# Thread: Is any gun ban Constitutional ??

1. ## imported post

This thought was expressed to me one morning, and I would like to hear your opinions, and especially those with a legal background.

The Second amendment to the Constitution reads:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Then there is the definition of 'infringe' from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
inÂ·fringe
Pronunciation:
\in-Ëˆfrinj\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
inÂ·fringed; inÂ·fringÂ·ing
Etymology:
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break â€” more at break
Date: 1513

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another &lt;infringe a patent&gt;
2obsolete : defeat , frustrate
intransitive verb: encroach â€”used with on or upon&lt;infringe on our rights&gt;
synonyms see trespass
â€” inÂ·fringÂ·er noun
Can this be interpreted to understand that even the Clinton ban on Assault weapons is a violation of law or the rights of another ??
Can the ammunition be considered an integral part of a firearm ?? Seeing as the firearm is useless without ammunition, and the ammunition needs a vehicle to function properly, ... wouldn't these two be considered one and the same ??
Another definition from MSN Encarta states:
Infringe

- disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement.

- encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way.

2. ## imported post

That is a very good argument I personally could see both side of the debate. The tricky part is where the 2A states, "shall not be infringed". If you interpret this to mean you have the right to keep and bear any and all guns because the right is absolute and could never be taken away it opens up another even bigger debate IMO. What about those who are convicted felons, mentally insane etc? Would they be allowed to posess firearms too? If the right is absolue then yes they would.

I am on the pro gun side but I don't believe conviceted felons or the mentally insane should be able to legally own a gun. Which then opens up the door for gun controlbecause the rightwould not beabsolute.(I am 100% against gun control for law abiding citizens) This is a very tricky issue! Good discussion topic!!

3. ## imported post

We're supposed to have a government that derives its power from the governed. What I cannot rightly force you to do I cannot 'give' to the government to do for/against you. Therefore, if I, personally, have no right to curtail your freedoms to life, liberty and PROPERTY, the state cannot have that power either. Any government (and particularly ours) which acts otherwise is illegitimate in those acts/decrees/enforcements. And officers/agents who enforce such are in direct violation of their oaths to the Constitution. Things are as they are because we, the sheeple, accept it as if it were legitimate.

As per the felons; if the justice system really meted out justice, then it would be accepted that anyone who'd come out of it should be expected to be a proper citizen thenceforth. That our society continues to punish people after they've "served their time" (or whatever) means they're still punished for life. It's a sure sign that the system isn't just broken, it's built on false premise.

And the looney's? If any of us would have to restrict an individual to keep them from hurting our families (and the justice system doesn't apply to such cases), then it only makes sense that not only would we not let them have a gun any more than a hammer or an ax.

Such is my $.05 ($.02, adjusted for inflation)

4. ## imported post

ainokea wrote:
That is a very good argument I personally could see both side of the debate. The tricky part is where the 2A states, "shall not be infringed". If you interpret this to mean you have the right to keep and bear any and all guns because the right is absolute and could never be taken away it opens up another even bigger debate IMO. What about those who are convicted felons, mentally insane etc? Would they be allowed to posess firearms too? If the right is absolue then yes they would.

I am on the pro gun side but I don't believe conviceted felons or the mentally insane should be able to legally own a gun. Which then opens up the door for gun controlbecause the rightwould not beabsolute. (I am 100% against gun control for law abiding citizens) This is a very tricky issue! Good discussion topic!!
Regarding the felons ...

If the 'system' thinks they are safe enough to be free, then they should be safe enough to have all of their rights.

If they can't be trusted, don't let them out!

A slippery slope comes with the definition of 'insane,' especially when the 'government' is writing the dictionary.

The only real restriction that I can almost justify is mandatory safety training for ownership of a firearm.

I can almost balance that against the COTUS by making such training a required part of a secondary/private school education.

Any infringement, without cause, however, constitutes 'prior restraint' and doesn't wash with 'shall not be infringed.'

6. ## imported post

thoughtpolice wrote:
TheEggman wrote:
If the 'system' thinks they are safe enough to be free, then they should be safe enough to have all of their rights.

If they can't be trusted, don't let them out!

That is minimizing it and is a poor excuse. Felons should be restricted period, for a million reasonsthat we have seen countless times, the last being on Halloween(even though it was most likely unlawfully obtained, giving guns to felons is a poor idea on paper and in practice). Just because the judicial system fails us in so many ways, doesnt mean we should fail eachother.I dont want criminals with guns. Many times the system doesnt think they are safe, but due to budgets and overcrowding and just plan ignorant judges, they get let out. Recidivism. It is likely they will reoffend, I want it less likely they will reoffend with a firearm that they walked out of a store with.
Perhaps VIOLENT felons should be clarified.

Personally, I don't think society is any safer because Martha Stewart can't legally own a gun or hire an armed bodyguard.

Also please keep in mind that the only people who follow the law are those not inclined to break the law in the first place.

Laws against anyone having a gun are as effective as "No Guns Allowed" signs in banks.

The bad guys WILL get their guns, regardless of the laws.

8. ## imported post

thoughtpolice wrote:
That is minimizing it and is a poor excuse.Â* Felons should be restricted period, for a million reasonsÂ*that we have seen countless times, the last being on Halloween(even though it was most likely unlawfully obtained, giving guns to felons is a poor idea on paper and in practice).Â* Just because the judicial system fails us in so many ways, doesnt mean we should fail eachother.Â*I dont want criminals with guns. Â*Many times the system doesnt think they are safe, but due to budgets and overcrowding and just plan ignorant judges, they get let out.Â* Recidivism.Â* It is likely they will reoffend, I want it less likely they will reoffend with a firearm that they walked out of a store with.Â* Â*
What other rights should we violate? Should we prevent felons from choosing there own religion? Should felons loose there protection against double jepordy so we can just keep re-trying them for the same crime over and over again?

If they can take away the 2nd amendment rights of felons, that means they can take away all of the rest of them too. Seriously just think about why you are saying.

I don't "Like" felons having guns, but remember the Benjamin Franklin quote. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

10. ## imported post

drkarrow wrote:

What other rights should we violate? Should we prevent felons from choosing there own religion? Should felons loose there protection against double jepordy so we can just keep re-trying them for the same crime over and over again?

If they can take away the 2nd amendment rights of felons, that means they can take away all of the rest of them too. Seriously just think about why you are saying.

I don't "Like" felons having guns, but remember the Benjamin Franklin quote. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

I am of the opinion that we are all created/born fundamentally equal. (We are born with rights) Based on the choices we make in our life some of those rights may be taken away because we have proven to be unable to conduct ourselves as a law abiding citizen. IMO rights are for law abiding citizens.

Can you honestly tell me that if someone was to kill or seriously injure you or a member of your family you would have no problem with them being able to legally own a firearm after they got out of jail?

11. ## imported post

"Is any gun ban Constitutional ??"

IANAL.....but personally I don't think so.

12. ## imported post

"Is any gun ban Constitutional ??"

IANAL.....but personally I don't think so.
Oh yeah, IANAL also! Forgot to add that!

13. ## imported post

ainokea wrote:
drkarrow wrote:

What other rights should we violate? Should we prevent felons from choosing there own religion? Should felons loose there protection against double jepordy so we can just keep re-trying them for the same crime over and over again?

If they can take away the 2nd amendment rights of felons, that means they can take away all of the rest of them too. Seriously just think about why you are saying.

I don't "Like" felons having guns, but remember the Benjamin Franklin quote. "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

I am of the opinion that we are all created/born fundamentally equal. (We are born with rights) Based on the choices we make in our life some of those rights may be taken away because we have proven to be unable to conduct ourselves as a law abiding citizen. IMO rights are for law abiding citizens.

Can you honestly tell me that is someone was to kill or seriously injure you or a member of your family you would have no problem with them being able to legally own a firearm after they got out of jail?
IANAL but if we are talking a perfect world here, or getting our druthers, if someone was to kill a member of my family, they would not get out of jail.

I do think that all should have the right to protect themselves, but be ready to take the consequences of their acts too.

14. ## imported post

IANAL but if we are talking a perfect world here, or getting our druthers, if someone was to kill a member of my family, they would not get out of jail.

I do think that all should have the right to protect themselves, but be ready to take the consequences of their acts too.
I agree...unfortunatly this is not a perfect world and convicted murders do get released from jail.

People should have the right to protect themselves, but violent felons have already shown a propensity to want to harm people and IMO by doing so waive their right to own a firearm. The hard part is determining where to draw the line.

15. ## imported post

SCJ Opinion: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJA. Scalia 2008

How much clearer can that be?Bearable Arms. Firearms aren't even mentioned. Arms... period. Nuthin' about shape or flavor. Bearable ARMS! Capisch? Verstad? Comprende? ARMS... includes ammunition by definition. Also includes knives, swords, halberds, poleaxes 'n spears. Take yer pick. You wanna conceal 'em? Get the permit.

That's all it's for... to conceal... not simply carry (bear). 10th Ammendment.? I dunno... whatever the States do as a Republic. You get the idea. Rights don't require 'permits or licenses'. Clear? Governments don't grant 'Rights'... they restrict or deny them where actually recognized.

If convicted of a Felony you lose certain rights. That's well understood to begin with. Tuff munchies.

These talkin' heads 'n politicians who start with the AWB stuff are talkin' out their hindparts. Full Auto? Class III FFL... 'got it covered since 1936. Thank the gangsters for that one.

16. ## imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
SCJ Opinion: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed.": SCJA. Scalia 2008

...Governments don't grant 'Rights'... they restrict or deny them where actually recognized.
So are you saying then that when Obama claims he will raise the taxes on ammunition by 500% and put a ban on handguns, he canlegally do it because it is recognized ??? "... Governments don't grant 'Rights'... they restrict or deny them where actually recognized" as you so eloquently put it ?

I don't understand how he intends to uphold his threat of banning handguns and putting a 500% tax increase on ammunition with the second amendment as it is. This would constitute infringement upon the constitution.

Am I looking at this wrong ??

As for some of the other comments regarding felons rights, when they freely choose to take the rights of someone else in an act of violence of one form or another, they voluntarily give up their own rights, period. They should not have the right to obtain a weapon after being released from prison, period.

If they were sent to prison for murder or homicide or any other ...ide in which a death occurred. Until the person who was violated gets their rights back, the felon should not be offered his back to him. If the felon was imprisoned for a rape involving a firearm, until the violated gets back what was taken from them and they (the violated) accept a sincere apology and forgives the felon, then the felon should not have his rights reinstated.

At least, that's my view of it.

17. ## imported post

I think that 2A should be strictly applied and anyone who wants a gun of any type should be able to get if they can afford it. This included children of any age and even prisoners in jail. Why should someone be denied personal protection hust when they probably need it the most, while locked up with a bunch of bad guys.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do we not agree with. It says nothing about age, sex, religion, nationality, or incarceration. Children should be able to protect themselves from perverts so why should they be restricted? The elderly,crippled and insane are prime targets so why restrict them? Why restrict anyone to some freakish standard, allow fully automatic 70 caliber guns and grenades. RPG's and nukes as long as you can afford them. Why draw some arbritrary line and claim that satisfies 2A.

18. ## imported post

PT111 wrote:
I think that 2A should be strictly applied and anyone who wants a gun of any type should be able to get if they can afford it. This included children of any age and even prisoners in jail. Why should someone be denied personal protection hust when they probably need it the most, while locked up with a bunch of bad guys.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do we not agree with. It says nothing about age, sex, religion, nationality, or incarceration. Children should be able to protect themselves from perverts so why should they be restricted? The elderly,crippled and insane are prime targets so why restrict them? Why restrict anyone to some freakish standard, allow fully automatic 70 caliber guns and grenades. RPG's and nukes as long as you can afford them. Why draw some arbritrary line and claim that satisfies 2A.
I think everybody gets your point there. Any level-headed individual will concede that a common sense approach to what the constitution protects, and what it does not, is limited to the basic armament of the general populace with "arms" that constitute the most commonly accessible means of protection that are acceptable to society as a whole at the time.

In our time, semiautomatic sidearms with capacities ranging from 1 to 16 rounds, or more, rifles, "assault weapons", fully automatic machine guns (with license) etc... are all commonly accessible weapons that law-abiding citizens may purchase and own for protection at this time.

The military does not offer it's specialized arms to the general public. There are already restrictions in place to prevent this, and penalties abound should anyone choose to violate those restrictions. We all know that hand grenades and rocket launchers are not appropriate arms for the general populace. We also would not condone giving them to our population for obvious reasons.

I stand behind my favorite motto, "If it's not broke, don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broken". Our current status on gun control is more than enough to suffice in our day and age. If our government continues to try to "fix" the gun "problem" that does not really exist, then they will ruin everything that this country was founded on, and we will all end up disarmed and helpless at the hands of tyrants and thugs.

History has taught us everything we need to know about gun control. I hope our government heeds that lesson, lest another civil war may erupt once again upon US soil in the not-so-distant future.

Kevin

19. ## imported post

LovesHisXD45 wrote:
..... We all know that hand grenades and rocket launchers are not appropriate arms for the general populace. We also would not condone giving them to our population for obvious reasons.

....Kevin
I'm certainly not part of your "we".

The people should have access to all bearable arms. Only way to be sure that thepeople can overthrow a tyrannical government.

Call me an extremist if you want, but the 2A was meant for extreme times.

20. ## imported post

LovesHisXD45 wrote:
PT111 wrote:
I think that 2A should be strictly applied and anyone who wants a gun of any type should be able to get if they can afford it. This included children of any age and even prisoners in jail. Why should someone be denied personal protection hust when they probably need it the most, while locked up with a bunch of bad guys.

What part of "Shall not be infringed" do we not agree with. It says nothing about age, sex, religion, nationality, or incarceration. Children should be able to protect themselves from perverts so why should they be restricted? The elderly,crippled and insane are prime targets so why restrict them? Why restrict anyone to some freakish standard, allow fully automatic 70 caliber guns and grenades. RPG's and nukes as long as you can afford them. Why draw some arbritrary line and claim that satisfies 2A.
..."If it's not broke, don't fix it, or you'll fix it until it's broken"...
Yup, +1 on the words of wisdom.

Look, the fact is: There is a vast number of the population (including lawmakers) that feel the constitution doesn't fit our modern day times.

Some feel, that: "The right to bear arms" wasn't intended for a future littered with machine guns, Hand grenades, M4's, etc - We were working with single shot flint loads when these were written. This is what they think.

Do I personally think we should be allowed to have access to every type of gun manufactured by the military? Yes, do i think they should be CLASS III? Yes. Do i think the constitution should be revamped?? Hell no. This was the law of the land, period. If Ya'll don't like how the constitution doesn't quite fit modern times, get the BLANK out then. I know that sounds really red-neck, but c'mon: These were the founding fathers hopes for our future. Not, "Shall have the right to keep and bear arms until society deems unnecessary.."
EVEN IF i agreed that the constitution was in fact "out of date', i would STILL say "don't touch the constitution", why? Because I didn't write the rules of this land, someone else did. just like modern laws, i don't agree with, but i STILL follow them. I mean, what if we were like our government(?), "Oh, i don't like that law, so im not going to follow it." We'll guess what, our founding fathers KNEW that government wouldn't ALWAYS work for us, the people, and gave us the MEANS to ensure they do/did. In all times.

Phew - incoherent rambling are done!

21. ## imported post

When the 2A was written... citizens could own cannon. It was cannon that the Brit Regulars marched on Lexington to sieze. Cannon were in the hands of Privateers funded by merchants aboard the Baltimore Clippers and regular merchant vessels of the day.

Up until 1936... it was legal to own a fully automatic firearm w/o any 'license' whatever. All this recentgun controlpanicstuff began when John Kennedy was shot.... 'n it's snowballed.

22. ## imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:
When the 2A was written... citizens could own cannon. It was cannon that the Brit Regulars marched on Lexington to sieze. Cannon were in the hands of Privateers funded by merchants aboard the Baltimore Clippers and regular merchant vessels of the day.

Up until 1936... it was legal to own a fully automatic firearm w/o any 'license' whatever. All this recentgun controlpanicstuff began when John Kennedy was shot.... 'n it's snowballed.
Well Put and Oh so true.

23. ## imported post

Thundar wrote:
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
..... We all know that hand grenades and rocket launchers are not appropriate arms for the general populace. We also would not condone giving them to our population for obvious reasons.

....Kevin
I'm certainly not part of your "we".

The people should have access to all bearable arms. Only way to be sure that thepeople can overthrow a tyrannical government.

Call me an extremist if you want, but the 2A was meant for extreme times.
I'm not going to debate you on this one any further. You have a right to an opinion and a belief, and I respect that belief even though I just happen to disagree with it.

Kevin

24. ## imported post

+1 Thundar
+1 p_b_9mm

Couldn't put it better myself.