- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Permits to Purchase or Carry Arms are Infringements of Second Amendment Rights
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:20 am
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:20 am
There is no doubt it is where we are headed because it is what was intended originally. Can you even imagine the respect everyone is granted when "elected" officials and their minions have no idea who is armed? As it should be!!
"Under the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, if a statute implicates an action protected under the Second Amendment, the State has the burden of proving, with the historical record, such infringements were common and accepted just before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment; or, to a lesser extent, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868."
No More Permits
"Under the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, if a statute implicates an action protected under the Second Amendment, the State has the burden of proving, with the historical record, such infringements were common and accepted just before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment; or, to a lesser extent, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868."
No More Permits
This post was edited on 5/31/23 at 8:22 am
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:25 am to Timeoday
I bet crime goes down. Certainly, the left and some "conservatives" will disagree but criminals are cowards that prey on people they perceive to be weak or a disadvantage to their attempt to assault them. If ever more average people began shooting back, it would have a positive effect on crime.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:32 am to lake chuck fan
quote:
.... criminals are cowards that prey on people they perceive to be weak or a disadvantage to their attempt to assault them. If ever more average people began shooting back, it would have a positive effect on crime.
Exactly and the gooooooooooooooooooooberments know it. The criminals are always looking for targets of least resistance.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:44 am to Timeoday
quote:
Permits to Purchase or Carry Arms are Infringements of Second Amendment Rights
The Second Amendment exists merely as a reminder that the government cannot and shall not infringe on the inherent right of the citizens to own and use arms.
Yet, the government has already chewed up the Second Amendment, spit it out, and used it as toilet paper, while they continue to ignore it.
The fact is that there is no 2A as it was intended, since it's intention has already been squashed.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 8:55 am to Timeoday
This post was edited on 6/1/23 at 7:35 am
Posted on 5/31/23 at 9:45 am to BestBanker
quote:
Interesting great: Gun toting criminal don't let infringement get in the way.
Criminals must understand Murdock and Shuttlesworth better than we do.
“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
This post was edited on 5/31/23 at 9:48 am
Posted on 5/31/23 at 11:40 am to Timeoday
Every gun law on the books is an infringement, and should be overturned.
The only federal gun law I would support would be "every citizen is required to own a firearm".
I am usually against entitlements but would support the government giving a firearm to every citizen.
The only federal gun law I would support would be "every citizen is required to own a firearm".
I am usually against entitlements but would support the government giving a firearm to every citizen.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 9:33 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
I am usually against entitlements but would support the government giving a firearm to every citizen.
Can you even imagine the peace that would ensue? No doubt there would be a maturation period, which would cause the demise of a lot of knuckleheads. But thereafter, with the knuckleheads out of the gene pool, everlasting harmony.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 10:31 pm to TigerAxeOK
quote:That's right, but not for the reason you think. The 2A (and all of the Bill) were intended as limits on the FEDGOV's power. That is to say - explicitly - the states were free to regulate/ban firearms all they wanted.
The fact is that there is no 2A as it was intended,
Then the "activist" courts - which you no doubt hate - came along and started "incorporating" amendments one by one.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 10:34 pm to Timeoday
I am glad my state has Constitutional carry.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 11:17 pm to Timeoday
Every single gun law or restriction of any sort including a background check and including waiting a year and paying $200 for a tax stamp are all unconstitutional infringements.
To all the infringers:
To all the infringers:
This post was edited on 5/31/23 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 5/31/23 at 11:23 pm to TigerAxeOK
Joe Biden said we need fighter jets to fight back. That hasn't worked out recently.
Posted on 5/31/23 at 11:25 pm to Timeoday
Unless you are deemed a terrorist then as per the patriot act , you have no rights.
frick you George Bush.
frick you George Bush.
Posted on 6/1/23 at 4:18 am to Timeoday
Looks like HB131 is going to be up for a floor vote today. I didn't know it already went through committee.
Posted on 6/1/23 at 4:41 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
That's right, but not for the reason you think. The 2A (and all of the Bill) were intended as limits on the FEDGOV's power. That is to say - explicitly - the states were free to regulate/ban firearms all they wanted.
Then the "activist" courts - which you no doubt hate - came along and started "incorporating" amendments one by one.
No. Those amendments reach down to the states as well. You seem to be suggesting that things like the 8th amendment doesn't attach to the states and they can just torture people if they want to, and so forth. I don't think that's a correct reading of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth. If you look at the things said by the Founders, the way the Constitution was written, the dialog about the Bill of Rights, and the language in those amendments, it seems obvious that the States were not put in a completely separate sphere with regard to the rights presented in the founding documents.
“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against any government on earth, general or particular, and what no government should refuse, or rest on inference.”
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, December 20, 1787
Posted on 6/1/23 at 7:21 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Then the "activist" courts - which you no doubt hate - came along and started "incorporating" amendments one by one.
You’re part right. The Bill of Rights limited only the federal government.
Then good ole Abraham Lincoln sent an army down south and held the southern state legislatures at gunpoint in order to ratify the 14 amendment, which usurped the states sovereignty and applied the bill of rights to the state governments.
So it wasn’t the “activist courts” you mentioned. It was Abraham Lincoln. The worst President ever. The one responsible for more American deaths than any other.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News