Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

If that was actually true there would be no argument, but there is so its not.

 

It is entirely possible to have a more sensible, more up to date in terms of modernity, second amendment, a new one which disallows states to ban ALL firearms, allowing a sensible, reasonable, practical ownership within the constraints set by Heller which allows states to regulate respecting this new amendment. Bruen is unworkable, as a number of Judges are complaining.

Yes, though I personally would like to see all guns go away, forever, it is not the will of the people and I must abide by that. Given that fact, I submit the above. I'm not saying 'repeal the amendment', I'm saying 'repeal and replace the second amendment with one that works for modernity'.

Yes, I'm afraid, what was workable in the late 18th century, just might not be as viable today, given the growth and vastly more nuanced and complex our society is today compared to yesterday.

 

Oh the tired Old musket argument....
Tell us you don't know anything about the history of guns without telling us. Do you know what sort of arms were in existence at the time the second was written? Evidently not because they were repeating arms of plenty at the time

 

Except that the reason for the militia was because they didn't want a standing army, since we have a standing army we don't need a militia and there's no need for more guns than people.

 

Incorrect. Washington's constitutional army predates the drafting of the Constitution by over one decade

 

Yeah I reject that as completely wrong. Stevens ignored the intent of the founders, the context of the creation of the constitution, and the very nature of federalism,, He was a complete assclown who essentially admitted he was dishonest with his pathetic article he wrote when he left the bench where he wanted to change the second amendment, If I were supreme leader, he would have been charged with treason and certainly impeached for his disregard of our constitutional rights. All the evil or reckless harm one can do with a gun is already subject to severe criminal or ruinous civil sanctions. Your side is just mad that you all cannot continue to harass people who don't buy into your woke agenda with stupid harassing gun restrictions

 

what we don't need are Karens who want to push gun control laws because they don't want to crack down on real felons and because they don't like the politics of pro gun groups who despise Karenesque control freaks

 

that's just plain silly. the recent supreme court decisions on guns are at least somewhat consistent with the obvious intent of the constitution but still a bit too leftwing. All federal gun control laws that affect private citizens acting in a private capacity on non federal lands, should be obliterated.

 

Thomas is there because Bush was told he had to pick a black to fill Marshall's seat
Alito was first in both his class at Princeton and then Yale law, and was widely regarded as the top US Attorney in the country-I know this because the former USA in my district was the guy who did the evaluations of US Attorneys' offices for the DOJ. Kavanaugh was on the Yale Law Journal and a widely respected court of appeals judge for what-over a decade. You just don't like the fact that they reject the statist bullshit gun restrictions that the left wants to use to harass conservative gun owners

 

Not necessarily because they are conservative, as a number of conservative justices upheld Roe.

There was no ruling more damaging to America than citizen's united.

Roe was uncalled for, as it was upheld for 50 years by libs and conserves, and what is the result? Chaos in the states, children who are raped can't get an abortion. It's result is more damage to America. The death of young women has increased due to DIY abortions, which would not have occured but for the striking down of Roe, and prior to that, the court allowing states to make life difficult for abortion clinics to operate.

Heller has led to more guns everywhere. In my view, that doesn't make AMerica safer, for it that were true, given the number of guns everywhere, we should be the safest nation on earth, which we are clearly not.

Heller led to Bruen, which is unworkable, judges are now telling us.

Gutting the voting rights act led to voter suppression laws which, for the stated reason of 'voter integrity' a concept not rooted in fact, but bias against minorities who tend to vote for the opposition.

And you expect me to be all warm fuzzy about this court?

Conservatives of yesteryear would not have agreed with this court.

The public opinion of this court is about on par what they think of congress. And why do they think that about congress?

Because of the uncompromising T party/ Freedom caucus, which led Boehner to abandon his post.

The hard right is the problem, and these are the same guys, responsible for the crazy court, and donald Trump, who is a merchant of chaos.

In short, the hard right has wrought chaos in America.

But, you don't see it, I suppose.

ANd don't give me any crap about the hard left.

Why? Because the hard left is not in as control of the DNC as the hard right is in control of the GOP.

 

Irrelevant, as you know.

 

It's very relevant. You're telling us that you really don't know much about the topic.
The Constitution was drafted sometime in the 1780s and multi-shot firearms predate that by a good amount of time.

So no the second amendment does not just apply to muskets.

 

Yes, there is no assurance that men of letters are wise.

I've said this many times, elsewhere:

I think history can only lead us to one conclusion:

That if wisdom and intelligence reside in the same human being, it is a coincidence.

Your premise, therefore, is summarily rejected.

Proof? Alito's leaked memo's tone was that of cavalier arrogance, (noting that arrogance is bad enough, but one that is accompanied with 'cavalier' is even worse) one not at all wise for a SCOTUS justice. Thomas's opinions just aren't on any level I would expect from a SCOTUS justice. And Kavanaugh's behavior at the senate hearing clearly lacked the kind of wisdom I would expect of someone aspiring to the highest court.

But, to be sure, resumes have a value, I'm not dissing all learned and accomplished souls, but that fact, in my view, doesn't negate the principle.

 

If the BoR does not apply to States as well as the Feds, the whole thing may as well not exist at all. If my city, town, county, State, or some other non-federal entity can violate my rights against unreasonable searches and set a policy that all homes in their AO by just deciding to randomly select X amount of properties to search each day, and the owner(s) either get an unexpected knock on the door, or they just search your home while you're at work, and there is nothing I can do about it!

That dog don't hunt.

 

so what is your position-the second amendment doesn't protect individual rights or it does and that is why you want it repealed? Alito is brilliant and I don't think your assessment of Thomas is based on anything other than you don't like how his rulings impact your desire to ban guns. and Kavanaugh was nefariously attacked by dishonest scum and his response was expected and reasonable given the scum that attacked him. in fact I respected Kavanaugh more for pushing back against those POSs

 

the left loved the 14th amendment when it was used to strike down things like bans on gay marriage or interracial marriage. Or some of the "rights" that protect criminal defendants. Now they hate incorporation when it limits the ability of Karens in state office to pass stupid harassing gun laws

 

Yes, the right offen shout, which they presume is an all inclusive argument against any gun regulation, "shall not infringe'.

But what they don't get is that 'shall not infringe' goes only to 'the right', NOT the scope of that right. And it is the scope of the right where regulation enters the picture. But, some rulings, such as Heller, and Bruen, and narrowed the scope. I think with Bruen, though they claim otherwise, is a veiled attempt to rid America of all gun regulation, or most of it, on a vague notion of 'tradition and history' which more and more judges are finding is unworkable.

 

Well, there is the small detail, that, unlike bullets, gays don't kill people.

there is that.......

 

really? AIDS killed thousands including one of my better friends in HS and one of my cousins. the AIDS epidemic blossomed at bath houses where people having sex with dozens of other gays created a perfect environment for that virus to become highly resistant to the human immune system. BTW I heard an interesting fact on a news show last night-the number of minority trans people with AIDS is huge-something like 60+%.

you do know your argument is completely specious: if anti gun democrats really were about saving lives, they would not have been in favor of the bill of rights protecting criminals as illustrated with Gideon and Miranda etc.

 

Can any gun control advocate explain why the Founders would want to establish a government that could disarm the populace knowing that they had just come out of a war against a tyrannical government that tried to disarm them?

 

you miss the entire tenth amendment issue. now at a state level, you do have a colorable argument

 

excellent point-the historical context is one of the most damning and effective arguments against the second amendment reinterpretation by gun banners

 

Your incessant use of tawdry, sophomoric and cheap characterizations leads me to question your objectivity, where such suggests to me your opinions are rooted in emotion, and lack foundation.

Putting that aside, to answer your 'what is your position' question.....

I want it repealed and replaced with a more clear, concise, amendment that adapts to the more nuanced needs of modernity and the will of the people.

I think a new second amendment (the 28th, or whatever) should include:

1. Clarify the Perimeter for the Right to Bear Arms: Specify what constitutes a "well-defined perimeter" for the right to bear arms. This could include defining what types of arms are covered, under what circumstances they can be carried, and any geographical or situational restrictions where the amendment could be more fundamental, allowing states to further regulate scope within perimeters.
   
   
2. Specificity in Overturning Precedents: I advocate the repeal of Bruen, for reasons given below.
   
   
3. Incorporation Doctrine Clarification: When disallowing bans on all guns and incorporating this right to the states, ensure the language is clear about how this interacts with federal law and individual state constitutions.
   
   
4. Municipal Powers and Limitations: For the provision allowing municipalities to ban handguns, detail the extent of this power and any limitations. It could be useful to include criteria or guidelines for these bans to ensure consistency and legal clarity.
   
   
5. Gun Registration and Criminal Provisions: Be explicit about the procedures and requirements for gun registration. Clarify the criteria for confiscation and the process for felons to have their rights restored, ensuring due process is maintained.
   
   
6. State-Level Regulations: When allowing states to further regulate, provide a framework or principles guiding this regulation. This could include ensuring that state laws do not contradict the core rights established in the amendment.
   
   
7. Consistency with Other Laws and Rights: Ensure the amendment is consistent with other constitutional rights and legal principles, such as due process, equal protection, and privacy.
   
   
8. Flexibility and Adaptability: Include a clause that allows for future adjustments or clarifications, recognizing that societal needs and technological advancements can change the landscape of gun ownership and regulation.
   
   
9. Balancing Rights with Public Safety: Aim for a balance between individual rights and public safety, making it clear how the amendment seeks to achieve both objectives.
   
   
10. Public Involvement and Transparency: Consider a provision for public input or consultation in the formulation of state or municipal gun regulations, fostering transparency and democratic involvement.

On the repeal of Bruen, I offer the following reasons, each link to a source or sources (in the annotations)

Public Safety Concerns: Critics argue that the Bruen decision could potentially increase the number of people carrying concealed firearms, thereby raising the risk of gun violence12.

State and Local Autonomy: The Bruen decision restricts the ability of states and local governments to regulate firearms based on their unique circumstances and public safety needs34.

Historical Context and Interpretation: Some legal scholars argue that the Court’s interpretation in Bruen does not adequately consider the historical context of the Second Amendment56.

Impact on Law Enforcement: Law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns that the ruling makes their job more dangerous, with more individuals potentially carrying concealed weapons2.

Potential Increase in Gun Trafficking: There is concern that loosening restrictions on concealed carry permits could lead to an increase in gun trafficking2.

Erosion of Gun Control Efforts: Advocates for stricter gun control see the decision as a setback in efforts to reduce gun violence178.

Public Opinion: Some argue that the ruling goes against public opinion, as various polls have indicated that a majority of Americans favor some form of regulation over the ownership and carrying of firearms910.

Legal Precedent and Judicial Activism: Critics of the decision also argue that it represents a form of judicial activism, with the Supreme Court overruling longstanding precedent and state laws without sufficient legal justification711.

 

I don't claim to be Objective-I claim to be CORRECT on what the founders intended and my position is backed up by several different foundations including

1) the comments the founders made
2) the historical context of the document as Kal noted
3) the fact that the founders created a federalist system and not giving gun control powers to the federal government is consistent with that dual system
4) that my interpretation of the second doesn't create contradictions-either in terms of the document itself or current interpretations

Gun registration has no value in fighting crime. It has lots of value for facilitating future confiscation, punitive taxes or fees and shifting the burden of proof onto citizens.

That advocates for gun control don't like Bruen is precisely why it is a good decision. The OPINIONS of gun banners mean absolutely nothing to me. Claiming loosening restrictions on LAWFUL GUN OWNERS carrying firearms has absolutely no impact on gun trafficking

what really causes me to laugh is that we both know that public safety is not what really motivates gun banning or gun restricting advocacy

 

In other words you want it so complicated that the average man will never be able to understand it and will require a damn good lawyer to make sure they don't end up on the wrong side of the law. Which also further opens the door to "reinterpretations" by anyone with an agenda. After all, 100 years from now the "meanings" will not be "understood".

If you were truly worried about public safety concerns then you would be all for banning a lot of other things that interfere with public safety. Are you? Or is this selective?

Do you advocate that the incorporation doctrine be removed? Because that is apparently what you want by returning the 2nd Amendment to the States. This will of course require that the FFA be removed.

Historical context...I again ask: Can any gun control advocate explain why the Founders would want to establish a government that could disarm the populace knowing that they had just come out of a war against a tyrannical government that tried to disarm them? What do your "scholars" have to say about that?

Impact on Law Enforcement: And other law enforcement agencies have expressed no concern and in fact have gone against gun control laws enacted by their own State leftwing gun control advocates. Funny how you ignore those.

Potential increase in gun trafficking: Aren't you for making marijuana legal due in large part because it can't be controlled?

Erosion of gun control efforts: So? Wah? That's kinda the point of those that support Individual Rights. To not let gun control advocates interfere with those Rights.

Public Opinion does not get to decide what Rights people have. We've already been through that in our history. It wasn't a good look for us. Why do you think its a good look for us now?

Legal Precedent and Judicial Activism: This coming from a person who openly advocates that judges should reinterpret the meanings of the 2nd Amendment in order to bow to public opinion. Rich.