson gun control supporter who can compose legal arguments and stay out of the gutter?
Bottom line is I'm so far above them I get nosebleeds up here. Why any thinking liberal would do other than shove a stick in their anthole and shake and stab I have no idea. These issues could be debated,
but not with this crew of dim bulbs.
Well, if you are so sure of your skills start a thread in APP laying out an argument for federal gun control
because the Constitution does not protect an individual right.
I'm proposing you begin because under our system, it really shouldn't be my responsibility to say a right exists, you need to demonstrate a constitutional basis for law exists.
Hopefully the disruptive voices on both sides will allow a one-on-one debate to proceed unmolested.