Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'

molonlabe said:
Yes and as I said it is clearly not in alignment with current laws so either the laws or the amendment need to go.

The question them becomes would it be unconstitutional as part of a criminal's sentence to be denied a right in perpetuity in the name of due process?
Click to expand...

Right now I'd say yes. But we do have a process for amending amendments. If the ignorant anti's want to eliminate the legality of the 2nd they should go through that process. After all, their arguments are all reasonable. It should be easy to eliminate the 2nd Amendment and replace it with something modern. ;)
 
Last edited:
gc70 said:
The 2A's biggest difference is that it is one of a minority of rights (along with 1A freedom of assembly and 4A search and seizure) that are suspended during incarceration. Most rights in the Bill of Rights remain intact (1A freedom of religion, speech, and petition and 7A civil cases) or are specifically triggered (5A, 6A, and 8A) when a person is accused or imprisoned.

The 2A is also different because society has determined that the punishment for some crimes should include a prohibition against subsequently having firearms.

Finally, 2A rights can be restored; different states have different processes, from automatic to not at all.



Some jurisdictions prohibit voting, which is a right that has warranted three amendments to the Constitution.

The Constitution's impeachment clause not only provides a way to kick a politician out of office, but prohibits the person from holding any other office under the United States.
Click to expand...

Good post and info, BUT holding office isn't a right. :D
 
noway2 said:
I noticed on NPR this morning they were all but pearl clutching about Trump's apparent about face after meeting with Chris Cox of the NRA.

In other news, NPR sounded downright right wing compared to some stupid Democrat that was in 0zero's administration on the topic of the steel and aluminum tariffs.
Click to expand...

Oh please don't get us going on tariffs. My heart is weak, and my head will explode. I'm going to go read my Herbert Hoover history and Basic Economics by Thoams Sowell now to relax.
 
noway2 said:
Indeed. Such a ruling could be a crack in the dam that easily lead to a tsunami; and this applies regardless of how they would rule. However, I think their hands are pretty well tied in that it has already been declared an individual right and that one has the right to possess in their homes. What SCOTUS has not addressed is the right to carry in public, but the lower courts have and even in the strictest regions (DC, and Chicago) have pretty well universally declared that it applies there too. Those determinations were made using intermediate scrutiny and if the case were brought up right, it would fall to strict scrutiny where they would have to show not only that its not a violation, but that there is a compelling interest in upholding the regulation. A tall order.

I'm sure they would rather this be taken up in the legislature(s).
Click to expand...
Constitutional carry is a small part of the big picture and one I can see as a bargaining chip down the road against any kind of magazine or weapons ban.

Bump stocks I see as a gray area because they may be classified as an accessory.
 
We would have been calling for his head if Obama had said this! Some might even have marched on the capital over it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HMP
gc70 said:
The 2A's biggest difference is that it is one of a minority of rights (along with 1A freedom of assembly and 4A search and seizure) that are suspended during incarceration. Most rights in the Bill of Rights remain intact (1A freedom of religion, speech, and petition and 7A civil cases) or are specifically triggered (5A, 6A, and 8A) when a person is accused or imprisoned.

The 2A is also different because society has determined that the punishment for some crimes should include a prohibition against subsequently having firearms.

Finally, 2A rights can be restored; different states have different processes, from automatic to not at all.



Some jurisdictions prohibit voting, which is a right that has warranted three amendments to the Constitution.

The Constitution's impeachment clause not only provides a way to kick a politician out of office, but prohibits the person from holding any other office under the United States.
Click to expand...

Ok, I went back and reread this a couple of times. You make an interesting point here that I want to thing about.
 
molonlabe said:
So there is some precedent to consider in regards to restoration of rights...interesting.

Completely over my head but interesting.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. His point that they allow some rights like freedom of religion are accurate....to a degree. I say to a degree for a reason, you can't worship completely as you choose but you can worship while incarcerated. It is an interesting point and while I could respond off the cuff I want to let that marinate for a little while before responding.
 
molonlabe said:
So children, ex cons, the mentally I'll etc cannot be constitutionally restricted?
Click to expand...

Ok..I'll bite.

Here's an example of each:

Children - Kid is 16 y.o. Parents are gone. Kid is on his own, working a job, providing for himself. Should he not have the RTKBA, even though he is <18 years of age?

Ex-con - "ex", which means he has paid his debt to society. Let's say he was in prison for GTA (the act...not the game). He gets out, his feet are set on the paths of righteousness, he's employed and starts a family. No RTKBA?

Mentally ill - who gets to define "mentally ill". Let's say a dude with autism wants the ability to defend himself. Should he be barred from that, simply because he was diagnosed with autism?
 
First visit to this thread and I'm not reading 100 pages so sorry if this has already been said, but I was listening to Rush at lunch yesterday (Standard Rush disclaimer: Don't agree with him 100%, but he's damn insightful at times and he really is usually right, lol) and he drew some parallels between this and when Trump met with Feinstein et al, and proclaimed he would be open to separating the DACA deal from boarder security (the wall), but he never did. He might be screwing with them is all I'm saying. I certainly hope so.
 
Last edited:
SPM said:
28467824_1605152736272672_6972627049461596473_n.jpg
Click to expand...
And after the primary was over, your alternative solution was what?
 
Someone else made the point on this earlier that I was looking for which is the wording of 2a provides for no exclusions in itself irregardless of the circumstances.

The current discussion is more or less about suspension of some rights And that is the current point chdamn is marinating upon.
 
wsfiredude said:
Ex-con - "ex", which means he has paid his debt to society.
Click to expand...

What if he isn’t an “ex” as you’ve defined? Assume no longer incarcerated, but also has not yet met all of the terms of his sentence?

I ask not to be an ass, but we often end up with folks saying that the end of incarceration should be the end of all restrictions on rtkba and I disagree in certain circumstances.
 
JimB said:
What if he isn’t an “ex” as you’ve defined? Assume no longer incarcerated, but also has not yet met all of the terms of his sentence?

I ask not to be an ass, but we often end up with folks saying that the end of incarceration should be the end of all restrictions on rtkba and I disagree in certain circumstances.
Click to expand...

Imo parole is still part of your punishment and incarceration.
 
molonlabe said:
Constitutional carry is a small part of the big picture and one I can see as a bargaining chip down the road against any kind of magazine or weapons ban.

Bump stocks I see as a gray area because they may be classified as an accessory.
Click to expand...
My main problem when people talk about bargaining chips when it concerns this is that eventually you run out of bargaining chips, but they don’t run out of demands.
 
molonlabe said:
Someone else made the point on this earlier that I was looking for which is the wording of 2a provides for no exclusions in itself irregardless of the circumstances.

The current discussion is more or less about suspension of some rights And that is the current point chdamn is marinating upon.
Click to expand...
",the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is amazingly clear.

All of those suspensions that GC mentions when you are not in prison probably should have been ruled unconstitutional by ultimately the supreme court, especially the ones where you can't vote or "keep and bear arms." In my own utopia, if you can't be trusted to vote, own guns, and other stuff...you shouldn't be out among "the People." I'd also argue that we allow too many freedoms/privileges/comforts for those in prison...but if I keep on listing things I'd argue I am going to seem argumentative.
 
Last edited:
Ok. I still need to do a little more research but here it is for now.

About the only 2 things you have is the ability to redress and the ability to worship.

The ability to redress isn’t about the right it is part of the due process of law. You have the ability to continue that process.

As to religion you are not free to worship however you please as you are when you are free.

Now the reason why you are allowed to worship, again, has very little to do with the right but it was, at least in the beginning, solely because of the judeo Christian values that were what most of our laws were based on.

The belief was that religion was part of rehabilitation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom