Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance

[Joeh]

Please don't take this the wrong way nor am I being facetious...

BUT:

Your error is that you are laboring under the assumption that the current batch of elected representatives, senators and those appointed to the SCOTUS actually give a rat's behind about our rights, the law and the constitution and think and speak to reason and logic. Those folks could care less about any of the aforementioned concerns. What they care about is getting re-elected. They do that by pandering to the masses and the majority of the masses respond more to emotional rhetoric and almost not at all to logic and reason. That has not always been the case but it has been for at least the last 50 years in an ever increasing downward spiral and will continue so until - well - just until.

As a young person (26 tomorrow :X) I still had a faint hope that someone in an elected position had the dignity to complete their job in an honorable fashion. While I know in my heart, that this is not how it works, I still attempt to convince myself that it is. If my elected officials don't care about conducting themselves in the fashion that a proper adult would, then I have very little hope for the future of our political system.

I don't like being young enough to see it coming (especially for the length I'll have to see it), and know that there's so little I can do about it.

 

[tweetr]

I agree with Werewolf. I'll try to state the same idea more rigorously:

If an average Joe like me can reach this position through reason, why does it appear that the individuals tasked with protecting these rights cannot also accomplish this task?

I think in most cases at the august level of the Supreme Court they can, but they will not. I think the reasonable mind must conclude that in most cases the Supreme Court justices are no more objective than any other human being in government. I certainly do not subscribe to the view that donning an antiquated black robe in any way improves the worth or power of one's reasoning. I believe the reasonable mind must conclude that in most cases the justices merely have a conclusion that they wish to reach, and thereafter cast about for any line of reasoning, valid or invalid, that supports their desired conclusion. The normal 5-to-4 majorities, split on liberal/conservative lines, would tend to support this observation.

Is it to the point that I am simply to believe that those elected officials are 'smarter' than I am, and thus can deduce a logical path that supports the end result?

Yes, exactly! Now you have it. Think of the discussion surrounding Elena Kagan's appointment to the Supreme Court claiming her qualification as "a wise Latina." What on earth does being "a wise Latina" have to do with one's ability to discern fine Constitutional distinctions?

I am continually gob-smacked at just how many putatively free citizens tell me they subordinate their own thinking to that of the courts and the legislatures! Just a couple of weeks ago my colleague in the cockpit, a former enlisted US Army Ranger, then a retired US Army warrant officer helicopter pilot, formerly of the highly prestigious 160th SOAR, spent a great deal of time and energy trying to convince me that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. His argument largely was predicated on court decisions, not on the text of the amendment itself. This he argued even in contravention of Miller by claiming, on grounds that the Founders could not predict such weapons, that the Second Amendment does not protect military arms such as fully automatic machine guns. When I forced the discussion to the text itself, he tried to make the usual specious argument in reverse of the actual text: that if one is not a member of a well regulated militia, then one does not have the right to keep and bear arms. Even though these two arguments are mutually exclusive, I was unable to convince him otherwise because, in my opinion, he wishes the text to read as he interprets it, and he will hear no argument to the contrary. As I find usual, he became visibly angry and broke off the argument.

Ultimately the reason our legislatures at every level pass patently unconstitutional laws, and our courts uphold patently unconstitutional laws, is that we the people permit it. We ourselves are the only guardians of our own rights and sovereignty. The deplorable state indoctrination of children and young adults that passes for education is in large part to blame, but that is another discussion entirely.

Why would they simply wait for more ridiculous, over-reaching, legislation to be passed through congress and made to law, knowing that it would be considered unconstitutional?

Well, technically, this is what the Supreme Court must do. It cannot hear a theoretical case. It cannot preemptively strike down a statute until a party affected by the statute brings a case before it.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

I think tweetr has it exactly right. If the judges were to logically interpret a laws constitutionality we should have nothing but 9-0 decisions. However, they actually interpret it to fit their own ideas which is why we have so many 5-4 decisions.

Also, I am not trying to be a jerk, but in your title and original post you keep saying "ordinance" and it should be "ordnance". An ordinance is a law and ordnance is a munition or weapons system. As an Army Ordnance Corps instructor for the past 28 years it is just a pet peace of mine.

 

[Joeh]

Also, I am not trying to be a jerk, but in your title and original post you keep saying "ordinance" and it should be "ordnance". An ordinance is a law and ordnance is a munition or weapons system. As an Army Ordnance Corps instructor for the past 28 years it is just a pet peace of mine.

My Fault! I should have double checked before I started my writing. Live and learn! Ordnance it is.

 

[tweetr]

To carry this discussion a step further: I think it is intellectually lazy of free citizens to defer to black-robed specialists on matters of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in no way so difficult as to require special education to interpret. A normal, literate education will suffice. It is not even written in legalese. It is written in the ordinary lay language of the day (albeit in a day in which the ordinary American was educated considerably better in the liberal arts than today.)

There is absolutely nothing difficult or obscure about "Congress shall make no law." When the subject is establishing religion or prohibiting the free practice of religion, Congress shall make no law. When the subject is abridging the freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petition, Congress shall make no law. Period. Nothing difficult about that.

There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be infringed." Now the subject is no longer Congress, it is the right itself. Now the activity is no longer making laws, it is infringing in any way (by laws or by any other means.) How much infringement is permissible? None. What kind of infringement is permissible? None. "Shall not be infringed." Nothing difficult about that.

There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be violated" in the Fourth Amendment. What shall not be violated? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Much liberty has been taken over the word "reasonable", and I'll grant that word is an unfortunate bit of legal weasel-wording thrown in, but - the question of reasonability comes in only after all other provisions of the Fourth Amendment are satisfied! No warrant containing all of the specificity required by the Fourth - no search. Period. Yet we are "violated" without a warrant of any kind, without probable cause of any kind, in our persons (x-ray, pat-down), our papers (show ID, show boarding pass), and our effects (search our luggage by x-ray and physical search) every time we fly. This manifestly and inarguably violates our right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and there is nothing difficult or obscure about it. Meanwhile, there is a sign in the security line advising us that any of a number of prohibited jokes uttered in the hearing of a federal blue-gloved officer will result in our summary arrest. Congress made the law authorizing the TSA and its ability to write regulations. How therefore can it brazenly abridge the freedom of speech?

So why are all three of these very basic, unambiguous prohibitions ignored every day? Because we permit it. We permit our legislatures to write laws that violate our own sovereign liberty. We permit our courts to amend the Constitution notwithstanding that the Judiciary has, under other ordinary, unambiguous language of the Constitution, no power to amend. We the People are the ultimate authority granting certain limited powers to our government. We alone are the guardians of our liberty. We alone are to blame when we permit our unique government, unopposed, to do what all governments by their nature always do: arrogate ever more power and wealth to themselves at our expense.

 

[n8thegr8]

I don't like being young enough to see it coming (especially for the length I'll have to see it), and know that there's so little I can do about it.

I too know the feeling, but this helps me deal with it:

" If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

- Thomas Paine

I'd rather have to go through the suck of pushing back the tide of evil than leave it for my child to deal with

 

[Werewolf]

So why are all three of these very basic, unambiguous prohibitions ignored every day? Because we permit it. We permit our legislatures to write laws that violate our own sovereign liberty. We permit our courts to amend the Constitution notwithstanding that the Judiciary has, under other ordinary, unambiguous language of the Constitution, no power to amend. We the People are the ultimate authority granting certain limited powers to our government. We alone are the guardians of our liberty. We alone are to blame when we permit our unique government, unopposed, to do what all governments by their nature always do: arrogate ever more power and wealth to themselves at our expense.

Well said but I would submit that our permission is limited to the power of the vote; a power which in this day and age is limited at best and token at worst.

The founders intended that our legislators be citizen politicians who were wealthy enough that they could serve a few terms and go back to their real lives after doing so. They never intended for the institution of government to turn to one both administered and lead by career bureaucrats and career politicians. Yet that is what has happened.

Add to that the minimal amount of real differentiation between the two dominant political parties and the way they operate and it is obvious to me that even throwing the bums out at the ballot box would have little impact on how government continues to be run. Now that almost half the voters are on some sort of government assistance and the odds of throwing the bums out becomes miniscule. So much for the power of the vote.

What actions can the people not on the dole take to affect real change? What can they do to take back their liberties? How can they rid themselves of an entire class of people dedicated to the acquisition of power and retaining it at all costs?

What...

 

[Joeh]

To carry this discussion a step further: I think it is intellectually lazy of free citizens to defer to black-robed specialists on matters of the Constitution. The language of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is in no way so difficult as to require special education to interpret. A normal, literate education will suffice. It is not even written in legalese. It is written in the ordinary lay language of the day (albeit in a day in which the ordinary American was educated considerably better in the liberal arts than today.)

There is absolutely nothing difficult or obscure about "Congress shall make no law." When the subject is establishing religion or prohibiting the free practice of religion, Congress shall make no law. When the subject is abridging the freedom of speech, press, assembly, or petition, Congress shall make no law. Period. Nothing difficult about that.

I can get on board with this. I know that many people, at least my age, tend to think that because of the legal jargon thrown around by the politico's that their basic understanding/reading of the constitution isn't how it is supposed to be, when in fact it is just the opposite.

There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be infringed." Now the subject is no longer Congress, it is the right itself. Now the activity is no longer making laws, it is infringing in any way (by laws or by any other means.) How much infringement is permissible? None. What kind of infringement is permissible? None. "Shall not be infringed." Nothing difficult about that.

Agree here as well. Everything I've read and found has pointed this direction, despite what the SCOTUS or any other political prowess has forced on us. It appears to me, after my short research on the subject, that those in favor of gun control appear to be addressing the second amendment in such a fashion that being part of 'a well regulated milita' is the only thing that grants the immunity to infringement. This, in my reading, isn't how it should be. The subject of 'shall not be infringed' is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the necessity of a well regulated milita. The well regulated militia that protects the state is predicated on the notion that the citizens right to bear arms cannot be infringed upon by the federal government. At least that's how I read it.

There is nothing difficult or obscure about "shall not be violated" in the Fourth Amendment. What shall not be violated? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Much liberty has been taken over the word "reasonable", and I'll grant that word is an unfortunate bit of legal weasel-wording thrown in, but - the question of reasonability comes in only after all other provisions of the Fourth Amendment are satisfied! No warrant containing all of the specificity required by the Fourth - no search. Period. Yet we are "violated" without a warrant of any kind, without probable cause of any kind, in our persons (x-ray, pat-down), our papers (show ID, show boarding pass), and our effects (search our luggage by x-ray and physical search) every time we fly. This manifestly and inarguably violates our right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, and there is nothing difficult or obscure about it. Meanwhile, there is a sign in the security line advising us that any of a number of prohibited jokes uttered in the hearing of a federal blue-gloved officer will result in our summary arrest. Congress made the law authorizing the TSA and its ability to write regulations. How therefore can it brazenly abridge the freedom of speech?

This is the only thing I can't get on board with, and it's merely based on the example presented. Despite my disgust with the TSA and congress' general attitude towards the people of the country, flying, particularly by privatized corporations, is not a right but rather a privilege. You know what you're getting when you buy that plane ticket, it's all there in the fine print. No one forces you to travel that way. Does it suck that the most convenient way of traveling long distances is to accept violation of civil liberties? Sure. But, you don't have to do it. Just as I would never put my name to a legal document I hadn't completely read over, as to know the terms I'm accepting, I don't buy plane tickets thinking that I won't be violated on the way to the gate. Should that be how it is? In my opinion, no, but I don't get to make the rules.

Also of note on this point is whether or not the federal government should have any business interfering with privatized business in this manner. Since this isn't a government matter, the choice of traveling by flight, why is the safety and security of the passengers not the responsibility of said private organization?

So why are all three of these very basic, unambiguous prohibitions ignored every day? Because we permit it. We permit our legislatures to write laws that violate our own sovereign liberty. We permit our courts to amend the Constitution notwithstanding that the Judiciary has, under other ordinary, unambiguous language of the Constitution, no power to amend. We the People are the ultimate authority granting certain limited powers to our government. We alone are the guardians of our liberty. We alone are to blame when we permit our unique government, unopposed, to do what all governments by their nature always do: arrogate ever more power and wealth to themselves at our expense.

Interesting point. It appears to me that somewhere along the way, we the people have lost control of what is ours. We've resigned to the notion that we are 'too busy' chasing the 'American dream' to worry about whether or not the national debt is growing, or whether or not we should deploy military powers policing the planet. Most people give these ideas a small thought, if any thought at all, because they don't see the direct impact it has on them. It only ever matters to people now, when it directly affects their daily lives. They also don't care for your opinion on their political choices or their lives, unless they need your vote to help them succeed in their mission. We've become a consumerist society, and we consume only that which we think 'betters our lives', whether that's through media propagation or other medium.

I read an interesting blog post from an individual a few weeks ago, here, that is fairly relevant to this discussion.

On a different track, it has always amused me that the notion of 2nd amendment rights is split, politically, the way that it is. It appears to me that liberals should be the ones fighting for LESS gun control, and more individual gun rights. Yet, here we are. Strange how things have come to be isn't it?

Unfortunately, the world has run out of places to develop new countries and governments. There isn't anywhere else left to go if you decide you don't like the way any of the world governments operate.

 

[Joeh]

Well said but I would submit that our permission is limited to the power of the vote; a power which in this day and age is limited at best and token at worst.

The founders intended that our legislators be citizen politicians who were wealthy enough that they could serve a few terms and go back to their real lives after doing so. They never intended for the institution of government to turn to one both administered and lead by career bureaucrats and career politicians. Yet that is what has happened.

Not to mention, that there is no standardization for the power of a vote either. I'm sure this was something that our founders struggled with. Is one well educated and informed vote worth the same as an uneducated and uninformed vote? Should an individual be able to vote on particular subjects with no particular experience or knowledge of the aforementioned subject? If so, why? Does having more money, or more power, make you a more informed individual? My impulse says no, but my experiences with this in modern day conflict with this position. I'm supposed to BELIEVE the representatives. I'm supposed to swallow their 'informed opinion' about a subject, because they belong to my party.

That's not how it is supposed to work, but people my age have not learned that. It does not matter what our representatives opinions are, other than that they are allowed to have them. They are to REPRESENT their constituents, not vote on their own intuition and ideas. If that were the case, then why bother letting the general populus vote at all? Why not have elections that gather the most intelligent and well informed individuals in each city and let them compete? Because then we don't have a democracy anymore, we're back to the ages where only those with money, power and 'intelligence' rule. Unfortunately, it's almost this way now, it's just wrapped in a pretty box and presented in a way that makes us feel like we have a voice.

I have no voice. I am merely a part of a huge machine that will continue turning and operating whether I agree with it or not. Unfortunately, this is how I feel.

 

[tweetr]

Despite my disgust with the TSA and congress' general attitude towards the people of the country, flying, particularly by privatized corporations, is not a right but rather a privilege. You know what you're getting when you buy that plane ticket, it's all there in the fine print. No one forces you to travel that way.matter, the choice of traveling by flight, why is the safety and security of the passengers not the responsibility of said private organization?

Nope! Specious argument. Your argument would be valid only if it were, say, Delta Airlines requiring that you submit to search and seizure, and forfeit your right to keep and bear arms, as a condition of boarding their airplanes. In that case you could just mosey on down the concourse to, say, gun-totin' and liberty-lovin' Southwest Airlines and take your travel business to them, the same as many of us do when we spot the idiotic "no guns" sticker on a business door. You will note, however, that it is the federal government, not the airline, subjecting you to illegal search and seizure. Does any provision of the Bill of Rights contain an exception in such cases in which you have an alternative means of going peaceably about your business? Does any provision of the Bill of Rights contain an exception in the case of travel by air?

Here you are falling prey to exactly the statist indoctrination I bemoan above. First explain to me how the TSA search and seizure complies with: 1) the First Amendment, 2) the Second Amendment, 3) the Fourth Amendment, and 4) the Fifth Amendment (not to mention the Ninth and Tenth.) Then (assuming you are successful with the previous step) expound to me exactly which enumerated power of the federal government permits it to place federal agents in every airport (each of which falls within the sovereign territory of a single state) in the first place. Then, while you're at it, define exactly which enumerated power authorizes the federal government to restrict aviation as a whole; to regulate aviation at all.

Also of note on this point is whether or not the federal government should have any business interfering with privatized business in this manner. Since this isn't a government matter, the choice of traveling by flight, why is the safety and security of the passengers not the responsibility of said private organization?

Right. Now, to show the opposite of the argument above:
Even if you successfully find an enumerated power lurking somewhere in a forgotten corner of the Constitution permitting the federal government to regulate travel by air (the interstate commerce clause is the usual specious citation), such regulation still would have to comply explicitly with every single restriction of the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments. Ain't no legal way around it.

I shake my head at the way putatively free people accept the ever-increasing demands to comply with ever-expanding federal laws inexorably tightening federal restrictions on every aspect of their day-to-day lives -- without once perceiving the irony that the very agency forcing their compliance in the very act of doing so blithely declines to comply with the law governing it: the Constitution of the United States. That, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of illegitimate, tyrannical, unjust, lawless government.