28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

And, if it is ever established that Congress does indeed have that power and may exercise that power w/o violating the 2nd Amendment, you might have a conceptual leg to stand on.

A general prohibition on the sale and manufacture of firearms prevents people who do not already have a gun from exercising their rights to do so.
This is a clear, obvious, prima facie violation of the 2nd.

- - - Updated - - -

A general prohibition on the sale and manufacture of firearms prevents people who do not already have a gun from exercising their rights to do so.
This is a clear, obvious, prima facie violation of the 2nd.

 

This is absolutely false.
The definition of 'arms" has been laid down by the court, in Heller and Miller.

A general prohibition on the sale and manufacture of firearms prevents people who do not already have a gun from exercising their rights to do so.
This is a clear, obvious, prima facie violation of the 2nd.

 

That amendment is unconstitutional so I would vote against it's ratification. In addition to that, a load of problems will arise from it's ratification. People won't be able to defend themselves as well if they didn't have a gun. A black market will rise and the underground sellers of the guns and the purchasers will be viewed as criminals. Then, the authorities will conduct a wild goose chase that will waste time and money.

 

He also needs to understand that to keep one must have. To have one must at some time acquire, whether it is give, inheritance, or a purchase. A back door to stop new purchases through the commerce would never pass muster with the courts, and to change the amendment would require a major majority, ie much more than a simple majority.

 

To top it off, what sane person would want more gun control? It is clear from statistics prepared by the CDC and the Congressional Research Service that more guns DOES NOT MEAN MORE GUN VIOLENCE, exactly the opposite. In recent years more guns have REDUCED gun violence. "So after all the pro-gun control grandstanding and the relentless focus on how the so-called easy availability of guns drives up crime, the CRS report shows that more guns–especially more concealable guns–has actually correlated with less crime." Look at the charts. http://tinyurl.com/h5m6wxj

 

The Supreme Court in Heller re-enforced the authority of Congress to impose statutory restrictions related to commerce in firearms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distr...dment_findings_and_reasoning_for_the_decision

I would agree in principle but with the understanding of what prima facie means. By definition prima facie is "based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise" so the question is whether there are cases where it can be proven otherwise?

As was established in Heller that addressed firearms the 2nd Amendment, as it applies to the person, relates to self-defense of the home but the 2nd Amendment is not specific to firearms while self-defense of the home is protected by the 2nd Amendment. Let's address self-defense of the home because that was the focus of majority decision in Heller.

A person can use lethal force in self-defense but cannot intentionally cause the death of a person while defending themselves. For example if there is a home intrusion a person can use a firearm to shoot the attacker in the heart or head and that could result in the death of the attacker but the person cannot intentionally shoot the intruder to cause their death because that would be murder. While almost impossible to prosecute if the intruder was to literally freeze in their tracks and "you" still shoot them causing their death you've actually committed murder.

Now introduce a "what if" that I previously introduced to this thread. "What if" a non-lethal weapon that was equally or superior to a firearm in instantly incapacitating one or more assailants is invented? It doesn't exist yet but it's a technological problem being worked on actively. Now the person could defend themselves while eliminating the possibility of incidental death in the process. Now you no longer need a firearm for the purpose of self-defense and logically the firearm is no longer covered by the 2nd Amendment. We would still have the need for certain types of firearms for sport such as hunting or competition but not for the purpose of self-defense.

As noted though that argument doesn't currently exist but we can assume that in the future a non-lethal weapon that's equal to or better than a firearm for the purpose of self-defense of the home is going to be invented.

What we also know is that there isn't a 2nd Amendment argument for firearms that are designed for acts of aggression, such as the M-2 heavy machine gun, and not for the purpose of self-defense. The 2nd Amendment only protects the individual related to self-defense and does not protect the right or ability to wage war.

 

Heller and Miller addressed cases specific to firearms under the 2nd Amendment but never defined what "arms" meant under the 2nd Amendment.

Neither case dealt with regulations on the manufacture or sales of new firearms.

 

Which, even if true, does nothing to diminish the soundness of what I said.
Congress does not have the power to determine the meaning of "arms" as this has been done by the court -- all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd, consisting of those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes.

The answer is no.

- - - Updated - - -

This is either an outright lie, or abject ignorance.
I'll let you choose.

 

Well it looks like this fictional amendment met with a real-life fate....down in flames. But even if it passed, it would not matter because our right to bear arms is an unalienable human right that government does not have the power to infringe. Molon labe, creeps.

 

Under the argument presented by the OP, prohibiting licensed medical personnel from performing abortions - constitutional under the commerce clause - does not deny the right to an abortion.

-Someone- here is a 1st year law student and overestimates his cleverness by an order of magnitude.

 

The Brady Bill, which has now expired, prohibited new firearms that fell into the obscure classification of "assault weapons" that would be classified as "arms" used for traditional lawful purposes. We also know that the National firearms act prohibits "destructive devices" which include a firearm with a bore of over 1/2" (except for some shotguns as determined by the government) and we traditionally had firearms up to 70 caliber that had been used for hunting (they were black powder rifles).

You keep saying "it can't be done" when we have a long history of it being done where the laws were not struck down based upon the US Constitution.

I can accept your opinion that you don't believe that there are any cases where your prima facie (impression) fails based upon compelling arguments but that doesn't imply that the compelling arguments don't exist. I did notice that you completely ignored the "what if" situation I described because it would obviously present a very compelling argument against private firearm ownership for any purpose other than sport including hunting or competition.

The Heller decision related exclusively to the private ownership of lawful firearms by a person lawfully entitled to "keep and bear arms" in the home for self-defense. The decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the commercial manufacture, transport, or sale of firearms.

The Miller decision related to a private person possessing and transporting an existing firearm (shotgun) with an under-length barrel where the person was required by law to register the firearm under the National Firearms Act but had failed to do so. The decision had nothing whatsoever to do with the commercial manufacture, transport, or sale of firearms.

 

Absolutely false.

Absolutely false; nothing about the Heller decision is "exclusively related" to what you said.
Among other things it also spoke to what kinds of firearms are protected by the 2nd, and to what purposes.

Among other things, it listed the criteria a firearm must meet to fall under the protection of the 2nd.

Why do you not know these things?

 

It was anticipated that the hypothetical proposed amendment would be shot down in flames.

Your wrong on the natural/inalienable right. The natural/inalienable right is the "right of self-defense against acts of aggression" while there isn't any natural/inalienable right to own any specific commodity such as a firearm. In point of fact a "natural/inalienable right is inherent in the person" so it can't include any external objects (e.g. a sword or firearm) because the object itself is not inherent in the person.

The Second Amendment is actually a statutory right protection based upon a natural right and is not, on it's own, a natural right. This isn't uncommon in the Constitution. For example the First Amendment protects freedom of speech and expression but speech and expression are not natural rights. The natural right is the Right of Thought and the First Amendment is a statutory protection of the means to express thought. A firearms is merely a means of self-defense and is based upon the Right of Self Defense but no one has a natural right to own a firearm.

 

I stand corrected on the Brady Bill that only imposed regulations on the sale/transfer of firearms from an FFL to a person. That doesn't change the fact that the NFA did restrict ownership of firearms that had been used traditionally such as calibers larger than 50 caliber.

While Heller discussed many things when it came to firearms it only established that "lawful" firearms could be owned and the determination of what a "lawful firearm" is relates to statutory law. Heller didn't make any firearms legal that were illegal nor did it make any firearms that were legal illegal to own. The US Supreme Court left the authority to determine what firearms are legal and illegal to the Congress.

Where?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

The Supreme Court's decision was:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174#writing-USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO

While the Supreme Court in Miller cites a foundation for it's decision based upon history and law it went no further than the above in it's decision and never addressed the specifics of either the history or historical laws that were not under review. Only the National Firearms Act was under scrutiny by the Supreme Court and even that review was limited to a shotgun with an under-length barrel where the firearm had not been registered or taxed.

 

All of which came before Heller and therefore proves nothing.

Nothing in Heller says this.

Nothing in Heller says this.

You deliberately ignore the obvious.

 

This notion that the commerce clause can be applied to anyone, medical personnel or otherwise, engaging in saving a human life...born or unborn...is utter horsepucky and just another weasel-worded bastardization of the Constitution.

Whether there is any unalienable human right to abort a baby is another subject entirely. Both the baby and the mother have an unalienable right to life...so which takes precedence? Which life has more of a right to life than the other? I would imagine the life that is already viable would be the answer...but obviously there is disagreement.

 

Incorrect...the unalienable right to self-defense inherits from the unalienable right to life...and thus the ability to defend that life using any means available. This notion that any government can dictate the means in which I, you or anyone else can defend ourselves is utter bulltwinkle. Man was defending himself with the weapons of his choice long before governments existed.

The Constitution does not grant rights. In some cases, the Bill of Rights for example, it merely attempts to enumerate some of those unalienable human rights. So whether the 2nd Amendment or the Constitution itself exists or not has NO impact on our unalienable human rights...that pre-exist both the document and indeed governments themselves.

 

You're getting close to being correct because you're actually referring to the "Freedom to Exercise" a "Natural/Inalienable Right" but the two aren't the same. The "Freedom to Exercise" a "Natural/Inalienable Right" can be limited without infringing upon the actual "Natural/Inalienable Right" of the person and this is often done for pragmatic reasons based upon the "Natural/Inalienable Right" of the person.

First we need to understand the complete criteria for establishment of the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the person.

A Natural/Inalienable Right of the person is inherent in the person, not dependent upon another person, does not violate the Natural/Inalienable Rights of another person, nor does it impose any involuntary obligations upon another person.

You are correct that the "Natural/Inalienable Right of Self Defense Against Acts of Aggression" is based upon the "Natural/Inalienable Right to Life" which in turn is based upon the "Natural/Inalienable Right of Self" that's the foundation of all "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the person but it's limited because in "Exercising" those "Natural/Inalienable Rights" the person cannot violate the same "Natural/Inalienable Right to Life" of another person. We can defend ourselves but that doesn't allow us to take the life of the person attacking us because we'd be violating their "Natural/Inalienable Right to Life" in doing so.

Firearms are designed to wound, maim, or kill all of which would violate the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the person but we allow the usage of firearms in self defense because there's no alternative to them based upon effectiveness today. The wounding, maiming or death of the person is considered incidental to the act of self defense because no other alternative exists currently but if the alternative did exist in the form of a non-lethal weapon that would render the attacker incapacitated instantly without causing any wounds, maiming, or death then the rational and compelling argument that allows the use of firearms as a means of self defense disappears.

So today we have rational and compelling arguments that allow us to use a weapon designed to wound, maim, and kill which justify the "Freedom to Exercise" our "Natural/Inalienable Right of Self Defense Against Acts of Aggression" with a firearm, even though it can result in the violations of the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of another person, but that will not always be the case. At some point an equally effective or superior non-lethal weapon is going to be invented and when that occurs we no longer had a need or a compelling argument to use a firearm for the purpose of self defense.

If we can defend ourselves without wounding, maiming, or killing another person then there's no justification for possession of a weapon that will wound, maim or kill another person based upon the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the person.

 

You'll need to talk to Shiva -- its his position.

 

"Natural/Inalienable Rights" only apply to the "Person" and based upon both historical and Constitutional precedent the "Person" does not exist until birth. This was extensively explored by the US Supreme Court in the Roe v Wade decision.

That historical and Constitutional precedent is subject to change because the Constitution can be amended to provide personhood to the pre-born but even that creates a problem related to the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the person because, as previously noted, a "Natural/Inalienable Right" does not exist if it violates the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of another person. There can be no conflict related to the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the person. The fact that the preborn is inside of the body of another "person" prevents many of the "Natural/Inalienable Rights" of the preborn from effectively coming into existence until after birth. It could possibly change the criteria for abortion where the fetus would have to be removed "unharmed and intact" from the woman's body, to prevent any act of aggression against the fetus, but if that occurs prior to viability of the fetus then the fetus is going to die of natural causes anyway. Arguably this would increase the cost of the abortion, without preventing the abortion, and because the fetus dies anyway the additional costs would be unjustifiable.

Of note the term "baby in the womb" was a nefarious construct by anti-abortionists because historically a "baby" is a person after birth with "Natural/Inalienable Rights" and while it's still in the womb it's accurately described as a "fetus" representing the fact that it's still in the womb and not yet a person. A "baby" cannot be "aborted" because it's already been born and is a person.

 

An unborn baby is still human life. To kill that innocent human life arbitrarily is murder. Only if the unborn child endangers a woman's life beyond a normal natural birth, can it be reasonably be presumed to be "self defense." Semantics such as person, human life, baby, fetus et al is relevant to the discussion. Simply because some leftist judge legislating from the bench does not mean an action is proper or improper. Based on the constitution, the federal government is only supposed to do what is specifically enumerated in the constitution. That is clearly written in the 9th and 10th list of the bill of rights.

What is IMPROPER IS JUDICIAL LEGISLATION and until that occurred in Roe v Wade, historically an unborn baby was just that, a baby.

 

In Roe v Wade the US Supreme Court addressed why "personhood" (established at birth) was the only Constitutional issue to be addressed and "when life began" was a philosophical opinion that the Court had no role or responsibility to address. Under the Constitution only the "person" has Constitutionally protected rights and in the case of "pregnancy" the women is the only "person" literally protected by the US Constitution.

Your argument is based upon an appeal to emotion founded upon a philosophical opinion and that's completed unrelated to the Constitutionally protected Rights of the Person in the United States. I have no arguments related to the philosophical opinion per se but there is an issue when actions based upon the philosophical opinion would violate the Constitutional protections the "person" (woman) is entitled to.

 

And yet, the court ruled that states could place restrictions on abortions, including prohibition, under certain circumstances.
Why is that?

 

That is true. Based upon a very "progressive" interpretation of the US Constitution the Supreme Court created the classification of "potential person" for a fetus that is developed to the point in the womb where it is "naturally viable" outside of the womb. Basically the Supreme Court treated the fetus at viability "as a person" even though the historical precedent established that the fetus was not a person. This was a very logical progressive interpretation of the US Constitution because the Supreme Court's arguments were that a few millimeters of human tissue that separated the fetus from the outside world where it would be a "baby" entitled to the Constitutionally protected Rights of the Person should not deny those Rights to the fetus.

Because natural viability normally occurs within the last trimester the Supreme Court balanced the Rights of the Person between the woman and the fetus. During the last trimester only a doctor's diagnosis where severe medical problems for the woman existed allowed for the abortion. It was not an elective abortion and, in fact, the only real "elective decision" for the woman after the medical diagnosis would be to NOT have the abortion where she would voluntarily risk her life, or in some cases literally forfeit her life, for the future life of the child. At the opposite end the Supreme Court deferred to the Rights of the Woman allowing a purely elective abortion during the first trimester and during the second trimester the Court established a balance where the rights of the woman and the potential rights of the fetus were balanced and it required both consent of the woman and consent of a medical professional for an abortion occur.

You are correct though. If only the Constitutional Rights of the Person were considered, which would be a very conservative interpretation of the US Constitution, then all restrictions upon abortion would have been struck down as unconstitutional. We only allow abortion restrictions today because the Supreme Court applies a very progressive interpretation to the Constitution. That's where the "anti-abortionists" make a mistake because if a strictly "conservative" interpretation is applied then all restrictive abortion laws are unconstitutional.

Ultimately it was actually a very wise and well thought out decision that reflects exactly what would occur if a Constitutional Amendment granted personhood to the preborn. It balanced the Established Rights of the Woman with the Potential Rights of the Preborn.

 

And so, your nonsense about "Under the Constitution only the 'person' has Constitutionally protected rights and in the case of "pregnancy" the women is the only "person" literally protected by the US Constitution" is...well...nonsense.