Should states decide on gun ownership?

I think we are talking past each other.

You have an inherent right to: lethal self defense, to speak freely, to assemble, freedom of worship, freedom from unjust searches and incarceration, and the other issues touched on in the first 8 amendments. In the Constitution these are implied and then also covered in the "immunities" clauses.

Now voting, office holding, serving on juries, access to courtrooms, those are privileges associated with a lawfully ordered society. We do need free and fair elections. I've read about the 2,000 mules but I have not viewed it. I get the sense that while it may tell a truth, it's not something that is courtroom level evidence. What we need is more dedicated prosecutors taking on election irregularities as a RICO matter and giving them the same diligence and passion that were used to break up organized crime.

Certainly we haven't seen that to date, and we will not see this under Dirtbag Garland.

 

Not so much.

 

We were subject to British Law and under British law, it wasn't a right. It was an accepted practice because the colonies was NOT ENGLAND. It was considered a backward place where civilized people should not go unless it was on the King's Business.

The whole point of the 2a was not about individual freedoms. It was about the difference between the Articles of Confederation, our first attempt, and the US Constitution. Some people thought that the Constitution, at that time, with the provisions it had, was with a strong, central government. The first 10 amendments to the US Constitution were a compromise of sorts, and they were passed to create that delicate balance between a very, very, very weak executive branch from the Articles of Confederation to the somewhat strong, central government in the US Constitution. And in those days, an American was defined on a national scale, it was defined locally, preferably by the state you lived in.

Through the years, from George Washington to Biden and everywhere in between, the central government has changed, become more centralized, and become more powerful. The Constitution was never indended to be stagnant, set in stone, nor a free willy type of document depending on who is holding the Executive Branch. It is a "living document" in which the core principles of the US Constitution provisions remain stalworth, but is adapted to fit the needs of the people and government at that time. Most of the time, the Legislature gets involved and, through the necessary and proper clause, makes those changes without a Constitutional amendment. And that is Constitutional in and of itself.

 

we can start by identifying which state/s have the least gun violence and see what has worked for them and then go from there.

 

Maine. New Hampshire. Vermont.

 

On a per capita basis?

Here is the list of the states with the most, and the least gun violence. Top 5 countdown:
Most gun violence per capita:
5. Alabama
4. New Mexico
3. Wyoming
2. Mississippi
1. Alaska

Least gun violence per capita:
5. Connecticut
4. Rhode Island
3. New York
2. Massachusetts
1. Hawaii

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-violence-by-state

 

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies." -- President George Washington

FIRST ANNUAL ADDRESS, TO BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS, JANUARY 8, 1790

 

The essence of the Constitution isn't to be reinterpreted, but applied as it was written. Modernization is accomplished through amendments of which 27 have been ratified. Others have failed. [See post #403]

 

The biggest fear was that someone or a group of people would all be like King George III. That was their experience, especially recently in colonial times. Remember, we started our revolution with "no taxation without representation." Yet the Constitution did not incorporate that into the document, not the first draft or final draft. Second, a lot of things we have today were even imagined in those days. For instance, postal roads. They were the only official roads allowed under the Constitution. Yet, we used those funds to build US highways, including interstate highways. Postal roads were used primarily to deliver postal mail while most people rarely used them. They went as the crow flies, pretty much, even in a state as populous as New York or Virginia. So, if we use your thought process, then even interstate highways were not allowed under the Constitution nor the agencies, through the Department of Transportation. Most of the things we take for granted, we like, both conservative and liberal, is not in the Constitution under original meaning on how you are defining original meaning. If that was the case, then state militias would be OUR only national defense and the large defense we have is technically unconstitutional because it was not the intent of the original founders. In fact, there is a famous story that involved Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Hamilton, in 1790, they argued about creating military academies. Jefferson pointed out at that time, "wherein the Constitution does it say that." None of them found it and neither did Jefferson. Yet Jefferson helped create US military Academy, commonly known as West Point.

Now the Supreme Court has ruled, a few times, on an individual right to own and bear arms, but it has never ruled that with all firearms or any firearms, including "dangerous" firearms such as cannons and other devices. That has been consistent with the cases by the Supreme Court throughout its history. All justices, conservative and liberal, interpret, the Constition. Sometimes, the conservative judges find their inner liberalism, like Bush v Gore, which under your definition, should have been rejected period.

You really want to go this route here American?

 

Then as it is written, as it was debated and ruled on in 1789, was never about individual freedoms period. The original founders defined freedom as follows: we created a new form of freedom, incorporated with owning property freely and certain rights. The property and certain rights as defined in the Constitution, sometimes with opposing viewpoints. For instance, the 2nd A was intended not to have a professional or full-time army while the Constitution, article 1, section 8 incorporated the need to raise an army. This is in conjunction with wartime. Thus, no permanent standing army that was large, and the use of militias as our primary defense. That all changed after the War of 1812. And that is why we established the United States Military Academy, even though the original intent does not allow it. It is also why we have laws today, both conservative and liberal that are perfectly Constitutional now, despite the original intent.

As I have said, I believe in the individual right to bear arms as long as limits are reasonable. How do you define reasonable? That depends on the law. And Supreme Court has ruled that background checks are perfectly legal and do not "infringe" upon ownership.

 

should each state decide on gun ownership? for the uneducated, the 2nd, amendment of the u.s. constitution makes that call. and state laws don't over rule the constitution. different about the abortion issue. there is nothing in the constitution on abortion. so that is left up to the states. also trade between the u.s. and other nations, is controlled buy the federal gov. according to the constitution. no state can make foreign deals on trade unless ok'd by the federal gov.. get a copy of the constitution if you think i'm wrong.

 

Think of this scenario: Let's say, for instance, a new state was admitted to the union. Let's say, District of Colombia, and said new state of DC prohibited gun usage in its constitution and legislation.

Now, your interpretation of the 2ND would disallow the state of DC's thoughts and rulings on guns. In other words, your interpretation of the 2ND wouldn't be a limitation on federal government it would, rather, be doing the opposite and be putting federal government on steroids. Figure it out, just once.

 

The 2ND (as interpreted) isn't a limitation of federal government as many have claimed but, rather, the 2ND as interpreted is a complete overreach of federal government...an overreach over each and every state.

 

The current interpretation of the 2ND doesn't limit the power of federal government, but to the opposite, the current interpretation of the 2ND greatly enhances federal power.

 

What do you think IS the "current interpretation"?

 

Unsupportable nonsense.
States do not have the power to violate the rights of their people.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.
The 2nd limits the power of ALL level of government, and grants no power to anyone.

 

Pure horse manure madam. By that post you demonstrate abysmal knowledge of constitutional principles. You demonstrate you do not know the difference between rights and powers.

Nowhere in the 9th is the word "power", yet you on your high horse wrongfully claim the amendment give the constitution its implied powers. Law schools are graduating all sorts of poorly educated individuals, a pity.

 

Interpretations of the 2ND are literally, and only the last 13 words of the 2ND: '...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'.

Interpreters of the 2ND don't care about any other words in the 2ND amendment. Federal regulations of state militias was stated at the very beginning of the 2ND and federal regulations to state militias was the intent of the 2ND according to originators of the 2ND...There was no standing army and the only armies protecting the federal government were state militias.

Interpreters of the 2ND don't care that their interpretation makes the 2ND an amendment which gives far and expansive power to the federal. IMO, either the Bill of Rights aren't about limiting federal power (if one were to include the 2ND amendment) or the 2ND amendment doesn't belong in the group of amendments which limit federal power. Interpreters of the 2ND don't care that the limitation of federal power actually intended by the originators of the 2ND was for the federal not to infringe on legislation and constitution of states regarding Arms ownership, er, the last 13 words of the 2ND.

The reason why the wording of the 2ND amendment is so confusing to some people is because interpreters of the 2ND are trying to fit the square peg of 'universal arms availability for all Americans' into the round hole of the original meaning of the 2ND.

 

But you allow the 2ND amendment to violate the rights of states and the people??

 

Dude, the 2ND is literally and only interpreted as the last 13 words of the 2ND. Dude, the 2ND gives overreaching power of Arms ownership to all Americans. The 2ND doesn't ask the states. The 2ND doesn't ask the people.

 

So- if you agree (and I accept) that the relevant part of the amendment is the "shall not be infringed"- which is clearly an absolute restriction limiting the power of any government to do so- how do you figure that it empowers rather than restricts government?

 

You aren't familiar with Heller.
Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause (“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

The US has had a standing army since 1775.

Noting in the 2nd gives any power to anyone.

To anyone other than those who seek to place infringements of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the 2nd is quite clear.

 

More unsupportable nonsense.
The 2nd limits the power of the states, just like the rest of the bill of rights.
A constitutional limitation on the power of the states is not a violation of those powers.
And the 2nd does nothing to limit the rights of the people.