Turns out the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute

Graylight · 2022-06-06T14:14:55-04:00

Politics - Turns out the 2nd Amendment isn't absolute (Quote) (31 replies).

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a petition from Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the couple who pointed guns at Black Lives Matters protesters outside their St. Louis, Mo., home.

…The court declined to hear the McCloskeys’ appeal as they attempted to end a probationary period tied to a suspension of their law licenses instituted by the Missouri Supreme Court in February.

…In their petition to the Supreme Court, the McCloskeys argued that their Second Amendment rights were being violated, and noted the pardon and the fact that their actions had been praised by Trump. The couple were denied cert — meaning that fewer than four justices wanted to hear the case — despite a six-to-three conservative majority on the court, which includes three justices appointed by Trump.
yahoo news

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

Correct! The gun nuts keep leaving out the first clause of the 2nd amendment: "A well-regulated militia."

Changeisgonnacome · 61-69, F

@badminton the court didn't even go there.

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@badminton @Changeisgonnacome Didn't need to go there. Their law licenses were suspended for their reckless behavior; no one tried to take their guns away from them. Lawyers refusing to be held accountable for their actions. Go figure.

Ozuye502 · 36-40, M

@badminton the language of well regulated doesn’t mean what you are implying

Graylight · 51-55, F

@Ozuye502 Oh, well then, by all means educate us. I'm so eager to learn of your background in constitutional law and analysis. I wish the government had known about you in the roughly 200 years it's been struggling with the second amendment and what it really means. But now we have the answers. Please explain the entire second amendment to us, and while you're at it try the fourth, 7th or 9th as well.

Ozuye502 · 36-40, M

@Graylight a well regulated militia means a uniformly trained and armed military force the right of the people to have access to sufficient arms and ammunition is actually in the federalist papers. Also it was legal For a private citizen to own a full on war ship. Complete with naval cannons.
So in short a modern interpretation of the second amendment would read
“A uniformly armed and trained militia being necessary for the security of a sovereign nation, the rights of the citizens to own and carry arms shall not be infringed”
But here’s a bigger question
What the hell is government planning on doing? 200+ years of firearm ownership and now you want to take away firearms? Hmmmm sounds like they are planning on doing something that we the people would shoot them for? At least that is what history will dictate… see idk Hitler Mao Stalin Castro or anyone responsible for genocide of their own people….

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@Ozuye502 What you are leaving out are the "well-regulated" and "uniformly armed and trained" context in modern day. At the time the Constitution was written, such terms referred to communities having their own organized citizen self-defense groups to protect against Native American tribal attacks, or occasional forays from other British and French colonies, and in the South, from the fear of slave rebellions. And as far as having warships with cannon, that was only legal if they had privateer licenses where they served as a de facto extension of the Navy. Current terrorist groups, gangs, and just plain gun nuts meet these tests, if the Supreme Court really believed in strict consturctionist readings of the Constitution at the time of its writing.

And while Second Amendment defenders always focus on "taking our guns away", the regulatory statutes being overturned mostly have to do with regulations on their purchase, tracking capability, concealed carrying, and fire power capacity -- not taking them away. Even in the days the Constitution was written, those in charge of the well-regulated militias -- and they had command structures approved by local communities -- placed reasonable limits on keeping them out of the hands of mentally ill and/or violent, and later on restricting the bringing of them into town.

Diotrephes · 70-79, M

@Graylight Which State do you live in?

Graylight · 51-55, F

@Diotrephes The Crazy Drain of the USA, Florida.

Not a native.

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@Ozuye502 That is an opinion.

Diotrephes · 70-79, M

@Graylight May I draw your attention to Article I, Section 8, of the Florida constitution=

"Text of Section 8:
Right to Bear Arms

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.

(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun."
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Florida_Constitution

Notice that it doesn't say ____ about being in the militia.

badminton · 61-69, MVIP

@Diotrephes That Florida amendment shows there is much room for debate in what regulations may be impossed on firearms.

Diotrephes · 70-79, M

@badminton Gun control is a State issue under the current federal constitution. The control freaks in Washington stole the issue from the States in the 1930s. All federal gun control laws are unconstitutional and need to be revoked. But they built an empire with the ATF bureau.

BTW, most States put their own spin on the issue. Some copy the federal language and some don't even mention the right to bear arms.

New Mexico and Missouri probably have the clearest language =

"Text of Section 6:
Right to Bear Arms
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_II,_New_Mexico_Constitution

"Text of Section 23:
Right to Keep and Bear Arms--Exception
That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction."
https://ballotpedia.org/Article_I,_Missouri_Constitution

Wouldn't you say that even an imbecile can read and understand those articles?