Ah, but perhaps that is exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment. Remember that the USA was itself founded as a rebellion against the government, and as such, the 'Founder's had a dilemma. They had to enshrine the right to rebel against tyrannical government, and as a fundamental right, in order to justify their rebellion. But they didn't want to encourage future rebellions against their own government (unless it too became tyrannical). And they were concerned about possible future threats from Britain (which were realised in 1812, when it was discovered that militias were not all that good at repelling professional armies) or other powers.

But let's be clear. The 2nd Amendment does not confer a right to 'guns'. It confers a right to 'bear arms'.

danivon wrote:Ah, but perhaps that is exactly the point of the 2nd Amendment. Remember that the USA was itself founded as a rebellion against the government, and as such, the 'Founder's had a dilemma. They had to enshrine the right to rebel against tyrannical government, and as a fundamental right, in order to justify their rebellion. But they didn't want to encourage future rebellions against their own government (unless it too became tyrannical). And they were concerned about possible future threats from Britain (which were realised in 1812, when it was discovered that militias were not all that good at repelling professional armies) or other powers.

But let's be clear. The 2nd Amendment does not confer a right to 'guns'. It confers a right to 'bear arms'.

A ruling today, as luck would have it:

The first sentence of the McDonald opinion states that “two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense,” McDonald v. City of Chicago, supra, 130 S. Ct. at 3026….

Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second Amendment right than the right to have a gun in one’s home, as when it says that the amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592. Confrontations are not limited to the home. …

The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep” arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing” arms within one’s home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home. …

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... y-guns.php

As soon as RickyP, Danivon and/or you answer why voting is different. (I think they are NOT irrelevant fripperies)

fate

You don't know that. No one knows until the USSC rules.

Which of the laws I listed are being challenged in court?

bbauska

As soon as RickyP, Danivon and/or you answer why voting is different

As regards regulations like Identification?
Not.
Its a question of how you fairly and efficiently conduct elections and how citizens efficiently and freely secure the required ID.
Besides you already have dozens of, sometimes rather odd, regulations and rules around voting. Registration for instance.

bbauska wrote:As soon as RickyP, Danivon and/or you answer why voting is different. (I think they are NOT irrelevant fripperies)

I never said it was. In fact, I agree that there are restrictions on voting, and that implies you can have restrictions on gun ownership.

rickyp wrote:fate

You don't know that. No one knows until the USSC rules.

Which of the laws I listed are being challenged in court?

Which of them have been upheld?

Btw, does that 7th Circuit opinion hurt your feelings? I mean, gee whiz, it actually uses the Constitution in its decision!

I would think that the SAME restrictions should be on voting as gun ownership as car driving. But to answer the question...

The 2nd Amendment allows ALL weaponry (IMO) as long as registration, ID and proficiency can be demonstrated.

Silliness such as Nukes (Not allowed as enriched uranium is illegal for storage, Chemical (not allowed for personal storage) should be put out of one's mind for this argument.

So it allows all weaponry except when it doesn't ?

Also, where exactly in the 2nd Amendment does proficiency get a mention ?

As soon as RickyP, Danivon and/or you answer why voting is different. (I think they are NOT irrelevant fripperies)

Think you'll find we've all answered that question a long time ago. Just because we didn't walk right into what you thought was a clever trap doesn't mean we haven't answered it. It would be nice if you'd realise that the trap has failed and get back to the point. Just a suggestion...

The 2nd doesn't say proficiency. (Hence the IMO).

Maybe I don't understand the answer how it is different. Could you please restate it for me?

I'm confused about Constitutional law, DF? I'm sure the course on search and seizure law at the academy makes you an expert...The text of the Second Amendment makes very clear that the purpose of the people having the right to bear arms is to have a militia that would be able to counter the federal government. The Framers could have had it say that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed but, no, they linked to having a well-regulated militia. So if the stated purpose of the amendment no longer exists--having a well-regulated militia--then there is no reason for the amendment as it no longer furthering its stated purpose
Now you could reasonably make the argument, as I think Randy was making, that the underlying purpose of the Amendment was to counter government tyranny, regardless of whether militias are extant or not. My point was, however, then the purpose again of the amendment is not being furthered because we can't allow the average citizen to walk around with a machine gun and therefore the amendment has lost its validity.
What justice Scalia did in Heller, however, was to read into the Second Amendment a right to self-protection that clearly is not countenanced by the text of the amendment. Since there is a complete linkage between the right to bear arms and a militia, you cannot read some other justification like self-protection into it--it's just not there . That is my reference to a made-up right.

Maybe I don't understand the answer how it is different. Could you please restate it for me?

It isn't different. Both the right to bear arms and the right to vote are qualified rather than absolute rights. Restrictions apply to both and as such it's legitimate to have a debate about what restrictions are appropriate.

freeman2 wrote:I'm confused about Constitutional law, DF? I'm sure the course on search and seizure law at the academy makes you an expert...The text of the Second Amendment makes very clear that the purpose of the people having the right to bear arms is to have a militia that would be able to counter the federal government. The Framers could have had it say that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed but, no, they linked to having a well-regulated militia. So if the stated purpose of the amendment no longer exists--having a well-regulated militia--then there is no reason for the amendment as it no longer furthering its stated purpose
Now you could reasonably make the argument, as I think Randy was making, that the underlying purpose of the Amendment was to counter government tyranny, regardless of whether militias are extant or not. My point was, however, then the purpose again of the amendment is not being furthered because we can't allow the average citizen to walk around with a machine gun and therefore the amendment has lost its validity.
What justice Scalia did in Heller, however, was to read into the Second Amendment a right to self-protection that clearly is not countenanced by the text of the amendment. Since there is a complete linkage between the right to bear arms and a militia, you cannot read some other justification like self-protection into it--it's just not there . That is my reference to a made-up right.

So, it's different from "the made up right" to get married and "the made up right" to "privacy" that somehow means "abortion on demand" in what way?

Your condescension notwithstanding, it would appear the 7th Circuit is on my side, not yours. Hmm, maybe your one hour gun-control class didn't do the job?

"made-up " is also known as "interpretation. (I had to try to argue in court today around a decision which in analyzing a statute admitted that the plain meaning of the statute was one thing but then said there was a latent ambiguity in that if the court applied the plain meaning of the statute it would not further the purpose of the statute, so the court decided that the plain, unambiguous meaning of the statute should not be applied. Yes, I am a little annoyed at judicial "creativity" today)

Interestingly, even Justice Scalia says the 2nd Amendment's right is not an absolute right. He could envision a properly drafted regulation that could place limitations on ownership. The problem with Heller and McDonald is the laws were not properly drafted.

However, the problem is also that one must look at state Constitutions. They can grant a more expressive right. For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution says "The right of the Citizens to bear arms of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." That is pretty explicit.

fate

You don't know that. No one knows until the USSC rules

.
ricky

Which of the laws I listed are being challenged in court?

fate

Which of them have been upheld?

If a law hasn't been challenged constitutionally , it is being upheld every day.
A law that has been around since 1934, Have you considered why no no has bothered going to the time and expense of challenging the law?
You actually imagine this law s just waiting to be declared unconstitutional? If only someone would challenge it? Why?