pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
The 2A: Constitutional Right or a Governmental Wrong?
#11
Valorius Wrote:SCOTUS has said it is ok for the 2nd amendment to be regulated.

This is the problem. I honestly believe that we should allow weapons of war to be owned by the private sector. That way, government leases them for use and compensates the owner if ordinance gets used up. Before everyone jumps down my throat, i'd like to point out that privately owned nfa items like full auto, aow, and silencers account for a negligible amount of crime.
Stirpot
Reply
#12
panopticonisi;76444 Wrote:
Valorius Wrote:SCOTUS has said it is ok for the 2nd amendment to be regulated.

This is the problem. I honestly believe that we should allow weapons of war to be owned by the private sector. That way, government leases them for use and compensates the owner if ordinance gets used up. Before everyone jumps down my throat, i'd like to point out that privately owned nfa items like full auto, aow, and silencers account for a negligible amount of crime.

I would really like to own an Apache, or a SEAL Team, or an RBS-70 (for those pesky Drones)! Just kidding about the SEAL Team. My house doesn't have enough bedrooms! Big Grin
NRA Life Member, NRA Certified Instructor:  HFS, Pistol, Rifle, PPIH,PPOH
Suarez Combat Arms Instructor School
Admit nothing.  Deny everything. Demand proof.
If we lie to the government, it's a crime. If the government lies to the people, it's called politics.
Paying for welfare is slavery.
Reply
#13
Longer post: Reader's Digest version: Even though restrictions or exceptions are allowed under other amendments, those other amendments generally allow some form of restriction. Not so with the 2A.

**********

The chief difference between the 1A and the 2A, as I understand them:

1A: "Congress shall make no law respecting...". The executive branch can determine what is "reckless"/etc. I.e. it is reckless to yell "fire" in a crowded opera house when there isn't a fire knowing it will cause a stampede and injure/kill people.

2A: ..."the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Instead of simply conferring a "right" or preventing regulatory laws from being created by congress, the 2A expressly prohibits any infringement on the right of people to keep and bear arms.

Now unlike with the 3A, no clause for exception ("without the consent of the Owner (implying the consent of the owner allows quartered troops in the home)... but in a manner to be prescribed by law (implying there can be a legal process to allow this, with the owner's consent).") is given. Additionally, the 3A specifically states "in time of peace". In theory, in a time of war, the 3A would not apply.

Unlike the 4A, there is no reasonableness clause for exemption. I believe the 2A is the strongest written in that - unlike so many others in the Bill of Rights - it clearly states that the RKBA shall not be infringed, and offers no caveat, exception, or "reasonableness standard". Therefore, the 2A's pervasiveness and authority cannot accurately be compared to that of the 1A, 3A, or 4A.
Reply






Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What's wrong with Merrick Garland? gascolator 2 777 03-24-2016, 08:36 AM
Last Post: Mr_Gixxer
  Puerto Rico is now Constitutional Carry jahwarrior72 8 1,796 07-06-2015, 11:41 PM
Last Post: Uinta Firearms
  Ohio Lawmakers Introduce Constitutional Carry Bill dc dalton 3 894 12-18-2013, 08:02 PM
Last Post: Stonewall
  Bloomberg: If You Sell a Gun to Your Son, 'There's Something Wrong in Your Family' Pocketprotector 4 908 04-16-2013, 03:39 PM
Last Post: Dave
  Safe New York Act Mishap: Wrong Guy's Guns Confiscated das 4 1,018 04-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Last Post: GregorOneEye



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.