Why does an Assault Weapons ban not Require a Contitutional Amendment?

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    : )

    The problem with America is the preponderance of low-information emotional voters. This article shows that we do not have a "gun violence" problem, we have a social problem. Too bad more people dont bother to examine the causes of "gun violence," and focus on the very real problems facing our country, instead of blaming inanimate objects. Kids need parents who GAF. Parents need jobs. Families need good homes in safe neighborhoods. All that stuff is way hard to fix, especially before the next election cycle.
    Politicians blame guns. The news media blame guns because it gets ratings. People dont bother to think for themselves, and we end up forgoing basic concepts like innocent until proven guilty via red flag laws. The gun-grabbers could get everything they want and we'd STILL have "gun violence."
    SMH America....

    Baltimorgue, which is mentioned in the article, used to have a steel mill that employed 30,000 people who maybe had a high school diploma. Where are the equivalent jobs now? Under Armor, can you here me? With economic conditions such as they are, its no wonder that the largest city in a state whose politicians pride themselves on strict gun control leads the nation in per capita homicides. Gun control doesnt reduce crime.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...special-report-fixing-gun-violence-in-america

    I recommend that folks spread this info far and wide. Include it in every facebook post. Just get the word out. And buy more ammo!

    (Apologies for the thread creep)
     

    DanGuy48

    Ultimate Member
    I was reading an old legal opinion (1995) on the Fourteenth Amendment by the DOJ. The opinion was made in response to an attempt by Congress to stop birthright citizenship for aliens through a statute. The legal opinion opined that this proposed statute was unconstitutional and that the change could only be made by an amendment to the Constitution. Using the same logic for the Second Amendment, how can Congress create a ban on "Assault Weapons" or similar restrictions without an amendment to the Constitution?

    It seems to me that it’s a version of not yelling “Fire” in a theater or saying “bomb” on an airplane. We have a guarantee of free speech but it’s OK to regulate that freedom when it is just a “common sense” public safety concern.
     

    aleatory

    Member
    Jan 22, 2016
    1
    Hi DanGuy48. I don't think your understanding is quite right. <insert standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer :) >

    It is perfectly legal and protected by the First Amendment to yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane.

    However, the effect of inciting panic is not protected.

    If someone falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater, they are prosecuted for inciting panic. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the First Amendment. It is a separate matter.

    Similarly, if someone shoots another in cold-blood, the prosecution is for murder. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the Second Amendment. It is a separate matter.

    http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

    As to how infringements somehow do not infringe on "shall not be infringed", I am at a loss.
     

    babalou

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 12, 2013
    16,020
    Glenelg
    Yuup

    Hi DanGuy48. I don't think your understanding is quite right. <insert standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer :) >

    It is perfectly legal and protected by the First Amendment to yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane.

    However, the effect of inciting panic is not protected.

    If someone falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater, they are prosecuted for inciting panic. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the First Amendment. It is a separate matter.

    Similarly, if someone shoots another in cold-blood, the prosecution is for murder. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the Second Amendment. It is a separate matter.

    http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

    As to how infringements somehow do not infringe on "shall not be infringed", I am at a loss.


    Exactly correct. Also first ten is the Bill of Rights. To me separate from the rest in that these are not open to amendments?
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    Exactly correct. Also first ten is the Bill of Rights. To me separate from the rest in that these are not open to amendments?

    That's how I see it. You cannot repeal a right. Reasonable restrictions? Sure. However those restrictions cannot interfere with the Right as intended. This means firearms suitable for overthrowing an out of control government, at its' most extreme.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    That's how I see it. You cannot repeal a right. Reasonable restrictions? Sure. However those restrictions cannot interfere with the Right as intended. This means firearms suitable for overthrowing an out of control government, at its' most extreme.

    are you asking a question, or is it rhetorical? Because of course the first 10 can be amended. Any amendment passed can amend ANY part of the constitution. The bill of rights was just called that because they were amendments dealing with rights. Either individual or state. Some of the later amendments change or clarify parts of the constitution itself.

    Anything in there can be changed so long as it goes through the process codified in the constitution for an amendment.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    are you asking a question, or is it rhetorical? Because of course the first 10 can be amended. Any amendment passed can amend ANY part of the constitution. The bill of rights was just called that because they were amendments dealing with rights. Either individual or state. Some of the later amendments change or clarify parts of the constitution itself.

    Anything in there can be changed so long as it goes through the process codified in the constitution for an amendment.

    The amendment would mean nothing. I have no question. No government can amend a right.
     

    Adolph Oliver Bush

    Ultimate Member
    Patriot Picket
    Dec 13, 2015
    1,940
    Did no one notice it took Aletaory 3.5 yrs to find something worth posting about???

    Welcome! Head over to the introductions forum and double your post count!
     

    DP12

    Active Member
    Apr 24, 2018
    333
    SoMD
    The republic is awash with would-be tyrants and the serfs that enable them. That's how it happens.

    When a gun-grabber yammers on about 90% of Americans favoring this or that "common sense gun law," I ask why they don't just slam through an amendment as happened with Prohibition. All they need is a super-majority of the Senate and states and it's a done deal.

    Of course, the reason they don't slam through an amendment is because the statistic is pure, unadulterated Marxist agitprop. And it works very well on people who should never have been given the privilege of voting.
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,795
    Westminster, MD
    The amendment would mean nothing. I have no question. No government can amend a right.

    I agree with you, but this ventures into more of a philosophical thing and these folks will deal only with the letters on paper.

    They simply don't get COTUS and WHY it has what it has (or they do and being the tyrants that they are, they hate it). They see it only has a hurdle to overcome any way possible.

    If there is an amendment to end the 2A, that's it. If COTUS and its amendments are the law of the land, the only recourse would be yet another amendment. But, just like prohibition didn't END alcohol...


    The republic is awash with would-be tyrants and the serfs that enable them. That's how it happens.

    When a gun-grabber yammers on about 90% of Americans favoring this or that "common sense gun law," I ask why they don't just slam through an amendment as happened with Prohibition. All they need is a super-majority of the Senate and states and it's a done deal.

    Of course, the reason they don't slam through an amendment is because the statistic is pure, unadulterated Marxist agitprop. And it works very well on people who should never have been given the privilege of voting.

    Recently I was stupid enough to venture into a grabber's post about "common sense" laws and as a reply to my reply, the gal pulled out the "85% of people on both sides think 'EBRs' (my word) should be banned." She did acknowledge that criminals steal guns, but went on to say that if we (the law-abiding) weren't allowed to have EBRs, the criminals wouldn't be able to steal them. :sad20:

    She's stuck on the big-news events and completely ignores the day-to-day murders. I decided to not bother with any follow-ups. Her and her buddies are beyond hope for any sensible debate with the wording of their replies.

    She's the one who was triggered by the "American's Creed" photo I shared on FB and here. She feels the Bern. Too bad there's no ointment for that.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,064
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    The amendment would mean nothing. I have no question. No government can amend a right.

    You forget a simple point that underscores your statement: The rights in the BOR are pre-existing, God-given natural rights, and are not "granted" by any government or monarch.

    /End.
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,795
    Westminster, MD
    You forget a simple point that underscores your statement: The rights in the BOR are pre-existing, God-given natural rights, and are not "granted" by any government or monarch.

    /End.

    Today's government and judicial system won't interpret it that way. Was there any mention of natural or god-given rights in the Heller decision or was it just a decision on the text of the 2A?

    Look at the jackwagons in the 7th District saying "feelings" now dictate what is lawful.
     

    DanGuy48

    Ultimate Member
    Hi DanGuy48. I don't think your understanding is quite right. <insert standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer :) >

    It is perfectly legal and protected by the First Amendment to yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane.

    However, the effect of inciting panic is not protected.

    If someone falsely shouts "fire" in a crowded theater, they are prosecuted for inciting panic. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the First Amendment. It is a separate matter.

    Similarly, if someone shoots another in cold-blood, the prosecution is for murder. The prosecution is not a loophole or allowance in the Second Amendment. It is a separate matter.

    http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com...-shout-"fire"-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

    As to how infringements somehow do not infringe on "shall not be infringed", I am at a loss.

    Thanks, good commentary. Yeah, I don’t agree with what they’re trying to do, hence the quotes around “common sense”. It’s incrementalism, an insidious and incessant chipping away at freedom. I was intending it to be taken as the way they’re picturing it. Nevertheless, I agree completely with what you said.

    Also, as someone else said, welcome, thanks for posting.
     

    tidalwave

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Jun 29, 2019
    28
    I'm not really sure why people claim the 2nd amendment rights are absolute and unlimited. How many US citizens would back the view that everyone should be allowed to own chemical weapons, tanks, missile firing helicopters or vehicle mounted flame throwers? Pretty much none but the fringe (I hope).

    IMO: The argument around Hi-Caps and AW is an argument about where the line is.

    No one makes the argument any more that free speech or assembly rights are absolute. Why is this right different?
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    You forget a simple point that underscores your statement: The rights in the BOR are pre-existing, God-given natural rights, and are not "granted" by any government or monarch.

    /End.

    I stated this earlier in the thread. A right that existed before quill was put to parchment cannot be undone by an amendment.
     

    DP12

    Active Member
    Apr 24, 2018
    333
    SoMD
    I'm not really sure why people claim the 2nd amendment rights are absolute and unlimited. How many US citizens would back the view that everyone should be allowed to own chemical weapons, tanks, missile firing helicopters or vehicle mounted flame throwers? Pretty much none but the fringe (I hope).

    IMO: The argument around Hi-Caps and AW is an argument about where the line is.

    No one makes the argument any more that free speech or assembly rights are absolute. Why is this right different?
    Marxist indoctrination has done stunning things to the notion of liberty. And I don't mean that in a complimentary way.

    If you think people shouldn't have certain weapons and the government should have overwhelming power, all you need to do is gather up a super-majority of the Senate and the states and get rid of that pesky 2A in the Bill of Rights. As others have pointed out, that won't eliminate the natural right to keep and bear arms, but tyrants tend not to care about such things. The living Constitution/pure democracy fools think just because everyone they know thinks a certain way, nobody could possibly be opposed. But that's just navel-gazing ignorance.

    Free speech and freedom of assembly are absolute natural rights. That your friends accept that their rights can be trod upon doesn't change that fact.
     

    Ghostrider1

    Ultimate Member
    Nov 10, 2009
    1,906
    The PGC
    I'm not really sure why people claim the 2nd amendment rights are absolute and unlimited. How many US citizens would back the view that everyone should be allowed to own chemical weapons no one is arguing that. The difference b/w WMD and a firearm is that a bullet is (mostly) under the shooter’s control NBC is subject to other environmental factors that cannot be adequately controlled , tanks you canmissile firing helicopters again, if you have the cheddar, you canor vehicle mounted flame throwers see previous? Pretty much none but the fringe (I hope).

    IMO: The argument around Hi-Caps and AW is an argument about where the line is.

    No one makes the argument any more that free speech or assembly rights are absolute. Why is this right different? The issue is that when those rights, fundamental liberties, as SCOTUS ruled the 2A is as well, may only be limited in the most extreme circumstances. Those limitations must be specifically tailored to address the circumstance, and only the least intrusive limit may be used. None of the proposed gun control schemes of the past or present meet any of those criteria

    .
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    I agree with you, but this ventures into more of a philosophical thing and these folks will deal only with the letters on paper.

    They simply don't get COTUS and WHY it has what it has (or they do and being the tyrants that they are, they hate it). They see it only has a hurdle to overcome any way possible.

    If there is an amendment to end the 2A, that's it. If COTUS and its amendments are the law of the land, the only recourse would be yet another amendment. But, just like prohibition didn't END alcohol...




    Recently I was stupid enough to venture into a grabber's post about "common sense" laws and as a reply to my reply, the gal pulled out the "85% of people on both sides think 'EBRs' (my word) should be banned." She did acknowledge that criminals steal guns, but went on to say that if we (the law-abiding) weren't allowed to have EBRs, the criminals wouldn't be able to steal them. :sad20:

    She's stuck on the big-news events and completely ignores the day-to-day murders. I decided to not bother with any follow-ups. Her and her buddies are beyond hope for any sensible debate with the wording of their replies.

    She's the one who was triggered by the "American's Creed" photo I shared on FB and here. She feels the Bern. Too bad there's no ointment for that.

    My experience is the gun grabbers (no shock) know nothing of guns except what they read in the news and movies. They are all scary. They have zero use. I got in to it with a former neighbor.

    “Guns have no use other than to kill people”

    Okay, what about the registered 34 million hunters in the US

    “They need assault weapons?”

    Some of them, yeah. They are effective for some types of hunting. Plus significant hurdles screw over subsistence hunters

    “Ewww, you are telling be substance hunters use assault weapons. I bet that leaves nothing to eat”

    I don’t think you know how this works...in addition hurdles make it hard or impossible for someone to actually have a firearm for self defense

    “Guns are never used for self defense!!!!”

    Here is wikipedia article about DGUs. Even if you believe the ridiculously and discredited lowest of low numbers, that’s 55,000-80,000 DGUs a year and probably more in the 200,000 range

    “The only way a gun could be used for self defense is if it’s loaded and sitting on your table. With kids in the house, you are horrible. We need to get guns out of houses and off the streets!”

    Actually a quick access gun safe or vault can be opened in less than 10 seconds or faster You might not have that time, but you probably do if you are quick thinking. Also if may, alcohol can’t be used for self defense and it can’t provide food. Yet it kills an estimated 80,000 people a year in the US and that doesn’t include the 10,000 or so from drunk driving accidents. That’s more than all gun deaths, even suicides. So if we get rid of guns, we should get rid of alcohol to? It seems like it is a much bigger problem with much less return.

    (PS he is a heavy drinker)

    (Ignoring alcohol entirely) oh, you mention driving. If you want to treat guns like cars that means each one should be insured for its full possible damage. A license, training, registration and inspections. I’d be okay with that.

    “Sadly to point out, cars aren’t insured for their full possible damage. They are insured as a pool for all damages caused by insured cars with a profit factor in there. And insurance generally doesn’t cover criminal acts. So just accidental shootings and such (and if it covered crimes, most guns used by criminals are stolen, so no insurance at all). Depends on what method you use to calculate loss, but even if you use the standard wrongful death lawsuit award times the maximum number of accidental deaths and some add in for injuries you are only up around a couple billion a year. BTW the firearm industry contributes around $10 billion a year to the US economy. Hunting is more like $40 billion. Anyway, even if you did that each gun would need to be insured for about $5-10 a year. The more guns you owned the less each would cost as owning more guns make each one less risky. So maybe more like $40 a year per person is a better risk model. Also if you really wanted to try to look at guns and cars as the same, inviting that cars aren’t used to defend your life or are a right, you CAN buy a car without registration. Maryland and some (most?) other states don’t require you to retire the vehicle. You are supposed to pay excise on it. However that is done at the time you submit the title to the MVA. You are not legally required to submit the title to the MVA (I can find nothing in law saying you must). You only need to submit the title if you are registering the car. The car does not require registration if it will not be driven on public roads. The vehicle does not require emissions inspection or safety inspection if it will not be driven on public roads. You do not require a driver’s license or insurance if you will not be operating a vehicle on public roads. Cars are closer to a concealed carry permit in most states. Except in many it is much harder and more expensive, or impossible, to get a concealed carry permit compared to a driver’s license.

    “RAWBLARGGGG!”

    (I think at that point is brain just broke and he threw out about 10 links to different mass shootings and literally didn’t post out any other words)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,473
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom