- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: History buffs are gonna love the 2nd amendment trial
Posted on 11/3/21 at 1:30 pm to DingLeeBerry
Posted on 11/3/21 at 1:30 pm to DingLeeBerry
quote:
That the Brits evolved and eventually banned guns and America should too would be my guess.
Yeah, but that's irrelevant to intent. If the argument is 'what did the Founders mean?' then whatever happened to England later doesn't alter the Founders' thinking when they wrote it.
0
Posted on 11/3/21 at 1:37 pm to Zach
quote:I believe that driving, in a legal sense, is considered a privilege, not a right.
The right to drive a car is not in the Constitution so you have to pay for your license.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 1:58 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
I believe that driving, in a legal sense, is considered a privilege, not a right.
That was a response to hunting. Read the thread for context.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:01 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
The Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was intended to constrain the actions of the central government, not those of the States or their subsidiaries. The Incorporation Doctrine is a cancer upon the Constitution.
Well done my man, glad to see someone aware of this situation. I’m the case of 2A, unless the incorporation doctrine is completely removed, I’m gonna have to utilize it here.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:13 pm to DerkaDerka
2nd Amendment interpreted correctly == nation-wide constitutional carry
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:15 pm to Zach
quote:
wonder what NY's response is going to be.
Depends which activist judge gets the case.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 2:24 pm to DingLeeBerry
quote:
That the Brits evolved and eventually banned guns and America should too would be my guess.
The Brits did nothing of the sort wrt evolving. Imbecilism seems to be a common characteristic of gun-control advocates though. This case, if interpreted by SCOTUS with the same restraint they had in Heller and McDonald, will end "May Issue" concealed carry permitting schemes but I doubt the few states that have such policies will embrace "Shall Issue" easily. They will make every effort to stall and deny such a decision. It will take successive lawsuits and years more for all of the road blocks that will be put up.
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:01 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
The Founders clearly never envisioned government controlled permits for firearms.
I'm pretty sure that they wrote "the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted on 11/3/21 at 3:25 pm to LockeNLoad
quote:
The Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was intended to constrain the actions of the central government, not those of the States or their subsidiaries.
In the 1st amendment it is "Congress shall make no law..." which would seem to only apply to the Federal government.
In the 2nd amendment it is "...Shall not be infringed." which seems to be much stronger and naturally apply to all levels of government. So 2A at State and local level shouldn't depend on the Incorporation Doctrine.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 4:44 pm to Kjnstkmn
Point me in the direction of some references that show the bill of rights or any part of it as originally intended to apply as enforcement on states. I’m not talking smack, legit want to read it if I am incorrect. Haven’t read the federalist papers yet. Still in my bookcase.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 4:47 pm to Zach
quote:Some other interesting history: T2A was written by the Founders (along with the entire Bill of Rights) to apply ONLY to the fedgov. It was 100+ years later that various amendments became "incorporated".
Can't link because it was America's 1st news Radio this morning.
There is gonna be a gun case before the USSC. Plaintiff vs. New York over the right to carry on the street. Seems NY (and 6 other states) won't give you a permit just because you want defense against a random act of violence.
Well, the plaintiffs are gonna prove the intent of the founders who wrote the 2nd by introducing English common law cases from the Middle Ages. The point being that the founders were ardent students of British law and much of the Bill of Rights stems from British cases.
I wonder what NY's response is going to be.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 4:57 pm to Big Scrub TX
The 2A came from state analogs that well pre-dated the BoR.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 5:12 pm to AMS
I don’t need a permit to purchase a fishing rod.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 5:57 pm to Kjnstkmn
quote:You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in 1833 SCOTUS ruled that the Bill of Rights was limited in application to the central government. Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
2nd Amendment interpreted correctly = nation-wide constitutional carry
quote:This was settled law for a century, until some moron decided to argue that the Civil War Amendments expanded the Bill of Rights as applicable to State governments.
The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation, and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally and necessarily applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes.
It was a major blow in the destruction of our formerly-federal system.
All Hail DC (sarcasm)
Locke
This post was edited on 11/3/21 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 11/3/21 at 6:02 pm to deuceiswild
quote:
don’t need a permit to purchase a fishing rod.
Don't think you need one for a bow either.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 6:36 pm to Zach
New York and New Mexico hate people to have guns....look for this to fail.
Posted on 11/3/21 at 7:34 pm to coolpapaboze
quote:
I believe that driving, in a legal sense, is considered a privilege, not a right
That's not what's meant when this is stated.
You can drive all you want, in any fashion you want, licensed or unlicensed when on private property. It's when you want to exercise the privilege of utilizing public roads and highways that you're required to be licensed to operate a motor vehicle.
They want to try to draw the same parallels with licensing for firearms except operating a motor vehicle on public property is not a right guaranteed under the Constitution like bearing arms is. Therefore, you can bear arms in any way, shape or fashion you want on both private and public property as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Every law passed against it since then is unconstitutional on its face. Period. End of story.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News