The Second amendment

[Tero]

Cruz for president and Trump in the supreme court?

[Seth]

Constitutional lawyers use imagination (to back up lies).

No, they use history to back up facts.

[Tero]

Supreme court is done with NRA and no longer supports unlimited guns:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us ... k-ill.html

[Seth]

Supreme court is done with NRA and no longer supports unlimited guns:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us ... k-ill.html

You wish.

[Tero]

Seth lies (i.e. repeats NRA mantra)

Recent interpretation (Heller etc.)was result of Reagan era interpretation
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... -amendment

[Seth]

Supreme court is done with NRA and no longer supports unlimited guns:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us ... k-ill.html

You are a liar because neither the NRA nor the Supreme Court ever did so in the first place, and neither does so now.

Besides, you are misreading a denial of certiorari as a ruling, which it's not, it's merely a denial of cert which the SCOTUS can reverse at any time and does not prevent the Court from taking another similar but better defined case in the future.

Besides being a liar, you're a legal ignoramus.

[Seth]

Seth lies (i.e. repeats NRA mantra)

Recent interpretation (Heller etc.)was result of Reagan era interpretation
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-com ... -amendment

Shows how little you know about constitutional law, and how little the author knows.

[Tero]

You lie. You are showing your ignorance. You actually know almost nothing about US history. All was filtered through the pro gun-filter.

[Seth]

You lie. You are showing your ignorance. You actually know almost nothing about US history. All was filtered through the pro gun-filter.

Cite your sources.

[Tero]

Every one of your posts.

[Seth]

Every one of your posts.

No, cite your sources showing that my understanding of history is faulty.

[Tero]

We had the discussion of the founding fathers. You failed to understand that they did not want ANY federal law governing arms and citizens. That was a state issue. The preference for no standing army is exactly what led to the 2nd amenment. It was a state right to keep a militia.

The individual and home, as far as arms, was a state issue.

[Tero]

If you are bringing in the 9th amendment, it only states that the Federal Government cannot take away rights by laws passed for the nation. The states can.

The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights was enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, and not against the states. Thus, the Ninth Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, which is a government of enumerated powers.

[Seth]

We had the discussion of the founding fathers. You failed to understand that they did not want ANY federal law governing arms and citizens. That was a state issue. The preference for no standing army is exactly what led to the 2nd amenment. It was a state right to keep a militia.

The individual and home, as far as arms, was a state issue.

Nope. And yup.

First, there is no "preference for no standing army" to be found either in the Constitution or the writings of the Founders, so your argument fails right there. That you think there is shows YOUR ignorance of the Constitution and the original intent of the Founders. I won't bother to explain why at the moment.

Second, the 2nd Amendment cannot comprise a "state right to keep a militia" because it says absolutely nothing about either authorizing or forbidding a state to keep a militia. It only says, prefatory to what it actually does protect, that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." By that they did not mean "state" as in "one of the United States" they meant "State" in the broader meaning as it is used to describe a free nation, as in the State of Israel or the State of England or the State of France. What is explicitly protected from infringement, in order that the security of a free State may be ensured, is the right to keep and bear arms on the part of "the people," which means the people as a whole and also as individuals, just as it has that same meaning in every other place where the Constitution uses the phrase "the people."

Third, the construction of the phrase, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" does not say that government, either federal or state, cannot enact laws governing civilian arms. What it says is that government cannot infringe upon the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

Government, including Congress, can most certainly regulate the right to keep and bear arms in ways that do not infringe on the individual right to keep and bear arms for both potential militia use, personal defense, and hunting, or any other lawful purpose.

For example, Congress passed a law authorizing the Civilian Marksmanship Program that authorized the military to issue surplus military firearms to civilians who participate in the program and demonstrate their competence with such weapons. Congress and the several states are also authorized to regulate the use and operation of "arms" in the interests of public safety. This is both a negative authority and a positive one, meaning that Congress may prohibit certain actions performed with arms, and it may also require certain actions with arms, such as regulations that require individuals to report for militia training with their own personal arms and ammunition. This power is inherent in the authority of Congress to raise and equip armies found in Article I.

Those are laws "governing arms and citizens," so your argument fails there too.

As for the several states, states are divisions of government that are considered to have "general powers" rather than "limited or enumerated powers" that apply to the federal government and Congress, therefore the authority of states to regulate the use and operation of arms is considerably broader than that of Congress, but such regulations still cannot "infringe" on the superior federal constitutional right to "keep and bear" arms enunciated in the 2nd Amendment because, for just one reason, were a state to forbid the keeping and bearing of "arms" under it's general powers authority, doing so would impair the ability of Congress to "raise and equip" an army comprised of members of the unorganized militia called to duty with their own arms and ammunition. Since Congress' power to raise and equip armies is a plenary power, which means that it is complete and absolute and takes precedence over any inferior power of a state, states cannot "infringe" on that congressional power by "regulating" the keeping and bearing of arms in ways which might negatively impact Congress' ability to raise an army.

So, once again, you're just wrong, but thanks for the opportunity to explain exactly why you are wrong, for the benefit of anyone who might think you aren't wrong.

[Seth]

If you are bringing in the 9th amendment, it only states that the Federal Government cannot take away rights by laws passed for the nation. The states can.

The Supreme Court held in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights was enforceable by the federal courts only against the federal government, and not against the states. Thus, the Ninth Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, which is a government of enumerated powers.

That was only true until the ratification of the 14th Amendment on July 9, 1868, which applied the Bill of Rights (all of it, including the 2nd Amendment) to the several states and every political subdivision thereof, right down to the dog catcher.

So, again, you lose.