Politics Trump’s support for background check bill shows gun politics ‘shifting rapidly’

I read an article that said the 2008 ruling was about federal infringement but if a state infringes they may hear another case.

 

Actually this is not true. The militia is;

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1) National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.





The fellow is part of the unorganized militia. In practice we regulate the dickens out of (1) and do little with (2).
In the past we have call them to duty, the last time it was called the draft, administered by your local Draft board.
I think young men still must register upon reaching the age of 18 although they do not get called as it stands now.

The use of the militia in the 2nd amendment in my view is one of the reasons for the right that shall not be infringed.
However, It is not the only reason. As at least Madison knew, we the people have the God given right to defend ourselves and our rights with the force of arms when necessary. This has been a long standing right recognized in Natural Law.

 

if I interpret the 1st amendment to mean I can scream fire in a crowded movie theater then I would be misinterpreting my rights. The justices have clearly spoken on that issue and no such right exists.

 

I think you are in error. But I will not argue it further with you. You are in favor of the infringement and therefore do not support the Constitution.

 

That could be the case, but there have been many state restrictions that have gone into place, cases brought and the SC has not accepted any of them. Usually indicates sellers law.

 

Wouldn't it suck if some state does something really drastic and they end up throwing out all state restrictions?

 

Well any ruling on any topic only applies to the case being decided. So, for something to overturn settled law would most likely not be a state overstepping boundaries (which certainly happens) but more likely it would be from a new slate of SC justices going with what had previously been a minority decision, it could certainly happen, I suspect if republicans hold the presidency for a couple more terms then gun legislation could become impossible, interpreters happen when absolute clarity doesn’t exist.

 

Google before you spread commonly known fake news.

You can scream fire in a movie theater (do you really think they'd specify the theater had to be "crowded")?

 

In the case of felons, we have agreed to take the felons rights period, not just his right to bear arms, but even worse, his right to freedom and the pursuit happiness. Sometimes even his life. So I do not see an infringement of a right here, but the taking or suspending of rights for failure to uphold the bargain, being a law abiding citizen.
The license and concealed weapons restrictions are infringements, in my view, but they do not remove the right.

 

Unreasonable you say. And I say it is simply factual that when you infringe on what is not to be infringed, you are simply nibbling away at a right you would rather not have, or you are changing the meaning of the word, infringed to accomplish the same end. If you are going to infringe then the honest way is to amend.
When we can no longer agree on the meaning of the words used then the Constitution becomes less clear with each event. Yes sir, I do see this as the game plan by many that easily ignore it, or even find it pesky.

The courts are not in place to find "acceptable" but unlisted "exceptions" to the Constitution or the words used. The amendment process is in place to alter the word used or the basic meaning, when that is your intent. Now some do this all the time. That is a problem. Read Roe vs Wade, what a load of shit.

 

Another example of arms being infringed that "everyone" finds acceptable! Look at the way machine guns were originally taken away from our rights.
They infringed with pure subterfuge. Requiring a "tax" be paid. You needed a tax stamp to show it was legal. The catch was the government would never issue the stamp. Now that sort of shit make a mockery of the Constitution. I know it is cumbersome and heavy to pass amendment but it is not intended to be done by a simple majority. Doing it by acceptable restrictions by a court is even worse, making a complete mockery of the Constitution and the court.

Some where along the line they did sort of correct the procedures with machine guns but it is still an unlisted infringement. Where as the 2nd should be clarified for all to see. Including the right to defend yourself and your rights with force of arms when necessary. Defense being the keyword here as apposed
there is no right of individuals to bear arm for offensive purposes. That belongs to the sovereign only. Thus we get ride of Machine guns as a right. Perhaps the bar should be somewhat lower. I am open to suggestion here.

 

Usually the negative discharge is the result of the military justice system. So in that sense not much different than the courts taking your rights.
But I am not an expert and do not know the whole store. We had a JAG person in the forum at one time?