IS the term "The People" in the second amendment different

the natural right that underlies the second-the natural right of self defense

 

your lack of comprehension is not my issue.

 

you confuse irrelevance with lack of comprehension. There is nothing you could possibly post on firearms issues or constitutional law that I would fail to comprehend. I merely note that your comments have nothing to do with my posts. Have you been able to find the part of the constitution that actually was intended to give the federal government the power to restrict what "private citizens can own or possess in terms of arms". The last time you didn't actually understand I was asking about private citizens since you discussed those in federal service

No one denies that those in the army may properly be told what arms they use, what uniforms they wear and who they associate with. But the federal government has no power to tell private citizens any of those things

 

OK
Your irrelevant lack of comprehension is not my problem.
because
A guy who things the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms is wholly unaware of 200+ years of jurisprudence or simply incapable of comprehending the actual factual law.

Either way, it's a you problem.

 

LOL-all you have to do is read my prior posts. I note that the government engages in all sorts of regulation of firearms and at a federal level that should be unconstitutional. You seem to ignore that I admit it happens but I argue it should be prohibited. TELL ME about those TWO HUNDRED YEARS given there was NO FEDERAL firearms regulation prior to FDR which was less than ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO. perhaps you should clean up your comprehension of TIME before you accuse others of not being able to comprehend your often specious assertions

 

and back to the
"I'm my own source"

Crap.

Of course you are your own source.
No educated, rational source would claim the federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. The claim is simply silly.

Wait!
Is this yours?
https://lawhaha.com/law-review-humor-ode-to-the-bluebook/

 

you seem to be unable to understand an assertion about how the constitution should be enforced versus what the current law is. You want to argue against a straw man because, as of now-you have demonstrated an inability to argue against what I and others have said.

you also are on record stating things you knew to be false at the time you said them

all of us who are actually experts on firearms law understand that the FDR courts and congress created-dishonestly-a federal power to regulate firearms based on a bogus expansion of the commerce clause that flies in the face of the ninth and tenth amendments as well as the second. Rather than trying to justify why the FDR expansion of what was Klan instigated any second amendment nonsense is proper, you claim that I claim the federal government cannot regulate firearms.

how about actually debating the points I have raised rather than the fraudulent ones you pretend I have said?

 

Wishes and fishes.

220 years of Constitutional law says you are wrong.

I'll go with that.

AND

I'M AN EXPERT! HOW CAN YOU AREGUE WITH AN EXPERT

You're some guy with a keyboard and an opinion.
Backing your foolish opinion by claiming to be an expert only shows you to be foolish and the only point you make is how you're the expert which we all know is just silly.

 

nothing you have posted in your last 30 posts or so actually refutes anything I say. I note that the FDR regime created a gun control power out of the commerce clause and that is contrary to the intent and words of the constitution and what do you do to rebut it? NOTHING

you claim 220 years and ignore the fact that federal gun control was not even contemplated until less than 100 years ago. When I constantly see irrelevant and evasive responses, the only conclusion is that trolling is the goal, not serious debate

 

You said the authors of the Constitution didn't know the difference between "the people" and a person.

You said the 1st cannot be regulated

You said the federal government cannot regulate the second

you said you were a Constitutional Expert

 

when you make such silly claims, normally you should quote my posts given that your posts have constantly misrepresented what I have said
you seem unable to understand an argument with a factual assertion. I assert that federal gun regulation is unconstitutional but I also concede it continues to exist

you seem unable to make a valid argument as to why federal gun control is constitutional other than stating it has yet to be struck down.

 

Obviously the arguments have been made and your "ideas" lost.
ERGO
It is you who are unable to present a valid argument for literally anything in the face of 220 years of Constitutional Law saying you're entirely WRONG

 

Do you agree with Heller?
you do know that Heller applied to gun laws in DC.
Which, by your measure should have been exempt from any SCOTUS review.
So...

 

are you unable to debate the issue? back when the DC gun ban was in place-prior to Heller-people like you claimed the same thing-and then my side won. Before McDonald, people like you claimed that the second amendment doesnt block state bans-well we won and your side lost. Have your read BRUEN -and more importantly-understood it?

 

why-DC is federal based laws. I agree with incorporation btw. The STATES ratified the 14th amendment

 

DC law is not federal law.
How about
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen
NY law is definitely not federal law.

You like federal regulation (which SCOTUS review are) when you agree but when you disagree?
Your hypocrisy is on full display.

 

I will try to make this simple

1) before incorporation, the second amendment prevented federal infringements. the Supreme Court held that the DC law was contrary to the second amendment

2) after McDonald, the second amendment can be used to strike down state infringements.

Bruen is based on McDonald

understand?

I support any action that strikes down ANY governmental action that interferes with the freedom of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms when that interference violates the intent of the second amendment.

 

You hypocrisy is obvious as is your lack of intellectual comprehension of the law, SCOTUS, or the Constitution.

 

more strawmen-you constantly misrepresent what I have said

I tire of this misrepresentation so I am going to lay it out right here-so any further misrepresentation will be obvious to anyone

1) when the constitution was enacted, there is NO evidence that the founders intended the federal government to have any power over what arms private citizens could own, use, keep and bear. that was seen as a province for the several states

2) this was reiterated by the second amendment in order to placate the anti federalists. However, the second amendment only covered ARMS that a citizen would normally keep and bear. It was based on the underlying natural right of self defense. the right was not "created" by the constitutional bill of rights but merely recognized by it (Cruikshank)

3) laws governing OTHER arms is a tenth amendment issue since the federal government was never delegated any powers in article one Section Eight

4) this didn't change until the FDR administration tried to pander to the public over gang violence and the poaching of livestock (suppressors). the 1934 NFA was upheld-to some extent, by a set up case (See FRYE, The Peculiar case of Miller) of Miller v USA. the MILLER CASE never ever explained why congress had the power to pass the 1934 NFA but merely said the second amendment was not able to strike down the tax provisions based on weapons that there was no factual record (duh, there was no trial and no evidence presented at any level) did not bear a relation to the militia

5) we who find federal gun control to be unconstitutional AGREE that the federal government currently has some powers that are clearly contrary to both the language and the intent of the constitution due to the fact that the Democrats appointed EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL JUDGE from 1933-1953 and by the tie the GOP got control of the courts, the commerce clause precedent had been cemented-fairly strongly into our jurisprudential fabric

6) until McDonald, the second amendment could not be used to strike down infringements at a state level that interfere with keeping and bearing arms.

7) even after incorporation, many state gun laws-mainly those involving USE, are not going to be found to INFRINGE on keeping and bearing

 

Civilians aren't voluntarily in subordinate service to the US government.

Throwing an explosive at the seat of government: Crime of treason.

What in God's Holy Name are you blathering about?

 

also I will cite my prior posts-a small sampling-that go back almost NINE years and are consistent.

this should end the false claims that I deny that the federal government has gun control powers

 

great points-I have noted that those in military service can be told by the federal government

1) what to wear
2) what arms to use
3) where to go
4) who they can associate with

NONE OF THOSE powers are applicable to private citizens

 

You're obviously ill equipped to comprehend but it's called "THE CONSTITUTION"

Yeah, I know,

 

They can be told what to eat or not. What to drink or not. Whether or not they can use a drug or tobacco. ETC.

 

What you cite is not in the Constitution o wise and learned one.