why can the 2A be infringed upon without adding amendments to change it? it took the 21A to change the 18A.

[python76]

so it required the 21A to cancel out the 18A but why does it not require an amendment to change the 2A? shouldnt any regulation or banning of "arms" require an amendment. looking at what it took to change the 18A it seems it has a strong constitutional protection but the 2A can easily be infringed upon by thousands of laws quite easily.
so why doesn't the 2A get the same constitutional protection that the 18A had?

any law experts on here that can answer this?

[doubloon]

Wording.

[python76]

Wording.

what do you mean? do you mean because it says "well regulated"

[poikilotrm]

The government doesn’t care about the law. They do whatever they want.

[doubloon]

...
what do you mean? do you mean because it says "well regulated"

That would be the thing most people with the least imagination think is obviously the best place to start and argument about the 2nd.

Read this first.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... fss_papers

[fishman]

That was a good read. It's very opinionated though.

[python76]

...
what do you mean? do you mean because it says "well regulated"

That would be the thing most people with the least imagination think is obviously the best place to start and argument about the 2nd.

Read this first.

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... fss_papers

i wasnt saying i think its because it says "well regulated" i just said that because thats the argument from the left that i always hear as justification to limit the 2A.

[doubloon]

... thats the argument from the left that i always hear ...

Yes, most people with the least imagination.

And yes, it is one argument they use.

Read this ...

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/ ... fss_papers

[doubloon]

That was a good read. It's very opinionated though.

Just a bit, but most topics worth talking about attract their fair share of the highly educated and opinionated along with the trolls.

I haven't read it in a while but I recall liking the reference he made on other amendments like the fifth and sixth but then I seem to recall he kind of shotgunned through most of the rest as well.

There's another 'article' out there somewhere that's one of my favorite attacks on the language of 2A alone but that one mostly just appeals to the minute man inside us all. This paper is a bit more intellectual although I can't say I like every rock he turns over.

[TomServo]

Let us not forget most gun law is really commerce law. The NFA doesn't ban machineguns, silencers, sbrs, sbss, aows, etc. It heavily regulates how those items may be bought, sold, and what constitutes a transfer of ownership.

Commerce is the biggest loophole into 2A issues outside of Legislation. Next comes the ATF being specifically charged with 'interpreting' firearm commerce law. That's when things can get weird.

Officially, they aren't infringing on 2A. It is more like regulating free speach where it can be sangerous. For example, you can't scream 'fire' in a crowded thrater or 'bomb' in a place of public mass transport. That can lead to panic, and possibly people trampled to death.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just pointing out that Fed's gonna Fed, and they can find their way around 2A given enough time and lobbyist money.

[doubloon]

Let us not forget most gun law is really commerce law. ...

ding ding ding ding ding ding winnah winnah

Commerce laws are stretched and abused well beyond the original, possibly useful purpose.

[whiterussian1974]

Let us not forget most gun law is really commerce law. The NFA doesn't ban machineguns, silencers, sbrs, sbss, aows, etc. It heavily regulates how those items may be bought, sold, and what constitutes a transfer of ownership.

Actually it also bans Manufacture and Possession. That's the Problem. Making and possessing AREN'T Inter-state Commerce. So they shouldn't have Jurisdiction. Kansas had a Test Case where the Attorney General filed an Amicus Brief w the Court on behalf of a man following KS's Law that allows him to manufacture in-state for in-state use. The Feds arrested and charged him for violation of Fed Law, but there was no Basis for Enforcement under the Constitution.

Commerce is the biggest loophole into 2A issues outside of Legislation. Next comes the ATF being specifically charged with 'interpreting' firearm commerce law. That's when things can get weird.

The Courts should "interpret" NOT Executive Branch Agencies. Why not interpret Education to be "dangerous speech" and ban all non-Public Schools including Home Schooling? THEY HAVE! Teachers' Unions have sued on the Grounds that Home Schooling is dangerous and Parents don't hold the Professional Credentials. It's just another "Commerce Clause" that Teachers want guaranteed Tenure for Employment. Milton Friedman writes a great book on the Scams of "Professional Associations" and the racketeering that they commit in the form of "regulation."

Officially, they aren't infringing on 2A. It is more like regulating free speach where it can be sangerous. For example, you can't scream 'fire' in a crowded thrater or 'bomb' in a place of public mass transport. That can lead to panic, and possibly people trampled to death.

I have a problem w that. If I yell fire, it's up to each person to decide what I mean and if a Threat actually exists. Otherwise, they are blaming someone else for their own poor Choices and Behaviors.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just pointing out that Fed's gonna Fed, and they can find their way around 2A given enough time and lobbyist money.

That's the Problem. Congress makes Laws, then the Executive and Judicial Branches "interpret" their ways around them to do whatever they want. "Divine Right of Kings"

[John A.]

I have looked at this subject a lot over the decades.

And I actually believe that state law should supersede federal.

Then again, I always felt the 13 states had a RIGHT and obligation to secede in the later 1800's too. Which isn't really on the same subject, but also kind of is.

If a state can ban a gun that is not banned by federal law, a state should be able to allow ownership by that same logic by default.

But too many activists and the laws and procedures have been so twisted around the last 150 years, the original intent and meaning has all but been lost where it pertains to interstate commerce.

[fishman]

If a state can ban a gun that is not banned by federal law, a state should be able to allow ownership by that same logic by default.

Laws only tell you what you CAN'T do. That's why states can't pass laws saying that it's legal to do something that is illegal federally. Michigan can't decide that cocaine is allowed. Even if Michigan law doesn't prohibit it, it can't override federal law. If I'm not mistaken, marijuana is still illegal in states where state laws permit it. Feds can still arrest you even if the state cops won't. If a state decided to legalize post 86 machineguns, the state police will leave you alone, but the ATF officer still gets to kick your door in and shoot your dog.

The constitution tells you what you CAN do.

Constitution > federal law > state constitution > state law

It's a shame people only want to uphold the constitution when its convenient for themselves. It feels like federal law has been taking priority over the constitution lately (to both sides of the aisle).

[doubloon]

...
And I actually believe that state law should supersede federal.
...

State law should not supersede federal law and the fed should only have the powers granted to it by the state.

Neither the state or the fed should have the power to supersede the constitution or the bill of rights without a grant from the people.

2A and the rest were written to protect the rights of the people, not to grant rights to the fed or the state and certainly not to protect the authority of the government.

[whiterussian1974]

Perfectly stated Doubloon. You phrased it better than anything that I was contemplating to write.
Fisherman: Fed Marijuana Laws are for certain weights. I think that 5# is the minimum covered under fed law, except for importation across the National Border. Thus, SMALL marijuana stands would be fine, but DEA interprets each single shoot of plant as 1/4#. Because that is it's anticipated weight at harvest. That's BS, but that's what the Courts have upheld.

Maybe I should pay the IRS 5cents and claim that with compounding Interest, it will value over 1 million $ eventually....

[doubloon]

... If I'm not mistaken, marijuana is still illegal in states where state laws permit it. Feds can still arrest you even if the state cops won't. ...

The information at the following link may or may not be completely or incompletely accurate.

http://www.safeaccessnow.org/federal_marijuana_law

There are two types of federal sentencing laws: sentencing guidelines, enacted by the United States Sentencing Commission, and mandatory sentencing laws, enacted by Congress. The Sentencing Commission was created in 1987 to combat sentencing disparities across jurisdictions. The current mandatory minimum sentences were enacted in a 1986 drug bill. Federal sentencing guidelines take into account not only the amount of cannabis involved in the arrest but also the past convictions of the accused. Not all cannabis convictions require jail time under federal sentencing guidelines, but all are eligible for imprisonment.

If convicted and sentenced to jail, a minimum of 85% of that sentence must be served. The higher the amount of cannabis, the more likely one is to be sentenced to jail time, as opposed to probation or alternative sentencing. Even for a defendant with multiple prior convictions, being charged with low-level offenses may lead to probation for the entire sentence of one to twelve months, with no jail time required. Possession of over 1 kg of cannabis with no prior convictions carries a sentence of six to twelve months with a possibility of probation and alternative sentencing. Over 2.5 kg with no criminal record carries a sentence of at least six months in jail; with multiple prior convictions, a sentence might be up to two years to three years in jail with no chance for probation.

In United States v. Booker (2005), a Supreme Court decision from January 2005, the court ruled that the federal sentencing guidelines (as outlined above) are advisory and no longer mandatory. In addition to the sentencing guidelines, there are statutory mandatory minimum sentences, which remain in effect after United States v. Booker and primarily target offenses involving large amounts of cannabis. There is a five-year mandatory minimum for cultivation of 100 plants or possession of 100kgs, and there is a 10-year mandatory minimum for these offenses if the defendant has a prior felony drug conviction. Cultivation or possession of 1000kg or 1000 plants triggers a 10 year mandatory minimum, with a 20-year mandatory sentence if the defendant has one prior felony drug conviction, and a life sentence with two prior felony drug convictions.

[John A.]

Neither the state or the fed should have the power to supersede the constitution or the bill of rights without a grant from the people.

2A and the rest were written to protect the rights of the people, not to grant rights to the fed or the state and certainly not to protect the authority of the government.

Amen buddy.

[doubloon]

Perfectly stated Doubloon. ...

I could pick nits over the wording but the essence is there.