Me:
All rights come with limitations, that's the point. Do you have a problem with that? In other words the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A is not to be taken literally at least not in its extreme sense.
Anonymous:
My problem with your statement is that it is inexact, and that this lack of specificity leads to the erosion of rights. The government's ability to proscribe speech that directly incites violence or illegal activity is not because "the right to free speech is not unlimited" it is because direct incitements to violence are not considered protected speech.
The government can't stop asshole racists from calling for the elimination of the rights of other races because that still falls under the category of protected speech. Meanwhile, it can stop them if they are holding a rally and calling for the people at the rally to start lynching passers by.
Similarly, non-protected weapons, e.g. nuclear weapons, can be proscribed, but whatever weapons are protected, but whatever weapons are covered, for the sake of argument let's say at least muzzle loaders (though I think, and the court has agreed, it goes further), cannot be outlawed.
As for the felons issue, the constitution says that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law--the prohibition on felons, as well as other aspects of infamy, attach to them by the operation of due process. This isn't a matter of the right not being absolute--it is a matter of them losing a right as a punishment for a crime they have been convicted of.
This is why I have this huge problem with your inaccurate, sloppy legal statements.
Mr. Anonymous is apparently being serious when he says the limits on free speech are "not because "the right to free speech is not unlimited."" That's got to be one of the best pro-gun spins I've ever seen. He goes on to explain that the reason is simply because those forms of speech that are not protected by the 1A are "direct incitements to violence are not considered protected speech." His circular logic boggles the mind.
Moving on to guns, he informs us that " whatever weapons are protected,""cannot be outlawed." I wonder how he understood the AWB before it was allowed to expire, or for that matter, the strict rules in places like NY and NJ. How does "cannot be outlawed" work in those cases, I wonder.
About felons he has no problem for the simple reason that "due process of law" was followed. By that logic, I suppose anything goes as long as it receives due process. Sounds like good news for the gun control movement.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.--District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
ReplyDeleteThis was reiterated in McDonald v Chicago:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
I left out that Heller said:
DeleteAlthough we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Which has as a footnote (26):
We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.
In other words the "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A is not to be taken literally . . .
ReplyDeleteSo it's to be taken figuratively? Are there any other components of the Constitution that you would argue are merely figures of speech, thus safely ignored, or is the Second Amendment unique in that regard?
. . . .at least not in its extreme sense.
Hmm . . . the "extreme sense"? So what is the "moderate sense" of shall not be infringed? "Shall only be infringed a little bit"? "Shall not be infringed on Wednesdays"? Ooh--here's one I think you'll like: "Shall be infringed only to the extent necessary to disarm about half the currently legal gun owners."
Am I getting warmer, Mikeb?
Of course Mike, rights do have limits. But what you don't like in second enumerated civil right is that the limits were placed on the government, not the people. In fact that's why the Bill of Rights were written they way they were, to limit or flat block the governments intrusion on those rights. The Bill of Rights didn't give the people those rights, it guaranteed them.
DeleteBut even back in the 1800s, there were those politicians that disagreed that the people have inherent rights and wanted to limit or remove them just like today. The limits were on the government, not the other way around, just like today.
That's why we have an amendment process. That's also why none of the core rights have ever been changed, but your welcome to try, Mike, Laci and company.
Does "shall not be infringed" mean that current laws taking away gun rights from felons, or if found mentally unstable are unconstitutional Kurt?
Delete"Shall be infringed only to the extent necessary to disarm about half the currently legal gun owners."
DeleteBingo.
And what would be the legal basis for that interpretation of "shall not be infringed" Mike?
DeleteAnd how does such an interpretation not weaken "shall make no law"?
And before you go off topic with another dismissive comment about "there you go comparing the first and the second", that's not the issue here. To accept that as the "moderate" interpretation of "shall not be infringed" assumes that we're talking about the moderate interpretation of an individual right--you are, for the sake of argument, conceding that point in the context of this argument.
DeleteTherefore, it makes perfect sense to ask how we keep a strong interpretation of "shall make no law" while, in the next amendment which deals with the next right, taking a weak interpretation of "shall not be infringed."
Or do you agree with dog gone that we need to modify our understanding of the First Amendment to a more moderate one like Canada or Britain so that we can outlaw some objectionable speech?
And lest you suggest that I'm slandering dog gone, the comment was here:
Deletehttp://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2014/09/eric-frein-gun-nut-and-extremist-right.html
"If that is inconsistent with our present understanding of the 1A, then maybe we need to alter the 1A to be consistent with other democracies and the sane practices of other free countries, like Canada"
And lest you suggest that I'm slandering dog gone, the comment was here:
DeleteHoly shit. That stupid little servile cur wants speech in this country to be less free--and admits it.
None of what you say would necessarily interfere with the adoption of my list of proper gun control laws and my one-strike-you're-out policy. It could all be done properly, respecting due process, and the results would be that many lives would be saved every year and still about half the current gun owners, the good half, would continue to enjoy their guns.
DeleteYour proposal of an AWB could be construed to violate the Constitution by banning protected firearms. Your May issue permitting could be argued to be as much of a violation as may issue permitting for exercise of free speech. Your One Strike law would require passing new laws to criminalize all accidents and would require the court to allow the permanent stripping of an enumerated right based on crimes you want no jail time for--that is Misdemeanors--something they have only, thus far, allowed to stand in the case of domestic violence. The rest of your proposals would, at the least, be assailable as having a chilling effect on the exercise of a right.
DeleteYou would have quite the uphill climb to convince the court to accede to the Constitutionality of your proposals.
You would have quite the uphill climb to convince the court to accede to the Constitutionality of your proposals.
DeleteMr. Anon, I think Mikeb is blissfully unconcerned with the Constitutionality of his proposals. I think he would try to convince the court that they should simply dismiss anything in that document (written hundreds of years ago, by wealthy white men) that would pose an obstacle to the infringements he thinks we should embrace.
And yeah--I don't see it as a particularly sound strategy, either, but he's welcome to try it.
MikeB: “None of what you say would necessarily interfere with the adoption of my list of proper gun control laws and my one-strike-you're-out policy. It could all be done properly, respecting due process…”
DeleteOk, you’re going to have to explain how “No, because I said so” (your may-issue policy for carry and ownership as a cornerstone of what you call “proper gun control”) respects due process.
Telling but not surprising you don't want to answer the question Kurt.
DeleteTS, he thinks that because it would be a process that means that it satisfies due process. Mike's grasp of Constitutional Law is about as thorough as a Macaw's grasp of the English language--he can repeat various words, but that's about it.
DeleteTS, any law which is adopted through the proper legislative process would satisfy the requirements of due process. I know you don't agree that they're always constitutional, but you have to admit that they follow the tenets of due process. NJ and NY strict gun laws for example.
DeleteThat is the beginning of the analysis, not the end. If you were to start passing laws making it a misdemeanor to have any type of accident with a gun and then revoking rights based on such misdemeanors there would be a much deeper due process analysis. Your may issue proposal would be susceptible to a due process claim as well, following a different but no less intense analysis--one which I would guess will go to the Supreme Court within the next decade.
DeleteAgain, you are highly oversimplifying the law in such a way that it renders your summaries and conclusions incorrect. You are like a person who says "Appendicitis causes pain in the abdomen, therefore the pain in your abdomen must be appendicitis."
No, no, no. That's not what due process means. Passing a law doesn't mean due process is met. Due process is to ensure that people actually broke that law before they are punished for it.
DeleteMike's grasp of the law makes people writing TV shows like Franklin and Bash look like geniuses.
DeleteTS, I know that. There are two discussions going on here, the question of whether or not a law is unconstitutional and whether or not due process is followed. It all started with "do rights have limits."
DeleteReally? You know that, Mike? Then why did you post this up above?
DeleteMike B October 23, 2014 at 7:28 AM
TS, any law which is adopted through the proper legislative process would satisfy the requirements of due process.
Ditto ^^^
DeleteAs I said, there are two separate issues. In NJ for example, strict gun laws have been legitimately adopted. Then when one of the NRA poster boys or girls violates those laws, due process is followed. What's so hard about that?
Delete1. That is still not what you said in the previous comment we took issue with.
Delete2. That still only accounts for a portion of the due process analysis--The question remains whether the NJ laws violate due process, for example, by placing overly harsh penalties on the supposed "crimes" and if they unjustly criminalize actions that should not be criminalized. Thus far the relevant courts have let the laws stand, but that doesn't change the fact that the analysis is much deeper than you let on.
I said May-issue is not due process. Then you said as long as it is passed through the legislative process it is (as opposed to what- an edict by the king?)
DeleteTS said, " Due process is to ensure that people actually broke that law before they are punished for it."
DeleteMr. A. said "The question remains whether the NJ laws violate due process"
One of my points, which you guys objected to in your knee-jerk way was that if a law is adopted through the proper legislative process, like the strict gun laws in NJ, then those laws do not violate due process. They can be changed later, but during their time on the books, due process is met. All that's for Mr. A.
TS seems to be talking about something else. Of course the failure to follow due process can result in people who are not guilty of something being arrested or even convicted. What's that got to do with anything?
But what you can't do is cry that due process is not met because you don't like a particular law.
"One of my points, which you guys objected to in your knee-jerk way was that if a law is adopted through the proper legislative process, like the strict gun laws in NJ, then those laws do not violate due process."
DeleteThis is categorically FALSE as a law passed through the legislative process can still violate substantive due process as I have explained repeatedly. You Really need to read up on due process law, Mike.
As I have said repeatedly, New Jersey's courts have, until now, found that these laws do not violate due process, but that does not change the fact that your statement of the rules is incorrect.
One of my points, which you guys objected to in your knee-jerk way was that if a law is adopted through the proper legislative process, like the strict gun laws in NJ, then those laws do not violate due process.
DeleteTo argue that, Mikeb, you would need to argue that Chicago's (now thankfully extinct) handgun ban was not "adopted through the proper legislative process." Why? Because when the Supreme Court made clear (by a convincing double digit percentage majority) that the ban was unconstitutional, it did so on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause:
In a five-four split decision, the McDonald Court held that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is incorporated and applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Where was the circular logic Mike? I wasn't putting forth one statement as proof for the other. Rather, I was describing one of the basic principles in the current legal framework of the First Amendment. The difference between saying that a right is not unlimited and that the conduct protected under the right is sacrosanct but unprotected conduct can be regulated may seem like a semantic fight, but it is an important aspect of how the courts have drawn the line. Protected speech falls under the banner of "Congress shall make no law."
ReplyDeleteThis is the barest boned summary and is in no way exhaustive, but if you think I have misrepresented the law on the topic or materially misstated it, do show how.
As for your "wondering" about what I thought of the AWB and the other laws you mention, I thought they were unconstitutional bans on protected arms. If you're taking issue with my saying "cannot be outlawed" then perhaps I should clarify the statement to "may not be constitutionally outlawed."
Regarding your final comments on "due process," I wonder how you are thinking to try to spin that into a boon for gun control. You said that I have "no problem for the simple reason that 'due process of law' was followed." That's not what I said. What I gave was a basic summary of the reason the courts have allowed such stripping of certain rights to stand--my feelings don't enter into it.
You then go on to summarize my statement to mean that "anything goes as long as it receives due process." Frankly, that is the most patently ridiculous interpretation I've ever seen. By that interpretation, it would be acceptable to apply a hefty prison sentence, or even the death penalty, to jaywalking as long as the law was clearly written and due process was applied to defendants.
Your comments show either a total lack of understanding of the law, or a complete lack of respect for it.
So, the laws in places like NJ and NY are unconstitutional? That seems a bit too easy to me.
DeleteSo laws banning flag burning are unconstitutional? Seems a bit too easy to me.
DeleteLaws against importing slaves are unconstitutional? Seems too easy.
Do you have anything of substance to say?
Read the post, man. You're the one lacking in substance. Double talking bullshit is your specialty, and naturally, accusing your opponents of what you yourself are guilty of.
DeleteI read the post and showed where your points were lacking. Are you seriously so at a loss for counter arguments that you can't come up with anything but ad hominem attacks and vigorous assertions?
DeleteI'll ditto that anon.!
DeleteMr. Anonymous, you did no such thing, but don't feel bad, you have Anonymous on your side.
DeleteMore vigorous assertion and ignoring my response. This is just getting sad.
DeleteWhat you guys miss when you make this 1A comparison is that the 2A is currently the far more restricted right of the two- and that doesn’t even get into the pipe-dream restrictions you want on it.
ReplyDeleteThat may be true, so what? The 2A is not restricted nearly enough. When any asshole who wants a gun can buy one without a background check, we have a problem. When people can legally leave their guns unsecured at home and the result is 500,000 are stolen each year, we have a problem. And on and on. These problems could be corrected with little or no interference in your life.
DeleteUnless you happen to fall into the 50% you want disarmed--like Kurt since he's disabled. Kinda a bad deal you're offering there Mikey.
DeleteYou guys keep saying “no right is unlimited” and “we have restrictions on speech” as an argument that is without base. The 2A hasn’t been unlimited for 80 years, and all those little restrictions we have on speech apply to gun rights and then some (a lot, really). You argument is more like “because the right is not unlimited, there should be no limit to the restrictions we can impose on it”. That is really what you want.
DeleteHow many deaths are occurring because of exercising ones 1A rights? It's not irrational to want to stop some of the deaths due to unnecessary gun shot without infringing one ones rights. It is irrational to allow those deaths when they could be stopped by simple regulations that do not infringe on people's 2A rights.
DeleteTS, that's exactly why they refuse to use exact language and discuss what is protected vs. what is not protected under the First Amendment--it's more convenient for them to frame it as "this right isn't absolute" because that opens the door for them to add more and more restrictions on it as they see fit. For evidence, see dog gone's desire to rewrite the law on the First Amendment to make it less protective.
DeleteAnonymous, plenty of people argue that deaths are caused by the exercise of First Amendment rights--just look at anyone who wants to restrict the amendment, from your ally dog gone to those who wanted to outlaw burning the Quran to prevent riots overseas.
As for your comments that we can have simple regulations that won't infringe on people's rights, you are saying this after arguing that the right isn't absolute. So which is it--are these permissible infringements of a non-absolute right, or are they non-infringements of a right?
When you talk out both sides of your mouth like this, is it any wonder nobody trusts you when you claim to not want to infringe on other people's rights?
Mr. A., you guys are the ones who keep bringing up the 1A, just like you keep making those stupid car comparisons. The simple fact is that reasonable restrictions on the 2A are allowed. We're just arguing over where to draw the line.
DeleteNo, that is not the simple fact. We are arguing over how the law is even drawn--an issue you keep avoiding because you know that your sloppy manner of drawing the line allows much more leeway to push it in an ever more restrictive direction.
DeleteEven your "simple fact" that "reasonable restrictions" are allowed shows sloppiness.
The problem anon is you define those regulations as infringements and they are not. But you keep that delusional stance, that way we know you are a gun loon.
Delete"The problem anon is you define those regulations as infringements and they are not."
DeleteAn easy test on this claim would be to try to use any of the "common sense" restrictions on another right such as voting rights, or say abortion rights and stand back to watch the reaction from those advocates.
Anti-gun Anonymous, regulations on the exercise of ANY right are considered infringements on it--hence, the many tests the courts use to evaluate them.
DeleteYour continual denial that these regulations you want are infringements show either dishonesty or a complete lack of understanding of the law. If you were honest and informed on the subject you would try to make arguments for why they should pass Constitutional muster, not argue that they don't infringe on anything.
Of course, asking for honesty and rational argument from a troll is probably too much.
Mr. Anonymous, I'm getting a little tired of your repetitious bullshit and name calling. I'm sad and I'm sloppy, etc., etc. Anonymous is not "honest and informed on the subject" and has "a complete lack of understanding of the law."
DeleteHow would requiring safe storage in the home infringe upon your rights? For that matter, how would licensing and registration requirements and background checks on all transfers infringe on them?
Try to be brief and specific in your answer.
I've addressed your licensing and registration requirements above--in short, you ask for a system of may issue licensing for the exercise of a right--this makes it no longer a right but a privilege that is licensed, by definition, at the pleasure of a state actor. It's hard to see how someone could consider this to not be an infringement on the right, even if they thought that it was an acceptable infringement.
DeleteAs for your safe storage proposals, as I and others have repeatedly said, our problem is not with the encouragement of safe storage but with your chosen means--prosecution of theft victims. This isn't even a second amendment issue. Instead, my problem with it is a matter of basic justice and due process. Other issues are that many of these proposals include police inspections with little or no notice, further weakening the already battered and abused 4th Amendment.
As for the accusation of name calling, I was describing your arguments, not calling you names. Similarly, the statements about Anonymous were opinion based on his deliberate obtuseness. A claim, such as he made, that regulations on the exercise of a right in no way limits the right, especially when made in the context of a discussion on the limits that do exist on rights, is patently nonsensical.
DeleteWhat are you saying SS? I can't think of a gun restriction that applies similarly to abortions. Maybe you could be more clear.
Delete"I can't think of a gun restriction that applies similarly to abortions."
DeleteOne that comes immediately to mind is a waiting period for the purchase of handguns. Gun control advocates also like to use the term "cooling off period" suggesting that someone who wants to purchase a gun when they're angry might change their mind after time to "cool off".
Waiting period legislation has also been proposed for those wanting an abortion in hopes that the person will change their mind.
"A new Missouri law requiring a 72-hour abortion waiting period is set to take effect this week, and the state's only licensed abortion clinic isn't planning to try to stop it."
"Although Planned Parenthood officials have denounced the Missouri law as "onerous" and "burdensome" for women, the organization isn't planning to file a lawsuit before the measure takes effect Friday."
http://news.yahoo.com/no-challenge-expected-missouri-abortion-law-152711721.html;_ylt=AwrBEiSzDktURhYAXQ_QtDMD
Of course, when gun rights advocates make the same claim we're told the delay isn't a big deal.
Another would be the transvaginal ultrasound mandates that showed up recently. If you are going to say this below, you can't really call that an infringment either:
Delete"The problem anon is you define those regulations as infringements and they are not."
The only reason I support waiting periods is to give law enforcement time to do back ground checks. I would agree we should have a system (21st century) that could do that immediately.
DeleteComparing abortion to guns is disingenuous. If you want to compare getting a gun and regulations for that, to some intrusive physical procedure women are forced to have before getting an abortion, that's your silliness. When gun buyers are forced to have an instrument shoved up their private parts before they can buy a gun, then we will have a similar violation to debate.
You don't realize that the abortion procedure itself involves shoving instruments into private parts?
DeleteBut I want to be clear that I don’t support those laws. It is an unnecessary infringement meant to dissuade abortions. You asked for examples of restrictions that apply similarly to abortions, so I provided.
So you use an example which you agree is not comparable and one you agree should not be used and is a Constitutional violation. Wow, great debating.
DeleteYet I simply agree background checks should be done before buying a gun and whatever that waiting period is it is not a violation of any Constitutional right.
" you ask for a system of may issue licensing for the exercise of a right--this makes it no longer a right but a privilege that is licensed"
DeleteThat's made-up bullshit on your part. You call it a privilege rather than a right - that's your definition. If some day the law says you need to be licensed to own a gun, you could just as easily call it a right that has a reasonable restriction attached to it.
This is not made up, but a summary of the law as it has been developed in other areas. As we have discussed before, the legal framework that allows licensing of drivers is that driving is a privilege, not a right, therefore you can be required to get a license to drive.
DeleteAlso, part of the issue is your insistence on May Issue permitting--to continue with the comparison to the licensing of driving, the ability to drive is closely tied to the right to travel--it is not necessary to be able to travel, but it is closely related, and so we have shall issue licensing.
In another area, we have the permitting required for parading or for the use of public parks for large rallies. Relevant constitutional text: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . . or the right of the people to peacably assemble."
We have allowed, under various tests, time, place, and manner restrictions for the preservation of order, but because of the Constitution's strong wording--no law abridging--we require that any such regulations be completely viewpoint neutral and NOT have any aspect of discretion--in other words, no may issue permitting. The reason is that any such discretionary permitting would be an unconstitutional abridgment or infringement on people's right.
If we want to look at accepted places for "may issue" permitting under the law, we often find it in land use regulations, among some other areas. If you look at the challenges to "may issue" permitting that have been denied in these areas, you see that the rationale is that the subject of these permits is not something that the person has the Constitutional right to do. For example, you have the right to the enjoyment of your land, but if, when you bought your land, it was a vacant tract in an industrial park in the middle of a city and was already zoned for industrial use, you do NOT have the right to put in a hog farm. You might get a discretionary re-zoning, but you have no right to it.
Finally, you keep calling for "reasonable restrictions" and implying that any "reasonable restriction" is ok. I made a comment earlier about how this shows a misunderstanding of the law, but let me explain the issue. We have multiple tests applied for finding whether laws are Constitutional or not. For a nice summary, check here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest Four paragraphs that will give you a good summary of the current state of the law and of the difference between the Rational basis test and Strict scrutiny. It doesn't get into Intermediate Scrutiny, but as you can guess, that is a test that falls between the two.
It is true that the Supreme Court has not yet stated which test applies to the Second Amendment, but whenever we are dealing with any other right listed in the Bill of Rights, and the fundamental rights that have been found to exist even though not enumerated (e.g. right to privacy, right of parents to raise and educate their children, etc.) we apply strict scrutiny, so you are the one with the uphill battle to try to argue for even intermediate scrutiny, much less rational basis. A battle that will be made even harder if you wanted "May Issue" licensing rather than "shall issue" licensing for ownership since the Courts don't usually take kindly to the application of discretion to the exercise of rights.
"So you use an example which you agree is not comparable and one you agree should not be used and is a Constitutional violation. Wow, great debating."
DeleteI agree that it also an infringement, not that it is not comparable. It is comparable. What we see is progressives taking an any restriction goes "rights are not unlimited" stance for rights they dislike, but for rights they do approve up they take a hardline stance of every little thing being an infringement.
That's not my position, or what I said, so either you are talking to someone else, or lying again. Gee, which one is it?
DeleteSteve, look at the level of scrutiny that you apply to gun rights. You repeatedly say things like it is not an infringement if people can still get guns. But you don't apply that same scrutiny to abortion rights. In the example I gave, women can still get abortions- the law was just requiring an extra step. If you were consistent, you would say that's not an infringement. I call unnecessary ultrasounds, and unnecessary trips to an FFL as both being examples of infringements.
Delete"If you were consistent, you would say that's not an infringement. I call unnecessary ultrasounds, and unnecessary trips to an FFL as both being examples of infringements."
DeleteThank you TS, that was exactly my point.
I was right. You were talking to someone else, not me. Thanks for clearing that up. So we agree, amazing.
DeleteThere are many organizations out there advocating for civil rights within their particular area of interest. There are groups that advocate for free speech, abortion rights, rights that protect people from government intrusion, voter rights, and of course gun rights.
ReplyDeleteEach group fights against any perceived restrictions in the area of their concern, be they large of small.
Forget the Bill of Rights. They were added 2 years after the Constitution was ratified, now, show me where in the Constitution those enumerated powers of the government gave them power over an individual to own a weapon or power over a persons speech.There were none, therefore there were no limitations.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
Brilliant, Orlin. There are no limitations. Got it.
DeleteRead what I wrote: There WERE no Limitations. Then, as usual, the government overstepped its bounds.
Deleteorlin sellers
Those rights not enumerated would be left to the States to decide. Without the protection of the 2A those States (judges, legislators) could easily decide to make guns illegal.
DeleteMike, there were no limitations in the Constitution then the Bill of Rights were written to guarantee that there would never be any government limitations on citizens rights.
ReplyDeleteThe framers knew that there would be those that didn't believe in freedom and would try to take it in favor of dictatorship. Hasn't happened yet, has it. But they are still working on it. But they are frustrated by two things, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are STILL the law of the land.
No, they created a Supreme Court (judicial system) and left interpretation up to their decisions. Jefferson was blasting the interpretations of the Supreme Court immediately. It was the earliest example of how the three power structures of government worked against each other.
DeleteI prefer it keeps the different government arms in check. That's the way it was/is designed to work. Without the means of checks and balances that is ultimately the voice of the people, the people would have no voice, no representation and the result is authoritarian rule. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are rules that all law makers have to follow so that authoritarian rule could not happen. Of course even in the beginning there were law makers that found that there were constraints on them and didn't like it but that's the world created for us in the USA and has been working well for the most part since. The justices had to rule whether certain or any law being challenged met the Constitutional muster. If it did not, it was thrown out, like we have seen here lately.
Delete