Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a distinction to be made between the right to remove an individuals rights through due process and a law that tries to remove rights in a group manner. One will be upheld and the other will not. I have no idea what this particular law even does other than remove rights from adults which I hope a lawsuit also prevails against.
Nobody is in favor of having guns in the hands of the mentally ill, least of all the NRA or GOP.
The devil is always in the details. If someone is denied a gun because he was suicidal 30 years ago over a bad breakup...nix on that. If he's diagnosed schizophrenic or on SSRIs, then by all means take his guns.
According to post #9 of the thread, the NRA is suing over a provision that limits rifle sales to age 21 and over. If this is accurate, I agree 100% with the NRA. Why should an 18 year old be able to have a rifle in Afghanistan, but not in Florida? Eighteen is adulthood. All or nearly all of the mass shooters have had psychiatric issues. The shooter in Las Vegas was in his 60s and on psych meds.
There is an old economist joke:
Quote:
A man is on his hands and knees under a streetlight, searching intently. A 2nd man asks "what are you looking for," and the first replies: I lost my wristwatch. Then the 2nd guy asks "where did you lose it?" The man points across the street, "over there. I'm looking here because the light is so much better."
That has been my argument. The 'well regulated' means well functioning, which means no crazy people, no criminals, no chronic drunks, no junkies, no children, and no people who are incapable of safely operating a firearm.
Please take a few moments to carefully read the above post to see where you are wrong here.
Copperud is wrong.
The 4th Amendment is instructive. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that citizens have a right to privacy. That is a presumption, implied in the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If citizens had no right to privacy, there would be no need for the 4th Amendment, and agents of the government could conduct searches of citizens, their homes and land, documents and property for any reason or no reason at all.
But, that's not what the Framers intended.
"[T]o be secure..." is a linking verb with an adjective, and in 1789, the word "secure" (from the Latin securus) meant:
1. Free from fear; exempt from terror; assured
2. Careless; wanting caution; wanting vigilance
3. Free from danger; safe
That does not grant a right to privacy, but still it's presumed and implied by the 4th Amendment.
The 1st Amendment is instructive, too:
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.
There's a presumption, and implication that a person is free from assembly; that one cannot be compelled to join a political party, a union, a church/mosque/synogogue or any civic or non-civic group.
The 2nd Amendment is no different.
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.
Cooperud is wrong, because there's a presumption that a person owning a fire-arm is rational, free of mental defect, who will do good for Society, or at the very least, not cause harm to Society, and which does not obligate a gun-owner to defend the US, or his State or his property or even his own life, and who will not engage in criminal actions or cause harm to Society.
Most of you seem to forget that many of the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers, and those who were not were often trained in the basics of the legal system, and that they were advised by lawyers. They were all well educated and very well read, especially in Greek philosophy and Greek plays.
Laws of the day -- and even now -- are predicated on the assumption that people act rationally, and that a person's actions are based on choices resulting from reason.
It isn't necessary to preface anything and everything in legal documents with that principle, because it's the basis of law itself.
"Security" over Liberty...the GOP's bread & butter.
You don't know your history. Until the 1980s, concealed carry was a rarity across the US. Now it is almost universal. According to Gallup, support for a national handgun ban was 60% in 1960. Today it is 28%. The so-called 'assault weapon ban' passed by Democrats in 1994 was allowed to sunset in 2004.
The heavy lifting of this was all done by the GOP and NRA. The Libertarian Party (and ACLU for that matter) stood by watching with dumb looks, as they always do.
It is an infringement in the case of the person I know, heresay constitutes as evidence.
OK, I can appreciate that there will always be those who fall thru the cracks. You know somebody for whom the law was abused. No law is perfect. But is that sufficient reason to abolish the law?
"If just one person's rights are infringed ..."
What about the thousand women and children whose rights to live were preserved by this flawed law? Doesn't that count for anything?
The 4th Amendment is instructive. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that citizens have a right to privacy. That is a presumption, implied in the 4th Amendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If citizens had no right to privacy, there would be no need for the 4th Amendment, and agents of the government could conduct searches of citizens, their homes and land, documents and property for any reason or no reason at all.
But, that's not what the Framers intended.
"[T]o be secure..." is a linking verb with an adjective, and in 1789, the word "secure" (from the Latin securus) meant:
1. Free from fear; exempt from terror; assured
2. Careless; wanting caution; wanting vigilance
3. Free from danger; safe
That does not grant a right to privacy, but still it's presumed and implied by the 4th Amendment.
The 1st Amendment is instructive, too:
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.
There's a presumption, and implication that a person is free from assembly; that one cannot be compelled to join a political party, a union, a church/mosque/synogogue or any civic or non-civic group.
The 2nd Amendment is no different.
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated.
Cooperud is wrong, because there's a presumption that a person owning a fire-arm is rational, free of mental defect, who will do good for Society, or at the very least, not cause harm to Society, and which does not obligate a gun-owner to defend the US, or his State or his property or even his own life, and who will not engage in criminal actions or cause harm to Society.
Most of you seem to forget that many of the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers, and those who were not were often trained in the basics of the legal system, and that they were advised by lawyers. They were all well educated and very well read, especially in Greek philosophy and Greek plays.
Laws of the day -- and even now -- are predicated on the assumption that people act rationally, and that a person's actions are based on choices resulting from reason.
It isn't necessary to preface anything and everything in legal documents with that principle, because it's the basis of law itself.
I agree that he is wrong that the 2nd Amendment is unconditional. In general the Bill of Rights isn't unconditional; for example, the right of free exercise of religion does not extend to the practice of human sacrifice.
However he is right about the grammatical structure of the 2nd Amendment.
Quote:
No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state.
Here is another example showing that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to those in the militia. This is a similarly constructed sentence from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787: https://www.city-data.com/forum/51800362-post24.html
OK, I can appreciate that there will always be those who fall thru the cracks. You know somebody for whom the law was abused. No law is perfect. But is that sufficient reason to abolish the law?
"If just one person's rights are infringed ..."
What about the thousand women and children whose rights to live were preserved by this flawed law? Doesn't that count for anything?
"If just one woman or child's life were ..."
Clauses of the law Rick scott signed absolutely are unconstitutional!
Not just the fast and loose interpretations of what qualifies as a legitimate source of evidence that justifies a risk protection order because an anti gun loon busy body viewed someone in their home handling a firearm walking to a table to disassemble it to clean it up in returning home from the range.
That and it is the onus of that individual to prove they are not a threat to themselves or others.
The 18-20 year old ban from purchasing a firearm. That is unconstitutional. Is 21 when you become a person in this nation? If so, better raise the age limit to vote and be able to engage in every other civil liberty.
Oh Muh Childrunz LOL that doesn't work on me. Because unlike you, I met with my sheriff and congressman both 2 weeks prior to parkland after simmering over vegas, thinking of ways to prevent such a tragedy occurring here in Florida especially schools. You can hide behind that 94 gun free school bill all you want. Definition of insanity is repeating the same things over and over again and expecting a different outcome each time.
Since that bill has been law. How many school shootings were there?
Me... I want it repealed. I want my kids teachers to have the ability to defend not just themselves but my kids too.
My ideas were simple and mostly voluntary. Hell I even offered to throw 50k cash at it locally. It was shot down when both said. We are with you completely in theory. But reality is. Your average suburban soccer mom's won't go for it. Your anti gun family that transplanted from the north east, won't go for it. They just wont. They will want certification. Training. They don't want just anyone armed at their kids school no matter how noble your cause is. People are compelled by fear and automatically will assume firearms will be falling into kids hands, to kids being shot by accident, they'll draw irrational conclusions along the lines of, police will shoot for unjust causes we can just imagine how bad a non officer of the law would be so on and so forth.
See unlike you... I'd volunteer to stand armed at a school so kids don't have to worry will someone bust in blazing when the alarm sounds and our teachers have us huddled on the floor to be fish in a barrel for a deranged psycho... many I compete with at shooting tournaments would do it too. Especially the ones who also take fighting carbine and pistol courses. Would have been at no cost to you the tax payer either.
All you would need is to swallow your pride admit gun free zones don't work and allow those willing, their rights to keep and bear arms and serve in defense of innocent lives.
What have you done? Other than rant about firearms and firearm owners? Legitimize irrational fear?
Further more, before all the latest legislation was passed... there was the Baker Act.
Strange how with something like the Promise Program the Baker Act wasn't used on the parkland scumbag.
So spare me the dramatics of Ohhhhh think of the children. I have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
