Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Feb 13, 2013.
In a word no. Shall not be infringed means just that. Smarmy lawyers and politicians are so much smarter than us lowly folk that they call the tune. That they get away with it is a testimate of how much we could care less.
The Washington Weasels managed to hold over us an AWB for 10 years which was not legally challenged (as I recall --lest a challenge trigger a SCOTUS decision that the RTB Arms was not an individual's)
Let's not forget the 9A. More evidence that Congress doesn't have the power to enact gun control.
This government does
and by this government I am aiming at more than just the current administration. Power, and its ability to weld it, is exercised by those in such a position to define it.
How many members of Congress and the Senate do you think have actually read the Constitution?
I can't think of any power the Congress doesn't have. Who's going to stop them?
In a word, yes: just because you want "shall not be infringed" to mean, "shall make no law" doesn't make it so. How much regulations does or does not "infringe" is a complicated legal issue that has not yet been decided. Not to mention, take a look at the first amendment, which actually says, "shall make no law" - even that one has always allowed a LOT of laws to be made.
What do you consider to be an "arm"?
Bow & arrow?
Artillery shell filled with Sarin?
Tube filled with Anthrax?
Nuclear tipped ballistic missile?
Does the Congress have the right to regulate any of these things?
Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia.
If you're going to claim that we the people are the militia, then you're stuck with the power congress has in Article I.
Most laws passed by Congress and most Executive actions appear to be unconstitutional. Hasn't stopped them, though.
There is the Militia Act of 1903 that states that the President or government can not make any gun laws. Look up on wikipedia.
"The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws ..."
Well, this is obviously not true.
I would like to read the actual text of the law but haven't found it on line.
I would like to read the actual law and see how it states the government cannot make any gun laws. Do you know where I can find the actual text of the law?
Well there you go CASE CLOSED! Never read that one, I guess we need to forward that to the NRA so maybe just maybe the next time they go before the SCOUTUS they could ACTUALLY use it! And then have the COURT go on record on "Shall not be infringed"!
Ah , look up the definition of Regulation- they are infringements -they restrict things, actions etc.! Our founders were very specific in the definition of Shall not be infringed! Congress shall make NO law restricting nor infringing upon our right to keep and bare!
As no other right has that language used in it! They wanted no doubt as to the purpose of the right! To stop a tyranical government from taking our other rights away- period!
I found it at the congress bills under h.r. 11654 and I copied it and faxed it to my members of congress from Nebraska.
I have searched for the actual text of the Militia Act of 1903- this is the best I have been able to come up with. I assume it is accurate but could be a hoax although that seems unlikely.
I read through it twice and didn't find anything stating the President or government can not make any gun laws.
I also read that it was amended in later years but didn't look for the amendments.
Not completely true, Congress has the authority over the organized militia, the unorganized militia described in 2A is not under the auspices of Congressional oversight. Congress is under the auspices of consent of the governed, who comprise the unorganized militia.
Glad I could clear that up
Call it anything you want - the whole history of constitutional law, from 1789 until this minute, says they can regulate and it is yet to define what laws "infringe." Really, I do this for a living every day.
Look at what you wrote - you even added words to make it what you want and, "Congress shall make NO law restricting nor infringing" still leaves it to a court, in your version, to decide (a) congressional jurisdiction and (b)-(c) what "restricts" or "infringes." Words don't have a certain meaning because you want them to, they have a legal meaning that is a lot harder to establish. Not to mention "congress shall make no law" is from the 1st amendment - basic rules of statutory construction say the 2nd Amendment does not mean "shall make no laws" since Congress obviously knew they could say that and chose not to. You have implied an argument against your own version.
You'd have a better argument to say that 100 years of commerce clause law should be rolled back and that regulating guns is a state issue. Obviously, however, that would be bad news for about half the states.