CA City Councilman Claims Second Amendment Means Government Can Regulate Guns

' You see, Councilman Mark Olbert sits on the San Carlos City Council, where they were considering a moratorium that would block a retail store from opening. The store would also sell guns, which is all but guaranteed to put a burr in the saddle of any California politician. Olbert supported the moratorium but was reported as making a claim that makes so little sense as to be laughable were this not from someone tasked with making laws for regular folks.
Turner’s Outdoorsman has already signed a 10-year lease for the location on Industrial Road near REI, and has spent $125,000 on the new store.
Grocott also said he was concerned that the city may see a lawsuit from Turner’s or a Second Amendment group such as the NRA.
But Councilman Mark Olbert, who voted “hell yes” for the moratorium, had a different take on the issue. Olbert said that since guns are the only commodity mentioned in the Bill of Rights, government is allowed to regulate guns.

There are liberal idiots..and then there are California's liberal idiots

Source: https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2017/...amendment-means-government-can-regulate-guns/

 

Sweet merciful crap.....

 

All across the Kingdom of Liberalism, mindless thralls register their agreement with thunderous applause.

 

Maybe he means like when the government could regulate the sale of people.

 

Second amendment? Try Winkler (2007, Scrutinizing the Second Amendment, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 683). Here's the abstract:

One overlooked issue in the voluminous literature on the Second Amendment is what standard of review should apply to gun control if the Amendment is read to protect an individual right to bear arms. This lack of attention may be due to the assumption that strict scrutiny would necessarily apply because the right would be "fundamental" or because the right is located in the Bill of Rights. In this Article, Professor Winkler challenges that assumption and considers the arguments for a contrary conclusion: that the Second Amendment's individual right to bear arms is appropriately governed by a deferential, reasonableness review under which nearly all gun control laws would survive judicial review. Professor Winkler's discussion is informed by the example of state constitutional law, where the individual right to bear arms is already well established. Forty-two states have constitutional provisions guaranteeing an individual right to bear arms and, tellingly, every state to consider the question applies a deferential reasonable regulation standard in arms rights cases. No state applies strict scrutiny or any other type of heightened review to gun laws. Since World War 2, the state courts have authored hundreds of opinions using the reasonable regulation test to determine the constitutionality of all sorts of gun control laws. All but a fraction of these decisions uphold gun control laws as reasonable measures to protect public safety. If the federal courts follow this universal practice of the state courts and apply the reasonable regulation standard, nearly all gun control laws will survive judicial review. Moreover as Professor Winkler argues, even if the federal courts decide to apply strict scrutiny, most weapons laws might still be upheld due to the overwhelming governmental interest in public safety. If so, then any eventual triumph of the individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment is likely to be more symbolic than substantive.

 

LOL, an abstract basically saying the second amendment would be nullified if enough people ignored it. We could apply that to the 1st too.

 

Infringement does not include regulations that have a compelling state and public interest.

 

Two words........ Supreme Court.

 

Pushing for gun bans and gun control is now political poison for politicians in America. Let's hope they keep it up.

“There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.”

"Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”" Adam Liptak, A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Sways Judiciary, NYT, 5/6/2007.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/u...hp=&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&

 

Indeed. Its now about political bias, rather than logical discourse.

 

Who establishes what is "compelling"? You?

 

The People, through their duly elected Representatives.

 

It is about what is now a near universal and fully justified fear of Big Government.

Please tell your favorite politicians to keep pushing hard for more gun control, and be sure to donate to their campaigns - until it really hurts.

 

Like Reagan's use of Military Keynesianism? And why did the Founder generation not stop gun control? Why did they embrace it?

US politicians do often lack principles. Easier to cave in to the post-truthers

 

Guns are already regulated though.

 

LOL! Are you saying that Republican politicians stink on ice?

 

And that's fine, within reason; all pending meeting Constitutional requirements.

 

So U.K. Pols are paragons of virtue ?
Highly unlikely.

 

In Heller vs DC, the SCOTUS, rejected interest balancing arguements.
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/district-columbia-heller-the-case-for-the-second-amendment
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
The solution for the Antis is to pursue an Amendment.

 

An amendment they know they have no hope of passing.

 

so what, we can't ban felons from owning a gun?

we can't ban guns from courts and schools?

we can't limit gun sales to folks over 18?

 

Great. When do we start neutering people and having mass executions of violent felons?

 

Having appraised a good number of homes in San Carlos, CA I have a general idea of the sort of person who lives there. Then there is the general nature of the city people living in CA.

San Carlos has no open areas to shoot pistols or Rifles at. San Carlos is very hilly. I don't doubt it has some of the city where one might safely shoot firearms. But the 2nd amendment has the not to infringe statement in it. Let's hope this silly idea is defeated.

So the part of the city that facilitates shopping is not large. And i am surprised a location for a sports store was found. They should be happy they can generate local sales taxes. Guns taxes are not low. So they can get a boost to the local economy.

 

Ban .... BAN is a favorite word of Democrats. This is why I call them non liberals.

 

Normally when laws are passed, it boils down to actions, not implements. Guns are simple implements. Guns are well known to be at peace with the world. Trying to regulate guns is the wrong thing. And the 2nd amendment carries it's guarantee our rights shall not be infringed. I see no upside for Democrats at all. This is why they struggle to create more and more laws yet fail daily and though still keeping on trying, keep on failing.