OT- 2nd Amendment IS an individual right-Officially

Yes, I'm familiar with the Kopel article. I said I'm not going to do this anymore, because you don't actually know what you're quoting, nor what it means.

Your Rehnquist quote is from US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 1990. The decision is about the Fourth Amendment, not the Second. When the other Justices voted on the case, they voted on the Fourth Amendment issue. They do not necessarily agree with every detail of discussion on the part of the Justice who writes the opinion of the Court; in this case, Rehnquist.

I don't disagree with the proposition that the Second confers an individual right, certainly one that is not to be denied by the federal government. But Kopel, as he often does, starts off with a modest proposition (that the Second has been mentioned many times in USSC cases), and winds up implying that these are "decisions," which the gun-bloggers pick up like fresh meat and run all over the neighborhood with it. In your case, for example, you conclude, as you said to Jim, "6 Renquist decisions...showed the 2nd was an individual right."

Nonsense. The decisions showed no such thing. And, frankly, you don't understand enough about it to argue with you over the issue.

Several of those cases went even further in drawing a connection with the Second, by way of second Justice Harlan's doctrine relating to the 14th Amendment. As I said, to claim that such a thing is a "decision" in favor of an individual right under the Second is like claiming that the 50 or more USSC cases that cite Dred Scott v. Sandford are decisions in favor of slavery.

You don't get it, Gunner. You just cut-and-paste things you don't understand. So, if you want to argue it, argue away. It means nothing.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress
Loading thread data ...

A Right denied, is no Right at all.

The AWD may only sell to a LEO agency or a military agency, or out of state. So thats no exception. thats a denial to the public.

Correct. It becomes expensive in time, money and fending off Bubba your cellmate.

Now if you simply drive across the border into Arizona, Nevada and most other states, the ability to posess a Class 3 weapon is restored. Its just very very expensve as only the weapons manufactured prior to

1989 may be purchased, so there is a very limited pool of them to buy from. A simple $100 Sten costs $9000.00 when you can find a seller. On the other hand, purchasing a full auto crew served weapon illegally on the street is moderately easy, will cost $1500-5000, and can get you 20 yrs in a maximum security prison if caught.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

And it would be in violation of a rather large number of national and international laws. Not to mention a high speed, low drag visit from Delta, a Broken Arrow team or similar, any of which visit you may not survive.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

No interpretation is necessary. This isn't a matter of opinion. It's a matter of fact. When the DOJ says: "The Constitution's other references to 'rights' of 'the people,' noted above, cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the 'Militia,'" they're trying to separate the militia from the right conferred by the Second. They say it cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the Militia. How more concise do they have to be to make their point?

-- Ed Huntress

degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling

nothing for which he is willing to fight,

miserable creature and has no chance of being

Reply to
Ed Huntress

There is a world of many subjects I know nothing about, and there are details about firearms laws that I haven't kept up with. But John either misunderstood something I said, or I mispoke, as I said in a couple of other messages in this thread. There are few federal preemptions regarding firearms laws.

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

All of that is no doubt true, but that isn't the question. The question is, why is it not a violation of the Second Amendment? I thought you said something about a "right denied."

-- Ed Huntress

Reply to
Ed Huntress

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner wrote back on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 17:51:16 GMT in alt.machines.cnc :

"A Right delayed is a Right denied." The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr.

Reply to
pyotr filipivich

So on the one hand you say that these things can be owned by people that can convince the authorities that they aren't raving lunatics and can keep them in secure safe conditions. But on the other hand Gunner and Sturgeon say that as far as they are concerned these items are banned.

Is that a fair summary?

Reply to
Guido

Thank you for playing. The exit is that way--> Don't touch anything on your way out.

Reply to
Worry Not

The costs involved, including ~ $200K for the facility and security hardware, is probably north of 500,000.00 USD. That is a lot of money and the fees are both substantial and ongoing. Let's put it this way. If Arnold wanted to get this done, he has the money, the legal connections and the influence to make it happen. I do not know how common this sort of thing is but it has,and continues to, happen. Very quietly as a rule. Likewise if you wanted to make a legitimate business venture along these lines. I believe the idea is to set the bar high enough to prevent the local neighborhood watch or a criminal enterprise watch from becoming well enough armed to conduct their own private blitzkrieg.

Reply to
J. R. Carroll

LOL.

For a while I worked at the univ. of WI's nuclear physics department, designing and building instrumentation. Part of the job included installing stuff inside the source rooms of their van de Graaff machine - and because some of the stuff in there (mostly in the target rooms) was hot, we all had to wear film badges.

One grad student made up his mind that they were simply tossing the badges away monthly, rather than having them checked. I'm not sure what drew him to that conclusion.

Anyway he left his badge inside the target room during a run, and at the end of the month it went off with the lot of them. Turns out a) they were checking them, and b) his 'test' triggered some kind of DOE audit of the facility. His instructors were NOT pleased....

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

Since when does the criminal pay any attention to the law?

As I said, purchasing a black market full auto is fairly easy.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

Because in my opinion, unless one has the proper ability to safely store and maintain a nuke, its not suitable for militia usage by individuals.

Note.."my opinion"

On the other hand, private stores of huge amounts of powder in da old days was quite common, as is the possession of dynamite, and various high explosives.

Tell you what, remove all the other restrictions on weapons suitable for militia use, and Ill give up this one.

Got a deal?

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

You are pretty good at taking things out of context. Kudos to you.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

Sure, but keep in mind that Capone went to jail for tax fraud not murder. If you couldn't arrest and prosecute someone for possession alone you would have a much more difficult world from an enforcement standpoint.

Reply to
J. R. Carroll

Denial is not a river in Egypt, Ed.

Gunner

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

- John Stewart Mill

Reply to
Gunner

No. I didn't say they are banned. I said to own one legally in the U.S. requires government permission, which is fundamentally different from the situation with regards to speech and the press, two other rights which are not being infringed. "... shall not be infringed" does not mean "you can have one if we in the government think you can be trusted to have one."

-- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria.

formatting link

Reply to
Robert Sturgeon

Rights often result in a more difficult "enforcement standpoint." We do not shade our respect for other rights to make things easier for the police. If the government refrains from infringing our right to keep and bear arms, enforcement just might be a little tougher for the police; but they exist to protect our rights. Letting our rights be infringed for the sake of those whose duty it is to protect our rights makes no sense.

-- Robert Sturgeon Summum ius summa inuria.

formatting link

Reply to
Robert Sturgeon

I agree. What makes you think those in government care much about your rights?

Reply to
J. R. Carroll

You do realize that several cities in Southern California have revoked the right to free assembly do you not? Harbor City is one. San Pedro is another. When the action was challenged, the city council's in question basically said "tough shit we need to do this to allow law enforcement to do it's job and it's just to bad if it is not constitutional". They admit and then affirm that the actions taken are not constitutional and then laugh.

Reply to
J. R. Carroll

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.