Is there a Constitutional right to

[TexasTiger 12,800]

Bullet proof armor? High capacity magazine clips? Ammunition? Hollow point bullets? Automatic weapons?

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Bullet proof armor?

No, but they are selling bullet proof backpacks for school children.  Should they be banned?

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

High capacity magazine clips?

Some guns are made to use with magazine clips, so yes on the clips.

 

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Ammunition?

A gun would be useless without ammunition, so yes

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Hollow point bullets?

A category of ammunition.

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Automatic weapons?

The National Firearms Act of 1934 put a high tax (at the time) on this weapons to get around the 2nd Amendment as criminals used them with impunity. Interesting to note that Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly and Clyde Barrow did not turn in their guns after the act.  It was only after they were arrested or shot and killed did they give up their guns.  Outlaws will outlaw.

The automatic weapon became illegal to own if manufactured after May 19th 1986 in an amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act as drug related crime in Miami soared.  There are 193,000 legally owned machine guns in the US.

https://timeline.com/nra-machine-guns-1986-265cb939c77c

It’s interesting to note that the 34 act was in response to organized crime using these type of weapons that lead to the tax.

It was the assassination of MLK and Bobby Kennedy that lead to the 1968 Gun Control Act. 

It was the uncontrolled drug culture of the Miami drug loads that lead to the amendment of the 1968 act. 

All of these were used to whittle away at a Constitutional right for law abiding citizens to bare arms.  Maybe we should concentrate on the people that break the law using firearms?

[TexasTiger 12,800]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, but they are selling bullet proof backpacks for school children.  Should they be banned?

Some guns are made to use with magazine clips, so yes on the clips.

 

A gun would be useless without ammunition, so yes

A category of ammunition.

The National Firearms Act of 1934 put a high tax (at the time) on this weapons to get around the 2nd Amendment as criminals used them with impunity. Interesting to note that Baby Face Nelson, Machine Gun Kelly and Clyde Barrow did not turn in their guns after the act.  It was only after they were arrested or shot and killed did they give up their guns.  Outlaws will outlaw.

The automatic weapon became illegal to own if manufactured after May 19th 1986 in an amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act as drug related crime in Miami soared.  There are 193,000 legally owned machine guns in the US.

https://timeline.com/nra-machine-guns-1986-265cb939c77c

It’s interesting to note that the 34 act was in response to organized crime using these type of weapons that lead to the tax.

It was the assassination of MLK and Bobby Kennedy that lead to the 1968 Gun Control Act. 

It was the uncontrolled drug culture of the Miami drug loads that lead to the amendment of the 1968 act. 

All of these were used to whittle away at a Constitutional right for law abiding citizens to bare arms.  Maybe we should concentrate on the people that break the law using firearms?

So any gun can be designed in a manner that creates additional Constitutional right?

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

26 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

So any gun can be designed in a manner that creates additional Constitutional right?

Not if it renders it an automatic weapon that goes against the 1986 amendment. An example of this would be the pump stock that was outlawed after the Las Vegas shooting.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Not if it renders it an automatic weapon that goes against the 1986 amendment. An example of this would be the pump stock that was outlawed after the Las Vegas shooting.

How about tanks? Howitzers? Fighter jets?

[I_M4_AU 7,762]

8 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How about tanks? Howitzers? Fighter jets?

Had to look it up, but you can buy a tank with 10 rounds and it’s legal. They are classified as a destructive device by the ATF. You can buy a fighter jet, but the cost is prohibitive and the upkeep would bury you.

If your going for restricting arms as laid out in the Constitution, cost and functionality (you can’t drive a tank on the streets) usually limit those without the Supreme Court having to weigh in.  If a white supremist were to use a tank to level some Synagogue, then we would have ourselves a new law in a second.  I don’t think the NRA would object.

[TexasTiger 12,800]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Had to look it up, but you can buy a tank with 10 rounds and it’s legal. They are classified as a destructive device by the ATF. You can buy a fighter jet, but the cost is prohibitive and the upkeep would bury you.

If your going for restricting arms as laid out in the Constitution, cost and functionality (you can’t drive a tank on the streets) usually limit those without the Supreme Court having to weigh in.  If a white supremist were to use a tank to level some Synagogue, then we would have ourselves a new law in a second.  I don’t think the NRA would object.

Just wondering where folks think the Constitutional limits are.

[Gowebb11 9,305]

On 8/18/2019 at 3:29 PM, TexasTiger said:

Just wondering where folks think the Constitutional limits are.

In this ongoing gun debate, the least used phrase from the second amendment is “well-regulated”. The individual has the right to bear arms, and the government retains the right to regulate them. Neither side seems interested in budging. 

[homersapien 11,352]

On 8/18/2019 at 4:17 PM, I_M4_AU said:

Had to look it up, but you can buy a tank with 10 rounds and it’s legal. They are classified as a destructive device by the ATF. You can buy a fighter jet, but the cost is prohibitive and the upkeep would bury you.

If your going for restricting arms as laid out in the Constitution, cost and functionality (you can’t drive a tank on the streets) usually limit those without the Supreme Court having to weigh in.  If a white supremist were to use a tank to level some Synagogue, then we would have ourselves a new law in a second.  I don’t think the NRA would object.

And yet they certainly object to effective universal background checks, which is exactly why Trump backed down from supporting them.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/20/trump-stopped-calling-for-very-meaningful-background-checks-on-guns-after-talking-to-the-head-of-the-nra/23797570/

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 8/18/2019 at 11:48 AM, TexasTiger said:

Bullet proof armor? High capacity magazine clips? Ammunition? Hollow point bullets? Automatic weapons?

If you mean a Constitutional right to protected possession of these things, then absolutely. If you mean Constitutional right to general ownership of these things, then no. But in connection with the latter, neither does the Constitution prescribe a prohibition against same. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 8/20/2019 at 12:39 PM, Gowebb11 said:

In this ongoing gun debate, the least used phrase from the second amendment is “well-regulated”. The individual has the right to bear arms, and the government retains the right to regulate them. Neither side seems interested in budging. 

The least understood fact concerning the Second Amendment is that it merely codified a pre-existing right that was already understood by the people to whom it first applied. Neither side seems interested in understanding (or trying to understand) its pre-codified import. 

[TexasTiger 12,800]

30 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If you mean a Constitutional right to protected possession of these things, then absolutely. If you mean Constitutional right to general ownership of these things, then no. But in connection with the latter, neither does the Constitution prescribe a prohibition against same. 

Is it your understanding that the Supreme Court limits police power to only the specific ones enumerated in the Constitution?

[TexasTiger 12,800]

19 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The least understood fact concerning the Second Amendment is that it merely codified a pre-existing right that was already understood by the people to whom it first applied. Neither side seems interested in understanding (or trying to understand) its pre-codified import. 

Break it down for us like we’re 7 year olds,  counselor!

[Gowebb11 9,305]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The least understood fact concerning the Second Amendment is that it merely codified a pre-existing right that was already understood by the people to whom it first applied. Neither side seems interested in understanding (or trying to understand) its pre-codified import. 

huh?

[DKW 86 7,410]

On 8/18/2019 at 3:29 PM, TexasTiger said:

Just wondering where folks think the Constitutional limits are.

And that is the entire problem.....The Constitution doesnt bar anything from the people. It bars govt from doing stupid things TO PEOPLE. 

We are Free to Do Anything that is no injurious to others. The Constitution is there TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF THE GOVT TO ENUMERATED POWERS ONLY.

On 8/20/2019 at 12:39 PM, Gowebb11 said:

In this ongoing gun debate, the least used phrase from the second amendment is “well-regulated”. The individual has the right to bear arms, and the government retains the right to regulate them. Neither side seems interested in budging. 

Well regulated militia may be an oxymoron at this point. We now have a standing Army+++. But still, the govt is limited to only enumerated powers only. 

On 8/20/2019 at 2:30 PM, homersapien said:

And yet they certainly object to effective universal background checks, which is exactly why Trump backed down from supporting them.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/20/trump-stopped-calling-for-very-meaningful-background-checks-on-guns-after-talking-to-the-head-of-the-nra/23797570/

Today we widely accept that regulation is needed and should be in place. We have "enumerated" some more powers to the Legislature. Those powers are to be enforced equally and honestly in an effort to stem gun violence. I and many others are ready to participate in all that...BUT...BIG BUT...What is the govt actually going to do with actual criminals that use guns to kill people everyday? They seem to want to regulate the public but do exactly zero with the  actual criminals like armed robbers, gang-bangers, etc. . 

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

If you mean a Constitutional right to protected possession of these things, then absolutely. If you mean Constitutional right to general ownership of these things, then no. But in connection with the latter, neither does the Constitution prescribe a prohibition against same. 

Exactly. The counsellor is getting a real life working law degree. 

10 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The least understood fact concerning the Second Amendment is that it merely codified a pre-existing right that was already understood by the people to whom it first applied. Neither side seems interested in understanding (or trying to understand) its pre-codified import. 

Now, things have changed. We no longer actually need a Militia. Back then, we had no standing Army. We do now. We have no need for a "Well Regulated Militia." the 2A is about basic rights that are granted  by citizenry, NOT ALLOWED by the govt. The govt is allowed to have these very specifically named powers and nothing more. The govt cannot grant itself extra powers not enumerated in the document or amended to the document by the people. 

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Is it your understanding that the Supreme Court limits police power to only the specific ones enumerated in the Constitution?

Yes, that is the sole reason for a Constitution in the first place. 

[Mikey 16,545]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Is it your understanding that the Supreme Court limits police power to only the specific ones enumerated in the Constitution?

No. In general, Americans have the right to own, do, or say anything that's not prohibited by law or common sense. "Land of the Free" and all that.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Break it down for us like we’re 7 year olds,  counselor!

I tried. Btw, I prefer esquire.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

11 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Is it your understanding that the Supreme Court limits police power to only the specific ones enumerated in the Constitution?

State Police Power? Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment?

[TexasTiger 12,800]

16 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

State Police Power? Are you familiar with the Tenth Amendment?

You mean the one that the Court generally ignores?

 

[homersapien 11,352]

What is the govt actually going to do with actual criminals that use guns to kill people everyday? They seem to want to regulate the public but do exactly zero with the  actual criminals like armed robbers, gang-bangers, etc. . 

[DKW 86 7,410]

15 hours ago, homersapien said:

What is the govt actually going to do with actual criminals that use guns to kill people everyday? They seem to want to regulate the public but do exactly zero with the  actual criminals like armed robbers, gang-bangers, etc. . 

Sorry you are so poorly read. In Chicago, as an example, they have some of the toughest on citizenry gun laws on the books. Yet they are at the top  or near the top in handgun crime. How do you reconcile the two? Tough on citizens, not tough at all on criminals. the criminals seem to have no problem at all 1) getting/acquiring guns in an essentially a gun free zone. 2) They then use those guns in horrific measure killing hundreds of people per year. Yet CPD has only a 20% closure rate on violent crime. 

https://home.chicagopolice.org/cpd-end-of-year-crime-statistics-2018/

In a essentially a non-handgun city like Chicago they took 9K+ guns off the street last year and the crime rate started dropping. So lets look again kids: Took guns away from citizens, violent/gun crime went up. They had to reorient their attack toward CRIMINALS after the violent highs of 2008-2016. To finally make all this even more crazy, why did they take guns away from law-abiding citizens again?

For the record, I am well pleased that i got two facepalms from the TPM Crowd...

[Tigerpro2a 5,650]

On 8/20/2019 at 12:39 PM, Gowebb11 said:

In this ongoing gun debate, the least used phrase from the second amendment is “well-regulated”. The individual has the right to bear arms, and the government retains the right to regulate them. Neither side seems interested in budging. 

If you research history, the intent on the "well-regulated militia" didn't mean well regulated by the government. More like "well regulated" as in well trained, well prepared. 

22 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

The least understood fact concerning the Second Amendment is that it merely codified a pre-existing right that was already understood by the people to whom it first applied. Neither side seems interested in understanding (or trying to understand) its pre-codified import. 

The 2nd Amendment only confirms the the God given right to us all to bear arms. The 2A is so misconstrued especially by the anti-gun movement. We always hear the "you do not need an AK-4015 Assault killing machine gun clip" to deer hunt or target shoot. The 2A has jack to do with either of those . It is 100 percent about confirming our God-given right to protect ourselves form enemies both foreign and domestic. It has already been infringed upon more than we should have ever allowed. The main purpose is to keep the government from going tyrannical against the people. Go back through history. Every single country that has gone through genocide, dictatorship, etc, it all started with de-arming the people. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

You mean the one that the Court generally ignores?

 

My follow-up question was genuine. I’ll assume that your response is as well (considering we are in the sacred forum), so can you please expound a bit?

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 minutes ago, Tigerpro2a said:

The 2nd Amendment only confirms the the God given right to us all to bear arms. The 2A is so misconstrued especially by the anti-gun movement. We always hear the "you do not need an AK-4015 Assault killing machine gun clip" to deer hunt or target shoot. The 2A has jack to do with either of those . It is 100 percent about confirming our God-given right to protect ourselves form enemies both foreign and domestic. It has already been infringed upon more than we should have ever allowed. The main purpose is to keep the government from going tyrannical against the people. Go back through history. Every single country that has gone through genocide, dictatorship, etc, it all started with de-arming the people. 

By "God-given right to us all to bear arms," what do you mean or intend to indicate about the right in connection with its regulation?

[SaltyTiger 7,761]

22 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Break it down for us like we’re 7 year olds,  counselor!

Thanks Brother Tex. I had to google Webster on the word "codified".