Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Because, as you know, the state cannot restrict the exercise of a right simply because it wants to - it must demonstrate a valid reason and a meaningful effect.
See: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny

Ineffective restrictions on the exercise of a right are unnecessary.
Unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of a right violate the constitution.

Running away...

 

You know this statement is false.

 

The fact Democrats seek to lay as many unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law biding as they possibly can speaks with infinite volume as to their intention.

If only you understood those constitutional restraints as laid out by the USSC - eh?

Educate yourself: Google "Strict Scrutiny".

So long as those regulations do not violate the 2nd Amendment.
See: Bruen, Caetano.

 

You're barking up the wrong tree, a relative of the tree, but not the correct tree.

The courts held that rights are not absolute, and therefore subject to regulation.

That was the relevant point. Those specifics all fall under 'public safety'.

It's regulation for public safety, as long as it doesn't place an undue burden. These are the regulatory constraints

This idea that congress or the states can regulate on only those specific areas in each of the cases is nonsense. Public safety is the constraint, not what was constrained.

As for "sensible', that is to be hashed out by congress and the senate through the normal bill creation process.

Of course, once signed by the president, anyone an sue the constitutionality of the law, if they have standing, and if a court rules, we either live by that ruling, or if is taken to the Supreme Court and they grant cert, when we live by their ruling, who, may, or may not, rule according yours, or my, desire.

That's how it works.

I'm not a lawyer, but if you can refute the above, fire away, but I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

 

What regulations has the court said are allowed under the 2nd?

Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

you fixate on dicta but the government has to have the constitutional power to regulate rights and under BRUEN, to regulate arms, the government has a very high burden to meet and the harassing bullshit laws that democrats want to pretend is crime control, all appear to fail that test.

it is interesting watching democrats fixate on the DICTA in Heller while missing what it really said

 

Few things more amusing than desperate liberals.

 

Okay, but the flip side of that is opposition to public safety regarding the second amendment is all RIGHTWING.

Public safety is a legitimate function of government, irrespective of political parties.

Now, you made a statement which indicates a particular bias, I am not approaching this from a right or let point of view. Public safety is the monitoring concept .

THe fact that second amendment aficionados who are against sensible regulation happen to be Republicans, who, apparently, could give a rat's ass about public safety just because it might impose on them them to lift a finger or two (other than their trigger finger) to comply with a regulation, a slight effort or two which, if the effort wasn't given, might result in public harm, I really don't give a damn. I have to drive to the DMV to renew my license, and of late, I can do it on line, it takes maybe 15 minutes of my time, but if it is aligned with public safety, I don't mind. Why right wingers mind regarding the second amendment is beyond me.

In fact, their ONLY argument is 'well, guns are the second amendment, there is no amendment for cars".

That, Turtledude,if that is going to be your next argument, is a bullshit argument because the Bill Of Rights was NEVER meant to the idea that the only rights that exist are those which are listed in the bill of rights. In fact, that very fear, that people might declare that the right to milk, or the right to own a horse, is NOT a right. Sorry, that's a crap argument and is the reason for the 9th amendment, we have an abundance of rights not mentioned in the bill of rights, and the monitoring concept is 'does the item which we are asserting is a right, it is a reasonable expectation of inclusion into normal life? There is nothing in the bill of rights that says I have a right to an auto, but is owning and driving an auto a reasonable expectation of normal life (or a profession)? It is, so it is right, but like the second amendment, subject to regulation. The only difference is that because it is not in the bill of rights, the government could impose more restrictions which would not be allowed to apply to the second amendment, because the Supreme Court has spoken much more to the ownership of firearms (and the first amendment) than they have for rights that would reasonably construed to fall under the 9th amendment.

I am going to restate my previous comment, and add some thoughts:

The Supreme Court has recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense, in the home. However, the Court has also held that this right is not absolute and that certain reasonable regulations may be imposed on it.

The underlying principle that governs the regulation of firearms under the Second Amendment is that the government may not completely prohibit or severely limit the ability of individuals to possess firearms for lawful purposes, but it may impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of this right in the interest of public safety.

The Supreme Court has articulated several factors that should be considered when evaluating the constitutionality of a firearms regulation under the Second Amendment. These include the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, as well as the interests served by the regulation and its burden on the individual right to bear arms.

In practice, the Court has upheld a variety of firearms regulations, including restrictions on felons and mentally ill persons possessing firearms, laws requiring background checks and waiting periods for firearm purchases, and bans on certain types of weapons. However, the Court has also struck down some regulations as unconstitutional, such as laws banning handguns in the home for self-defense.

Overall, the constitutional constraints on regulation of firearms under the Second Amendment require a careful balancing of the individual right to bear arms with the government's interest in protecting public safety.

 

for years lefties counted on the courts to advance some of their agenda such as pissing all over the tenth amendment during FDR but now that the second amendment is starting to be taken seriously, they are seriously butt hurt

 

nothing we oppose has ANYTHING TO DO WITH PUBLIC SAFETY.
waiting periods are a waste of time
background checks are easily defeated and liberals refuse to enforce the penalties for those who lie on form 4473 and straw purchasers. the bans on weapons will be eviscerated soon enough

why do people like you constantly trumpet "The right is not absolute"

at a federal level it should be-at a state level it now is too but regulations on use-especially don't run afoul of the second amendment.

How many people who support the registration of cars used on public right of ways are actually opposed to people owning cars

how many people who support registration of firearms are opposed to people owning guns?

 

Your statement is false, and you knew it was false when you made it.
The "right wing" does not oppose public safety, the "right wing" opposes unnecessary and ineffective restrictions which violate the constitution
And correctly so.

See above.

See above.

A perfectly rational, reasoned, and sound response.
The enshrinement of constitutional rights - necessarily and intentionally - takes certain policy choices off the table

What regulations has the court said are allowed under the 2nd?

The USSC rejected means-end scrutiny..
Thus, your statement is false, and you knew it was false when you made it.

The USSC rejected means-end scrutiny..
Thus, your statement is false - and you knew it was false when you made it.

Since Miller, the USSC has --struck-- every firearm regulation in question before.
Your statement is false - and you knew it was false when you made it.

The USSC rejected means-end scrutiny..
Thus, your statement is false - and you knew it was false when you made it.

 

He still hasn't addressed the obvious truth:

few if any supporters of publicly used cars requiring registration oppose people owning or using cars

many if not most of those who want gun registration are hostile to gun ownership

 

The fact he continues to make statements he knows are not true should tell you all you need to know.

Never mind the fact...
-You don't need a license to buy, own, or possess a car, or to use it on private property
-If you commit a crime with a car, you get to keep the cars you own, and you can buy as many more as you like.

 

Reread my comment, I made no such declaration.

I will repeat what I wrote: you are correct n one instance, but over a repeated pattern dozens of instances, over time, greatly increases the association.

Besides, there is no requirement in law that public policy has to be derived entirely from statistical analysis. So, it's a moot point.

 

Any lawmaker who makes policy who is hostile to gun ownership should resign. Bias has no place in the halls of congress.

 

Democrats are FAR too in love with their political power to ever do anything like that.

 

The bill creation process subjects any proposed law to many checks and balances, from committee hearings, testimonies from experts, constitutionality from legal scholars, and the like, and that is just to get it out of committee. Once it goes to the floor, congresspersons and senators on both sides debate the various issues in the hopes of forming a consensus strong enough to get the bill through both houses (who will banter it back and forth and add amendments until an amalgamated bill is finalized) on it's way to the president's desk.

ONe or more congresspersons or senators might draft a bill because 'they want to' but that is no assurance it will become law given the intense bipartisan 'scrutiny' it will most certainly be subjected to before it ever becomes law.

Your point, therefore, regarding any bill, is already a fait accompli, i.e, a done deal, that IS the existing process.

Moot point, see above.

 

All of the "studies" you supplied, however, did.

An "increased association" does not constitute proof of the cause you claim.

 

...is irrelevant to what I said.
This demonstration must be made in a court, in defense of the law, when said law is challenged.

 

I'm not speaking to political demographics, how each party tends to view the subject.

I'm speaking in ultimate terms, which is to say:

Public policy regarding the second amendment is ultimately based on public safety, as long as the policy doesn't place an undue burden on the indivudal exercising that right, and we are given these constraints by the Supreme Court, without regard to political affiliations.

AS for political demographics, I could care less. The above IS true.

If you are unable to discern the nuance of these distinctions, I can't help you.

 

The USSC rejected means-end scrutiny..
Thus, your statement is false - and you knew it was false when you made it.

 

if public safety was really the motivation of you anti gun advocates, why are you

1) harassing people least likely to misuse a gun rather than going after those most likely to cause harm with a firearm

2) trying to ban guns that are very unlikely to be misused

3) pushing laws that ONLY limit what peaceful people do and do not change the legal actions of those who are proven to be a threat to society

what it really is-leftwing activists see gun owners as an obstacle to the left wing goal of increasing government control and collectivists use gun gun control as a weapon against those who oppose authoritarian socialism

 

you are being charitable and assuming he even read Bruen, let alone understood its analysis

 

Well, let's take a look at what you wrote, which this conversation appears to be derived from:

Because, as you know, the state cannot restrict the exercise of a right simply because it wants to - it must demonstrate a valid reason and a meaningful effect.
See: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny​

Ineffective restrictions on the exercise of a right are unnecessary.
Unnecessary restrictions on the exercise of a right violate the constitution.​

Ahh, but you didn't mention 'when a law is challenged' Laws, before they become law, are subjected to considerable scrutiny. they do not become law 'just because someone wants to' a statement which is more consistent with law creation, than law challenging, hence my rebuttal

 

He has:

The Supreme Court has articulated several factors that should be considered when evaluating the constitutionality of a firearms regulation under the Second Amendment. These include the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment....