Supreme Court Confirms 2A Applies to all Bearable Arms!

By Dean Weingarten

Pile of Guns
Supreme Court Confirms 2A Applies to all Bearable Arms!

Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,”.  

As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. 

Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns.

From nbcnews.com:

But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation's founding.

Referring to its landmark 2008 ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” even those not in existence at the time of the founding.

Supreme Court and Guns
Supreme Court Confirms 2A Applies to all Bearable Arms

The unsigned opinion is very short.  It is sparse, as noted by justices Thomas and Alito.  Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence.  It could, and should, have gone much further.  None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond stun guns and Massachusetts.  Because the opinion is short, here is the unanimous opinion, without Justice Alito's concurrence, which is at the link.

14-10078 Caetano v. Massachusetts(pdf) :

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
1
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

 

No. 14–10078.Decided March 21, 2016

 

PER CURIAM.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

There is strong language in this opinion.  If 200,000 stun guns in the U.S. are “common”, it is hard to believe that 5 million AR-15s and millions of other semi-automatic rifles are “unusual”.

If stun guns are common and protected by the Second Amendment, then so are knives, clubs, and future weaponry.

The case lays to rest the idea that courts can simply say anything other than handguns are “uncommon” or “unusual” and are therefore exempt from Second Amendment protections.

This case will be cited far into the future.



Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Subscribe
Notify of
189 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Echosix
Echosix
9 months ago

“All instruments that constitute bearable arms” implies the uverturn of the NFA of 1934 and parts of the GCA of 1968. Machinguns, SBRs and SBSs should be legal as well as antitank rifles. I don’t believe that artillery or things like 20mm Oerlikons would be viewed as bearable. Hand grenades would be iffy. FFLs would probably not be effected. I’m surprised that follow-on cases haven’t been mounted to firm up the position on MGs.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Echosix

Despite your denials to the contrary, a person may tote around an artillery piece if they have a car, or truck that can pull the weight, and have attachments to do so. A tank can be owned if one has the money to procure. Even tho’ supposedly, illegal, anthrax, and other deadly biologic weapons, are still used. Making something illegal doesn’t make it not doable, or not able to be used.

JoeHB
JoeHB
9 months ago

Minor detail, I know but… It applies to ALL arms, period. The right to self defense is absolute and unmitigable. No entity on earth has the inherent right to arms except the individual. Every other entity that would have access to arms must get it from that individual.

Chris
Chris
9 months ago

The second amendment isnt about which guns people are allowed to own , thats not its purpose. What it does is forbid government from restricting guns , which unfortunately they already got their grubby little hands into things and done. 2A says government is to keep their hands off gun ownership rights….period. ” Shall not be infringed ” is brutally specific and it means any law restricting or regulating firearms is technically invalid.

Chris
Chris
9 months ago
Reply to  Chris

The constitution does not restrict the publics behavior , it restricts government behavior. So what type of firearm you own really dosent matter does it ?

Robert blant
Robert blant
1 year ago

They argued that the court should rely not on the due process clause but on the h Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.
By the way! The best essay writing service – https://www.easyessay.pro/
And Happy New Year!

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Robert blant

EasyEssay cannot be linked to. Therefore do not click on it, lest it be some form of virus, or other.

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
2 years ago

According to this the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” (CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS).

Now, April 6, 2018, a federal judge has upheld Massachusetts’ ban on “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.”

What the hell is going on with the Judicary? Here’s s link to the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/04/06/massachusetts-ban-on-assault-weapons-doesnt-violate-2nd-amendment-judge-rules.html

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Eric_CA

The judiciary are making it up as they go along, and based on their own motives, beliefs, superstitions, etc. Many judges today are simply shills for ‘Deep State’, big government, and United Nations, commuNAZIism.

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
4 years ago

There is exactly ONE salient issue about guns – in fact, there’s only one primary issue regarding all weapons…

That single factor (which has nothing – at all – to do with caliber, barrel length, ammunition capacity, etc) is extremely simple and straightforward… the ONLY thing that matters about a gun is “who’s holding it – and why!”

nrringlee
nrringlee
9 months ago
Reply to  JoeUSooner

A free people should be an armed people.. An armed people will remain free.

Hoosier Veteran
Hoosier Veteran
4 years ago

Ok, so this ruling tells us that ALL EIGHT of the justices agreed that the states are getting too freakin carried away, and that no gun law, federal OR state, can conflict with the Constitution which CLEARLY and simply states that as long as I can carry it, I can own and travel with any freakin weapon I want any time I want, and that whatever the heck is in my home is NO BUSINESS of the state. Of course they never let anyone off the hook for using those weapons in crimes against others. No, defending your home against… Read more »

nrringlee
nrringlee
9 months ago

Correct. The courts, lacking help from a lame Congress must deconstruct the Jim Crow laws directed against law abiding gun owners in the same manner they deconstructed the original Jim Crow.

Chuck M
Chuck M
4 years ago

Finally, one for the 2a good guys, but lets see how long it lasts before
the democreeps get their hands on it, and start passing meaningless
laws to try to shoot it down. Lets hope it does last for many generations
to come, but I won’t be here to see it, but maybe the grand kids will.

jamie
jamie
4 years ago

Please tell that to my local city who wants to ban sling shots, air guns and paintball guns.

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago
Reply to  jamie

Jamie,

Would you mine telling us the name of the City so we can avoid it?

Thanks.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  jamie

And, what, pray tell, are you doing to assure that doesn’t happen? Are you involved in a local party? Are you going to council (board) meetings regularly? Are you organizing opposition to those who want to pass these ordinances? Are you planning on running a primary against any one of them if they are already a member of the party to which you are registered, or affiliated? Are you regularly attending your parties meetings to let them know you aversion to such laws, and asking them for support in upcoming elections? Are you involved in your local, or state pro-2A… Read more »

william zitzner
william zitzner
4 years ago

Thank goodness, the Supreme court has set the record straight. Thank you

neverlickthehand
neverlickthehand
4 years ago

What do we say? What to our Founding Fathers do we say knowing we just slept our freedoms away Would those in Gettysburg roll in disgust Knowing the price they paid for us Or the million plus that in uniform died Seeing WE THE PEOPLE just run and hide Like Americans landing a beach or in a reservoir frozen and those in the jungles when their number was chosen To WE volunteers all in Baghdad Street fights Or fighting in mountains all day into night What do we say to those whom have borne the brunt The Airmen, sailors, soldiers… Read more »

John Cunningham
John Cunningham
2 years ago

Thoughts and prayers the very least anyone can do.

DaveW
DaveW
2 years ago

EXCELLENT !!! From one who stood the line in our nation’s defense, upholding the oath I took at 1pm 1 June 1967, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”. Though 100% disabled from Vietnam, I continue to live that oath today because there was never any expiration date, and my personal Honor, Ethics, Pride, Morals, etc., bids me keep my word to the American people… ALL of them. I do not pick and choose which people I will stand for, nor do I pick and choose which portions of the Constitution… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

I took issue with the concept of “co-equal branches” of government. Wild Bill insulted anyone who thinks they are not “co-equal”. If they were, then SCOTUS could declare war; presidents could make amendments and send them to the states; states could make treaties without congressional approval. Then he attacks me for suggesting that Senators were intended to be responsive to and represent the states from which they were (originally appointed by each state’s legislature, but now are elected by the people of each state – still retaining their duty to represent as intended). As for taking a course at a… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

I have gone long out of my way to avoid writing anything that insults you or any other reader, here. I did not attack you. Understanding what the Constitution means requires an understanding of the context and times in which it is written. This is a method that Justice Scalia favored because of the way that the English language is used has changed from that time to this.
At this point, many would give in to the temptation to close with an insult, direct or implied. I will resist.

TEX
TEX
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Bill,don’t waste your time arguing with idiots !

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

True meanings have changed in regards some words, but fact remains, the words used then were used in the context of the meaning of the day, and the meaning of the day should remain, not some new definition some upstart lawyer, or bullshirt lawyer using artisanal license should craft.

Echosix
Echosix
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Co-equal in power, not in role. No Branch has absolute authority over another. In practice, it takes two Branches to overturn the third. In most cases, this is handled by acquiescence, but there have been exceptions.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
9 months ago
Reply to  Echosix

, quite correct.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Actually, there were two books written. “The Federalist Papers” is but one of two. “The Anti-federalist Papers” delves into why some of our founders thought the constitution should not be passed, because it gave too much power to a federal government, and too little power to ‘we, the people,’ or the states. However, they reconciled this by limiting the power of the government to the best of their ability, recognizing that the states could overpower the people, or an individual person, thus supplying us with certain, enumerated (not all rights are enumerated as the founders made clear. thus the amendment… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
9 months ago
Reply to  2brknot2bfree

@2brk, You are aware, of course, that what we call ” the Federalist Papers” were a series of, back and forth, newspaper articles that were gathered together for posterity. Two different people, separately and not in conjunction, gathered the articles, and put them together. Thus, there are two different versions of “the Federalist Papers”, each with slightly different numbering.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I am aware of the arguments, for and against thus ‘Federalist’ versus ‘Anti-federalist.’ That should have been a given hd you read the whole of my comment.

NY Resident
NY Resident
4 years ago

So stun guns have long been illegal in NY, and perhaps other states as well. Does this ruling invalidate that NY law?

RDNK
RDNK
4 years ago
Reply to  NY Resident

NY is a lost cause ! You keep electing the same trash over and over…

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  NY Resident

In reality, those laws were never legitimate. it is only the continued acquiescence of the NYers that keep them on the books. How do you acquiesce> By not overturning those in representative positions, by not joining with others to let your representatives know your position(s), by not running for positions within these pro-2A groups, or helping them to spread the message, by not being politically active in your local, and state political parties. If you expect others to vote for you, or if you think that your not lobbying your representative is fine, then you are the problem. Active people,… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Wild Bill – what I meant was that Congress decides the scope of “other than” SCOTUS. There was NO prohibition on SCOTUS to “decide law” in cases that came before it (Marbury for example). IF I am wrong, show us the text. Also, that the court exceeded (to some people’s thoughts) its “scope” does not negate its jurisdiction in Marbury, which is clearly spelled out as “between” a citizen and the US…

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Jurisdiction was not an issue in Marbury.
With regard to the rest of your 10:10 pm comments, I hope that you will forgive me, but I am not following you. I’m sure that it is just me.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

No, Wild Bill. There is no such thing as a “co-equality” statement referenced in any copy of the US Constitution I have seen or read, anywhere. That is a fiction of 20th century socialists, who want everything and every “taxpayer” to be “equal”. The “separation” of powers was not meant to be a “co-equal” among ONLY the Federal branches, but also was meant to keep the states as a check – hence the appointment of Senators BY states. 17th amendment NEVER negated that Senators to Congress were under control of the states – it ONLY stated HOW they were to… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

I am not making any arguments. I am reciting history as recorded in case law. I was just trying to help you improve your understanding of the Constitution. You will will never improve because you do not seek improvement. Your diatribe about no co-equal branches and states controlling Senators evidences an abysmal understanding of the Constitution. If you are so sure that you are right go take a class and see how you do.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Wild Bill – You seem to be correct. But, if that be the case, what is the point of “between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states” – specifically as to relevance or reference to conflicts of laws among or between those entities (states and Feds, or states and states) – WHY have SCOTUS even involved if not to “decide” constitutionality of such things? Is it not the purpose of courts to “declare” the pertinence of suits at equity or other causes? If not “constitutionality” – again – then why have SCOTUS? I know. I’m not… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

And, remember, Wild Bill – the states MAKE UP the Republic, not the other way around. If you miss my “meaning”, consider that it the REPUBLIC of 50 STATES that “constitute” the “united states” – ie, the states came first. SCOTUS works for the STATES, not Congress, not the Executive. For the STATES.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

The point of “between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; etc etc is a recitation of the S. Ct.’s original jurisdiction as outlined in Article III. You notice that the S. Ct doesn’t hear any original jurisdiction cases anymore, as it was intended to? The S. Ct. is too busy ruling on constitutionality ( a power that it does not have). Now you begin to see how long our federal government has been corrupt and who started it all.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Oh YES. Many of us uneducated-in-the-law folks in the out-backs SEE and KNOW what you are saying, and we DO appreciate that you are saying what WE have know for decades (if not longer). “original jurisdiction” of course, as we “rubes” ( 😉 ) know has to do with what they are “supposed to do”, not what the Congress has ALLOWED them to do – recall that Congress is supposed to control them in their scope… or did I mis-read that as well? Thanks for agreeing with the POINT I have been trying to make.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

I never called you an uneducated in the law folk or rube. What do you mean by “…Congress is supposed to control them in their scope?” Congress’ scope or the S. Ct.’s scope? What do you mean control, as in force the S. Ct to come to a particular ruling?
The three branches of our federal government are coequal and none controls any of the others.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I do believe the SCOTUS was originally 3, or 5 judges, I forget the numbers off the top of my head, and that as the country grew, the congress could decide to have more, or less judges, depending on how much in disagreement with the courts they may be, or any other reason they so deem. Currently there has been a push to make a case for 8 justices, in this case to disallow Trump the ability to choose another. It is my contention that politics should never play into this, but it being the two parties are so far… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Yes, the various states came first and struggled under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation did not work very well, so the each of the states sent representatives to convention for the purpose of amending those Articles of Confederation. The representatives did not amend the Articles of Confederation. The representatives ACTED BEYOND THEIR AUTHORITY and wrote a whole new document out-lining how the government would function. The there was a huge debate that explains a lot about our Constitution recorded in the Federalist Papers that you have to know in order to understand our Constitution. Then the several… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Gene Ralno – LIKE all good people, who use their OWN brains (instead of the various Bar Ass brains), you read just as I do, what “an” means as a modifier. Thank you! Comment: doing the clown: I’ve always assumed “…an establishment of religion…” was the equivalent of “…an ORGANIZATION of religion…” or “…an INSTITUTION of religion…” and in short, “establishment” is intended to be interpreted as a noun. I’ve assumed it may mean a “church” or a “recognized group” or any “establishment” so long as it’s recognized as established as the framework for the subject religion. I’ve always wanted… Read more »

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Ugh! You brought up taxation, even tho’ our founders agreed no capitation, or income taxes should be. The 16th Amendment gave a power to congress, and POTUS, it never should have had. Allowing them to tax & spend, then to spend over what is taxed, makes for an awful way to run a business, let alone a country. A country need not run either a surplus, or a deficit, or be allowed to run up debt for any reason. A wise country with wise representatives, would not do this. We have lost all wisdom due to mis-education. Only a progressive… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Wild Bill stated to me [in part]: Funny that you should cite Marbury V. Madisen. That is the case where the S. Ct. seized the power to declare an act of a legislature contrary to the U.S. Constitution. Wait Wild Bill. I thought Marbury was suing to retain a FEDERAL post to which he thought he should be entitled. That had nothing to do – in my understanding of the case, though I am not as well-read as you – with some STATE post. That was a Washington DC case – FEDERAL jurisdiction – NO state involved. John Adams (President)… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Correct, Marbury was suing to retain the judicial appointment. No state issue was involved. Purely federal is correct. You have your finger on the pulse. The S. Ct declared the federal law enabling (the Circuit Court Act of 1803) the appointment to be made to be unconstitutional. The declaring unconstitutional was a power that the S. Ct does not have (see Article III), but the S. Ct did it anyway and still does to this day. Thus the S. Ct made law. There is your magic formula (or as attorneys call it a JUDICIAL FICTION)

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Wild Bill – please show me what part of the US Constitution mentions “trust theory”. I cannot find it in the copy of “the supreme law of the land” to which I subscribe, expect my state and federal representatives to subscribe, and to which I should be able to find their oaths of office. Wild Bill says March 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM Take it easy Jim, there are just so many little things about the law that you are missing and are not going to discover studying on your own. For example, you mention contract. The relationship between US… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

You won’t read anything about trusts in the US Constitution. To put the US Constitution into context you have to read a little history about what was going on with the founders when they wrote the Constitution. The Federalist papers is one source. You just can not read the Constitution by itself and under stand it. After that you have to read case law that interprets the Constitution. There are a lot of very affordable community college classes and non-new world order professors that teach those classes. No one is too old or too poor to take a cc or… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

I quit this discussion. Because those who understand “common law” and “common sense” are constantly bombarded by those with law “edumacation” or BAR certifications who think we are all stupid because we actually think that the US Constitution was only meant to constrain Federal tyrants, but the states can do what they want – even vis-à-vis the Bill of Rights. I quit. You attorneys know your BAR “rules” but you have forgotten your single lesson class in constitutional law. Which classes should have taught you that the federal government is WHOLLY a creation of the Constitution, without which anything they… Read more »

ole Shoemaker
ole Shoemaker
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Jim: Very simply it is part of the communist and socialist plan of “dumb-down” the people. Besides the fact that if the people dared to believe they new anything about the law and could represent themselves without help from a lawyer to take a crap, that would put a hole bunch of college educated [communist, socialist taught] morons out of work…….

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Others aver that “many state constitutions” reflect the wording of the US Constitution. I would beg to differ, at least for the first states, upon whose constitutions the Bill of Rights were modeled. STATE constitutions were not anticipatory of a “republic”, but the Republic of the united States in America was based on what the Framers KNEW “could” happen (not “would” happen) should a rogue bunch of representatives obtain too much power. So, the US Constitution is more based on the experiences and historical KNOWLEDGE of the Framers, which were based on their own bitter experiences with rogue red-coats and… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Author: DaveW: I believe yelling Fire! in a crowded theater is not protected speech where no fire exists if it can reasonably be predicted that injuries would result from the panic such an action would likely cause. You are correct, only (it seems to me) under state laws regarding “incitement to riot” (which is not, to my uncertain knowledge, a Federal tort or crime)… However, one would not be under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment, but rather under common law “riot” ordinances or statutes. Any attorneys out there want to chime in? I don’t mean anyone like me, a… Read more »

james
james
4 years ago

SCOTUS is 100% correct, arms are arms, past, present and in the future.

Same for First Amendment Right, town crier on a wood crate in the center of the city,
newsprint, radio, tv, internet, cable systems, sat news and radio, and who knows what is next.

Suzanne
Suzanne
4 years ago

Here people are celebrating the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States. Clueless.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Suzanne

Excuse me? Where in the second amendment does the word “congress” appear? That amendment is specifically AIMED AT states AND the “united” states’ representatives to Congress. It is a list of 10 amendments that did not specify to whom the proscriptions were meant to be aimed, but rather an iteration (if not reiteration) of the RIGHTS the people held PRIOR to the ratification of each of those first 10 amendments. Otherwise, you would have to argue that the 5th amendment does not apply to the states. A trial by a jury of one’s peers PRE-dated any concept of Federal statutes… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Jim,
Actually, the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are meant only to prevent Federal Government action. For example the proscription of the Third Amendment has never been incorporated against the States, and therefore does not (yet) apply to the several States. Meaning the States could quarter their soldiers in your house if the state wanted.
The S. Ct has a policy of selectively incorporating the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights against the States through the 14th Amendment. The word Congress is not needed in any of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

By your argument, then, the Bill of Rights – compiled and incorporated into the US Constitution BY THE STATES – exempt the States. Look through the BoR and tell me which of the rights incorporated therein exempt the states from compliance. NOT by SCOTUS “incorporation”, but by INTENT. Self-incrimination is lawful if it is a state doing it? NO. That was a right existing PRIOR to the adoption of the Constitution (itself adopted prior to the inclusion of the BoR BY the states to ensure that it was clear what the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE (citizens) of EACH state were… Read more »

hypocrite
hypocrite
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

it’s funny how your “establishment of religion” argument is used against you by wild bill and you then flip to protect your view for states. i do not agree with wild bill, but his reasoning followed yours on your “establishment of religion” argument.

riddle me this: if fedGov is supposed to protect the rights of the individual (not the individual themselves), why in the world are there federal prosecutors?

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Suzanne

Why would you call that “clueless”? Are not the unalienable rights of free speech and religion and defense of one’s state of universal – and individual state importance – to be so incorporated? What SCOTUS may or may not have done in SPECIFIC cases does not have ANY relevance to the universality we all claim for unalienable rights! Why else would it be called the Bill of “RIGHTS”? Again, the word congress is not mentioned in 2A. It is aimed specifically at ALL governments that seek to invade or otherwise subjugate a state – or states – to some DC-based… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Jim,
You are possessed of a fine, but untutored mind. You should really take some law classes. I can tell that you are reading and trying to put things together, but so much of this comment is half correct that it would take me hours of typing to straighten things out. Finally, I have noted during my thirty years of practice that unless I charge people a fee, they don’t want to believe what I tell them.
I can not encourage you enough to seek instruction in the law..

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

There is a difference between what YOU call “the law” (statutes and case rulings by humans called judges in SPECIFIC instances, and only applicable to those instants) and what the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution SAYS, referring as it does BACK to the limited powers granted to CONGRESS, and the Bill of Rights assertions in amendments 9 and 10. Perhaps you have “too much” law PRACTICE under your belt, wheeling and dealing for convictions or pleas. We, the people, do not live that way. WE take a contract AT ITS WORDS. I do not take offense at your lecture… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Take it easy Jim, there are just so many little things about the law that you are missing and are not going to discover studying on your own. For example, you mention contract. The relationship between US citizens and our government is based on trust theory not contract theory. Our founders understood the law of trusts and estates and specifically chose a trust model (i.e. sovereignty resides in the people, but is given in trust to their representatives not for their benefit, but for the benefit of the people). S. Ct rulings have precedential value vary very few are applicable… Read more »

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Murdock v PA makes it clear that paying for a right makes it a privilege, which can be bought, and that the state could use it to prevent use of said right (I believe in this case it was for Poll Taxes). Shuttlesworth v Birmingham makes clear that a law written to grant a permission to someone through a person, or group of persons, who may, or may not grant the permit, is an “unconstitutional censorship, or prior restraint on the individual. The justice then went on to quote Staub v Baxley, a federal S.Ct. case by quoting this phrase,… Read more »

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago

Then it is time to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco firearms and explosives regulation on NFA items, class 3 items, etceterIa, etcetera, etcetera and let us buy whatever the hell we damn well want without all the background check harassment finger prints lengthy waiting periods and all the excessive paperwork. It is all too obvious that those of us that have served honorably in the military or in law enforcement, already know how to utilize and care for every type and quality weapon known to man, therefore there’s no reason why we can’t just walk in show our credentials… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

I don’t see the logical train in what you say. First, you assert (as I do) that we should not have to jump through hoops, but then you say [essentially] that those who have “cred” should be able to walk in and “show our credentials”. What does that do to those who have no “credentials”? What “credentials” are being foisted on us already? Are veterans’ credentials of more value than my driver’s license, or my “word”? This is how “they” win – divide and conquer by any means. Today, your argument: those with cred should not be hassled; those without,… Read more »

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Suppose we could use street cred/ Every inner city gang banger can earn that simply by shooting someone, or being shot, and surviving.

DaveW
DaveW
4 years ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

Can’ trust veterans, according to the author of the Assault Weapons Ban, Sen Feinstein, who say, “no veteran should ever be allowed to own a weapon because they are all mentally ill with PTSD.” We already know she does not know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15. With this comment, she evidenced that she does not understand PTSD; believing that every veteran was exposed to combat and developed PTSD, when there are a great many who never even entered the combat zone. She also does not understand that not every veteran experienced something so traumatic that they developed… Read more »

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

She is following the mantra of Hillary 1.01

Jo Ann
Jo Ann
4 years ago

Re: Spanish or other-than-English.
If the poster has read the articles and comments, written in English, why not reply in English. Do they not wish to be understood? Please explain.

Jorge Norberto Pedace
Jorge Norberto Pedace
4 years ago

ESTO ES UNA VERDADERA VERGÜENZA,LAS CAUSAS QUE EXPONEN PARA PROHIBIR,NO RESISTE EN MENOR ANÁLISIS,AHORA VIENEN,CON LAS ARMAS QUE HACEN RUIDO,Y PREGUNTO QUE ARMA DE FUEGO
NO HACE RUIDO.LO QUE TENDRÁN QUE VALORAR LOS CONGRESALES,ES CUANTOS CRIMENES,ASALTOS
Y VIOLACIONES HABRÍA A PARTIR DE RETACEAR EL PERMISO A LOS HISTÓRICOS LEGÍTIMOS USUARIOS
QUE QUIEREN EVENTUALMENTE DEFENDER SUS VIDAS Y LAS DE SUS FAMILIAS Y REALIZAR LA PRÁCTICA
DEPORTIVA DEL TIRO,O PARTICIPAR DE CACERÍAS.RESULTA INCREÍBLE,ACEPTAR LOS ARGUMENTOS QUE
ELEGANTEMENTE DICEN QUE NO.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago

Hey Peedro, bad day on the bong? Do you know where you are? 🙂

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago

Very funny since leftists find ALL firearms, knives, clubs, etc., unbearable.

Pat
Pat
4 years ago

I’m no genius, but I can read. “All bearable arms” includes M14’s M16’s M4’s , the SAW, M60 , etc etc… So when can I run out and get my M249 without jumping through hoops???

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
4 years ago
Reply to  Pat

When we as a people elect intelligent, responsible, and rational candidates to federal office. Your move.

Michael J Wilson
Michael J Wilson
4 years ago

For those who think a UN treaty or any other treaty or law supersedes the Constitution, I would refer you to Art, VI of the US Constitution!

Michael Twidle
Michael Twidle
4 years ago

I wonder if the Massachusetts court would have ruled that the 1st amendment only applied to forms of media that were in common use at the time of the nation’s founding.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago
Reply to  Michael Twidle

And religions. Amen.

sbeyma
sbeyma
4 years ago

What they did was send the case back to the Massachusetts court (remand) for further proceedings.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  sbeyma

Right. But they re-affirmed by that, the condition in Heller, that all bearable arms are covered by 2nd Amendment. They did NOT overturn that part of Heller, which is PARAMOUNT and ASTOUNDING for its scope and breadth in our favor. They remanded the CASE back to MA, not the concepts in Heller! MA cannot overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

Billium
Billium
4 years ago

Hey anyone, do you think this decision has a lot of ammunition (excuse the pun) to defeat California’s maximum sizes of magazines to 10?

Dwayne Stovall
Dwayne Stovall
4 years ago

“Incorporation” strikes again. The federal Bill of Rights in its entirety was never intended to apply to the States, but over a century of progressive judges reaching for authority they never had by bastardizing the 14th amendment (magic amendment) has led us to this day. Now, the federal system in which the States would retain expansive authority over everything except those few limited and enumerated authorities they delegated the federal government, has been completely destroyed. Each State supreme Court is now meaningless. Each State Constitution is now meaningless. Each State Bill of Rights is now meaningless. We have centralized all… Read more »

DaveW
DaveW
4 years ago
Reply to  Dwayne Stovall

If you read the individual state Constitutions, each one essentially repeats the US Constitution. Some are word for word, and some are reworded but do not conflict with the national constitution.

Big Bill
Big Bill
4 years ago

Regrettably, the California legislators will still play dumb as sh*t…and continue to infringe on our 2A right to bear “all” arms. D#mbF#cks.

Jim
Jim
4 years ago

Reasonable is a lie and tool of deceptive incrementalism. Yelling fire in a crowded theater should be free speech and lawful. If you cause damage by your speech then you should be judged for the damage.

All firearms are protected. Be judged by you damage only

JoeUSooner
JoeUSooner
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim

Jim, that actually IS the law. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded place is indeed protected speech, and NO ONE will be prosecuted for just that alone (especially if everyone around finds no reason to panic, and there is no damage done by the idiot who yells, in the first place). Several of the Founding Fathers – Madison, Jefferson, Adams – all specified in writing that the law applies only when damage results from an action.

DaveW
DaveW
4 years ago
Reply to  JoeUSooner

I believe yelling Fire! in a crowded theater is not protected speech where no fire exists if it can reasonably be predicted that injuries would result from the panic such an action would likely cause.

ole Shoemaker
ole Shoemaker
4 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

“DaveW: I believe yelling Fire! in a crowded theater is not protected speech where no fire exists if it can reasonably be predicted that injuries would result from the panic such an action would likely cause.” DaveW: If that is true, and I am not saying it is not, then how is it not a crime for people yelling GUN !!! What about “swatting” incidents ???? Just asking because according to most State laws making a false 911 call is a crime, yet to my knowledge I have not seen anyone prosecuted for these events and they could trace the… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  ole Shoemaker

Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is the classic hypothetical explanation of why our Constitutional Rights are not absolute. I should, but do not, remember the case cite. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr wrote the opinion. So you are not going to see a case where someone was prosecuted for violating some law or ordinance.

gil
gil
4 years ago

I wish all judges and justices has no political party and I wish we can vote for them like all other positions in the congress. I wish these justices vote for the preservation of the constitution and protection of the citizens and not only serve the interest of a chosen few. I WISH…

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  gil

You “wish for” the whim of simple-minded “majorities” – 1 vote to decide YOUR rights. No offense intended, but take care what you wish to see.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  gil

I DO agree that I too wish the judges would “judge of the LAW” (the US Constitution) and NOT the whim of the mob. Unfortunately, most judges that have reached that high are OF THE MOB – and if not, they are subtly removed…

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  gil

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

TJ
TJ
4 years ago

Okay, does this mean that the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 are null and void ?

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  TJ

Yes. IF they interfere with our rights to life, liberty, and property, they are null and void. WHY do we give power to a bunch of gangsters with fully auto weapons to protect our Senators and Presidents, that we do not allow ourselves to protect the future progeny of the Republic? The answer is simple. CONGRESS has perverted the rule of law.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

The courts have perverted the law, as well, but they did it at the behest of lawyers. A lot of money to be made in law, so the more laws, the more money. The more the laws are based on conflicting words & terms, conflicts within the law (see NY S.A.F.E. where the NYSP even made clear they cannot interpret the law to any degree, and thus it remains in the hands of lawyers, judges, and juries, to puzzle out the various differences, and difficulties within it), etc., the more lawyers can make to pad their future retirement, and current… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  TJ

No, and probably not. The GCA of 1968 has been found by the S.CT to be a Constitutional exercise of Congress’ commerce power.
The NFA of 1934 has never been tested in the S.Ct, but given the make up of the current S. Ct., that Act would probably not be struck down.
This is why Hillary’s defeat is so necessary.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

This commerce clause argument is bogus. It was designed ONLY to ensure that commerce between and among states was NOT impeded by tariffs or other means. All “excess fees” for the cost of regulation or “levies” were to be turned over to the DC government, as “general revenue” – designed to keep states from interfering in commerce, which the FEDS were already prohibited from doing! It had NOTHING to do with “regulating” any particular product going from one state to another. READ your history.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Well, Jim, of course it is bogus! Congress did not call it the Commerce Control Act of 1968. Congress called it the Gun Control Act of 1968. An elitist S. Ct. was backing up and elitist Congress. I did not mean to imply that I agreed with it. My apologies.

goose-step-it-up
goose-step-it-up
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

somewhere is the words “general welfare” so we have a right to welfare payments…. FDR said it i believe.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

LOL. Of course, we all realize that “general welfare” is not “specific welfare” – the latter is left, by Amendment Ten to the STATES to EFFECT.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

A “finding” by SCOTUS does NOT “make law”. It ONLY relates to a particular case brought to it as an APPEAL, or a constitutionally valid case. Gun Control is not in the purview of Congress. Therefore, it is invalid, null, void, on its face if used an argumentation to “affirm” an unconstitutional “regulation” – via the commerce or any other “clause”. Please read the ENTIRE U. S. Constitution before showing ignorance.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Well, the SCOTUS does not legislate law. And I did not write that they did, but the S. Ct has the authority to guide lower courts and case precedent is used to do that. See US v Bass, Scarborough v U.S. etc. Gun control may not be the “purview of Congress” but Congress is doing it anyway, and the S.Ct. and executive branch are both backing Congress up. You know Jim, I think that you should open up a gun store and sell a few guns without following the GCA and the CFRs. Then you could make your powerful arguments… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

good one. No. I have no business sense, and would probably wish everyone could just walk in a take a gun, one per person, the way things were in days of old when patriots stood on bridges and repelled the most powerful military in the world… 1775

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

The SCOTUS does not Legislate law, nor did I write that it did, but the SCOTUS has the authority to guide and control lower courts decisions by precedents.
As to “Gun Control is not the purview of Congress…null, void, etc. etc.” Please see Haynes v. US.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Excellent choice of a case for my argument that “felons” cannot “lose” their rights, once they have served their time… indeed, many go on to become writers (press), or preachers (religion), or otherwise “citizens”. Haynes v. U.S. makes the point – paraphrasing – that Fifth Amendment is violated if someone who is “prohibited” by “statute” from exercising a “right guaranteed” is not required to “self incriminate” and thus is incapable of losing the right simply because government “says so” by “color of law”… In essence, of course. But, we see how far it has gone, when we see how corrupt… Read more »

good citizens do what they're told
good citizens do what they're told
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

“A “finding” by SCOTUS does NOT “make law”.” — check marbury v, madison, then look at ACA, passed because a SC judge said “fine” in the law’s actual words was a “tax” in effect.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

Funny that you should cite Marbury V. Madisen. That is the case where the S. Ct. seized the power to declare an act of a legislature contrary to the U.S. Constitution, thus striking down that legislative act as “Unconstitutional”. If you read Article III of the Constitution you will note that the power to declare anything “unconstitutional” is now within the judiciary’s power.
Marbury is the first instance of the S. Ct creating a power for itself that it was not given in the U.S. Constitution. So… actually the S. Ct did make law. Ask any first year law student.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

My post should readIf you read Article III of the Constutution you will note that the power to declare anything “unconstitutional is NOT within the judiciary’s power.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

It hasn’t? What was U.S. v Miller ,then? Chopped liver?

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  TJ

They always were. it was only the people’s majority compliance that made them powerful laws, or laws for the powerful. Had the people rejected, and not complied – civil disobedience – we would not be in the mess we are today. People had a lot of respect for the National Socialist, FDR, and so they complied. It was one of the socilist parties biggest propaganda coups. This is why we see so many young DemocRATs involved in mass shootings. They are indoctrinated to hate first, drugged to kill, then when they do, the left screams ” WE NEED ANOTHER LAW!”

Mark
Mark
4 years ago

Is this ruling saying that machine guns should not be restricted

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark

Yeah. What is a “machine gun” anyway? Some weapon we train 17-year-olds to use for OUR defense? Should we not be able to use the same?

DaveW
DaveW
4 years ago

I believe that there is a matter of law regarding what ‘would have been discoverable anyway’. Ben Franklin already was experimenting with electricity. He was followed by Edison and many others over time. Police officers have carried Taser type “weapons” for many years, having advanced through a wide range of weapons. The armed forces have experimented with such weapons for decades. I note that sawed off “shotguns” were in common use in the 1700s by the Marines assigned to English warships. They were used to sweep the decks of any force opposing being boarded, while Marine marksmen fired from the… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

Unfortunately, Dave, those politicians and courts that you mention are not interested in the truth. They are looking to shape our society, into what they think our society should be like. And if Hillary gets to appoint from three to five S.CT Justices, then we are really going to be slaves.

PS Those M79 antipersonnel rounds are called flechette rounds.

DaveW
DaveW
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

I recall the 90 and 105 mm “fleshettes”… steel darts. The M-79, IIRC, 40mm rounds contained 00 Buckshot. “Following the successful development of the M406 HE-FRAG round, several other types of 40mm ammunition were rapidly developed, including smoke and illumination rounds, HE-DP (dual purpose, fragmentation/antitank), incendiary, buckshot canister (for close-combat and self-defense). The key downside to the M79 was that it required the grenadier to carry an additional personal defense weapon, such as pistol or a submachine gun. This inconvenience was the key reason for development of the M203 under-barrel grenade launcher, which superseded the M79 in the service since… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

Hey Dave,
There was a fellow selling an M-79 and 25 live rounds at the Wanenmacher Gun show last weekend. He wanted $8,500 for it. He had a destructive device manufacturer license (reduced and laminated) attached to it. And the place was crawling with ATF personnel so… it must be legal.

isaac
isaac
4 years ago

I hear a lot of TALKING about gun rights and the 2A but if there was even 10 real patriots hillary would be burning at the stake n Obama would b swinging from a rope – aughtley connaugt’s old man was right

Bruce
Bruce
4 years ago

Liberals will try to change the constitution as they have said they would do if that what it takes to get rid of our guns. Although this is good news it’s far from being over. Stay alert and keep fighting to keep liberals out of the White House and out of congress and the senate!

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago

I find it pathetic that lower courts have ruled and continue to rule with inconsistent regards to legal precedents.

Dewey in Alabama
Dewey in Alabama
4 years ago
Reply to  Eric_CA

It is because We the People have not forced the Congress to enact laws to punish them for such things since 1896. USC 42, sec 1983. It has been completely deballed by the courts and is now close to useless. We need a revamp with a clause sealing it against judges ruling themselves out from under it.

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago

I like Mark Levin’s idea in his book The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic. I think those would be helpful.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Eric_CA

Mark Levin is a convention of states supporter and should not be trusted to have our best interests in mind. There is NO way Congress can control a convention “once called” – and considering that George Soros and many of HIS groups are calling for it along with others to the other “extremis”, this is not a good idea. Ever.

fvck mark levin
fvck mark levin
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

preach!

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago
Reply to  Eric_CA

That’s because we the people are too complacent in our daily lives and routines to bother reading are state constitutions to find and utilize the mechanisms within to remove these cretin judges from the bench, if for any reason, Willful Neglect of Statutory Duty as per their Oath of Office.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

West Virginia just got done unseating three of these judges. It’s not impossible, but requires ethical police, an ethical congress willing to impeach, and ethical prosecutors, as well as,

5WarVeteran
5WarVeteran
4 years ago

You know the US Constitution in it’s untranslated purity was very clear. The 27 words of the Second Amendment are not hard to understand. One CANNOT tell me that the “founding Fathers” were clueless to the advances of technology. In fact they were very aware and understood the right to bear arms in it’s importance in regards to being able to own and use any weaponry commensurate and one step better than what could be criminally aimed at the individual. There is a major difference between a duel using two exact same weapons in a staged face to face event… Read more »

PapaBear
PapaBear
4 years ago
Reply to  5WarVeteran

Amen brother!! You are so correct!!

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago
Reply to  5WarVeteran

Touching on those two operations, ( operation gun Walker and operation Fast and Furious ) I’m amazed that one other human being realizes that there was more than just Fast and Furious, there were in fact five operations, all reported in the Dallas Morning News back I believe in 2008 or 2009. If I recall it was, Gun Walker, Gunrunner, Fast & Furious, 7 Seas or high seas or something like that to cover the Caribbean area and one other operation. What concerns me about any of it is how mainstream Society allowed themselves to be dumbed down to have… Read more »

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

By the time F&F came around, the ATF already knew it could not track any gun sold, yet they sold them anyway. More importantly, if any were used against the population of the other country(ies), they, in essence, declared a de facto war on those countries. They should be being tried in the Hague (something I would never wish happen to American citizens) but given Soetoro is a Kenyan…..

DaProf
DaProf
4 years ago

Random thought: How does a new weapon become “commonplace”?

Is that how they might approach it to deny us firearms?

Just a pre-coffee thought.

hippybiker
hippybiker
4 years ago

Most uninformed people today have been led to believe that OUR Constitution is some complex document that needs to be spelled out to them by Lawyers and Scholars. Nothing could be further from the truth! It was written by extremely intelligent men so the common man could read and comprehend it. Don’t be fooled by a bunch of pompous over fed weasels.

Blue
Blue
4 years ago
Reply to  hippybiker

Exactly.

dink
dink
4 years ago
Reply to  hippybiker

it’s the new laws and regulations that are purposefully ambiguous so they can catch-22 their way around everything.

chris
chris
4 years ago

this should void Miller.

DaProf
DaProf
4 years ago
Reply to  chris

This should void a lot of unreasonable gun laws and restrictions.

After all, who isn’t for reasonable gun laws? Of course, that means that 99.99% of the ones on the books need to be repealed, because they clearly are not reasonable nor have any basis in fact for their crafting…just some appeal to emotion.

Dewey in Alabama
Dewey in Alabama
4 years ago
Reply to  chris

Miller was already legally void, as the apellee, Mr. Miller, died before the ruling was issued thus making the parent case moot.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago

True, Jack Miller’s body was found on 6 April 1939. the McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court on 15 May 1939.

2brknot2bfree
2brknot2bfree
9 months ago

My understanding is he died prior to the case being tried, and without a defendant their should have been no trial. However, what the court did decide, the federali’s have been negating ever since by continuing to press the short barreled rifle, and shotgun, and the full automatic ban for anyone who doesn’t apply to them for permission (see Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, especially the quote from Staub v Baxley). We don’t need no stinkin’ permission from government, or any other entity to keep & bear any type of arms of our choosing. I will say that if, and when, the… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Yes. There will always be those who say the Constitution’s words do not mean what the Founders meant. But, as words have meaning, so too do the words that make up those meanings. If a right is unalienable, how can one “regulate” it? IF the words “shall not be infringed”, or “shall not be abridged” are succinct, and unqualified, how can one “regulate” them? Easily. Just by doing it, with the tacit acquiescence of EVERY state legislature, which, constitutionally, has the power and the authority to nullify any law that is not consistent with STATE powers and the RIGHTS of… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

If a right is unalienable, how can one “regulate” it? Here is how Jim: Judicial Fictions. First, we judicially introduce the fiction that a Right is not absolute, (e.g. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.) Then you introduce the idea that Rights must be interpreted “reasonably”, what ever that means. Now, the flood gates are open, every court interprets your Constitutional Civil Rights as what ever they want it to mean, to get to the result that that particular court wants. Finally, you introduce the concept that this is all so difficult that only judges, presidents, legislators, bureaucrats,… Read more »

TEX
TEX
4 years ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Wild Bill,you’re absolutely correct. The 2A is a constitutional,unalienable right. But the liberal socialists are trying desperately to suggest that the wording of the 2A means something other than what it obviously does. I’m afraid if we get a Supreme Court with a liberal,socialist,Jewish majority that’s precisely what could happen. Firearms regulation will soon become a states rights issue as It should had always been. Firearms laws and regulation will be similar to concealed/open carry/constitutional carry license laws that vary from state to state.

Blue
Blue
4 years ago
Reply to  TEX

If the Second is recognized by the US Constitution as being a God-given unalienable right, how can it be a states rights issue? To me, “shall not be infringed” has the clear meaning that gun rights shall not be interfered with by any governments, local, state, or federal. If any government has the power to regulate gun rights, even a little, you can be sure they will try to regulate them a lot. “A lot” being as much as the people will allow before being willing to do something about the restrictions that will inevitably be placed upon gun use… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Blue

The Constitution does not reference “God-given” anything. That is Declaration of Independence ON WHICH the principles of liberty are based that we know as the “secured rights” in the US Constitution. It is important – VERY much so – to NOT reference any kind of deity or religion, because that is also forbidden in the US Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion – MEANS: “an establishment” (a religion). It does NOT, as it has been purposefully interpreted by revisionists and atheists to mean “congress shall not establish”. “An establishment” is a thing, a noun. NOT… Read more »

doing the clown
doing the clown
4 years ago
Reply to  Blue

jim greaves: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion – MEANS: “an establishment” (a religion)” — if “an establishment” means “religion.” why the redundancy of “religion” immediately following “an establishment” — webster (a contemporary) defined “establishment” as “something established, or act/state of establishing” . . . so establish is a verb and means “to cause to be widely known” “to put in power/position/role” and “to create” — precisely meaning fedGov cannot tell you what/where/how to worship any particular religion. you are incorrect in your interpretation.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago
Reply to  Blue

doing the clown: I’ve always assumed “…an establishment of religion…” was the equivalent of “…an ORGANIZATION of religion…” or “…an INSTITUTION of religion…” and in short, “establishment” is intended to be interpreted as a noun. I’ve assumed it may mean a “church” or a “recognized group” or any “establishment” so long as it’s recognized as established as the framework for the subject religion. I’ve always wanted this to be the proper interpretation in order to allow Congress, subject to judicial review, the latitude to recognize “established” religions and not recognize others. Seems prudent in order to prevent charlatans, terrorists, et… Read more »

Jew gun orwner
Jew gun orwner
4 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Liberal, socialist, Jewish. Any other 2A supporters you want to offend?

Willd Bill
Willd Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Jew gun orwner

True, the Constitution doesn’t reference God given, you have to read the Federalist papers, which documents the very public debate about switching from the Articles of Confederation the the Constitution or maybe it was George Mason’s writings. And there is a S.Ct. cases that correctly attributes the right to bear arms to God and not to the Second Amendment. So if there were no Second Amendment, we would still have the right to bear arms. Someone will remember the case name.

John Isbell
John Isbell
4 years ago
Reply to  TEX

Scrap that Jewish crap. Have you ever heard of “Jews for The Preservation of Firearms”. Please don’t be anti-semitic or racist. It is hard enough trying to convince people of the necessity to own firearms without throwing in prejudicial remarks.

Sfsarge
Sfsarge
4 years ago
Reply to  John Isbell

Well said.

kitt
kitt
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

What a great thread, well written and rational, Love it! Jim are you on face book? I would love to follow.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

I agree. Judicial FICTIONS. Fantasies of judges, who have never turned a row on a farm, but instead have been but mere clerks in an office.

aughtley connaught
aughtley connaught
4 years ago

I understand what it says but the politicians will never let a sleeping dog lie. They will have lawyers and other forms of scum look at it and say, “That is NOT what the court really meant”. and it will start all over again…..I think my late father was more correct that what I wanted to believe when he said it. he said, “We will never have liberty (he meant freedom from government) until we go into the Capitol Bldg, drag about 50 or 60 out onto the front lawn and eye shoot them. The remaining scoundrels will have taken… Read more »

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago

Remember how the Second Amendment starts, and ends after the words “A well-regulated militia…” meaning well trained to arms: “… being necessary for the security of a free state… ” (ie, EACH state) interrupted by the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, “shall not be infringed”. Simply meaning that the security of EACH state supersedes all rationales and reasons to own “arms”. Combine this as the METHOD of ensuring “security of a free state” with the meanings of Article 4, Section 4, and Article 1, Section 10, paragraph 3, and it is CLEAR that the… Read more »

DaveW
DaveW
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Following the Revolutionary War, the Revolutionary Army was disbanded, save for approximately 87 who remained on the rolls to guard armories and to be stationed aboard ships. Everyone else took their firearms and other instruments of war, and went home to their families. There being no standing army, which was a position desired by the majority of Founders, it fell to the people in each state to provide for the common defense of the state and the nation. A “militia” ready to answer the call, as they did when England invaded the United States in the War of 1812. That… Read more »

Patsy
Patsy
4 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

You speak as if our 1st President — George Washington — never had to act as Commander in Chief, tsk tsk.

I’m all for the 2nd that the Anti Fedealists required to ratify a very powerful centralized government. But many of you don’t realize that the “Virginia Plan” is the root of the big fed.

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago
Reply to  Patsy

If you paid attention to history you would have found out that Washington was not the first president..

doink
doink
4 years ago
Reply to  Patsy

mr. romeu: washington was the first, under the new constitution. under the articles of confederation he lead a militia to collect taxes (for the government) from revolutionary soldiers that had still not been paid (by the government) – shay’s rebellion. this lead to the constitutional convention who’s goal was to create a bigger, more powerful central god-vernment. after ratification, the first president under the new constitution sent a militia to collect the taxes that put an unfair burden on personal whiskey production that amounted in many cases to an income tax (then illegal/unconstitutional until the 16th amendment reversed direct tax… Read more »

me
me
4 years ago
Reply to  Patsy

Hey greg…you u being a Troll?

Wayne Hilt
Wayne Hilt
4 years ago
Reply to  Jim Greaves

Well regulated also means “Armed in accordance with military regulation”
Military firearms a likely the “most protected” firearms

Jim Macklin
Jim Macklin
4 years ago
Reply to  Wayne Hilt

The 1939 MILLER SCOUS case was remanded for trial to create a court transcript and evidence for the Court to review. The Court said, “It [was] not within judicial notice” about military use of shotguns, but the Court continued to say “that when called, the militia was expected to appear bearing their private arms” of current contemporary kind. You are correct, the Court would say that so-called assault rifles are the exact kind of arm protected by the Second Amendment. The 1792 Militia Act defines “well regulated” when the Congress specified the military standard of 1792 and later versions reflect… Read more »

eaglesnester
eaglesnester
4 years ago

This should halt Obummer in his tracks with his pen and phone.

HP
HP
4 years ago
Reply to  eaglesnester

You’d think, but when has the constitution, law, and rulings of the SCOTUS ever stopped him from doing anything?

doink the clown
doink the clown
4 years ago
Reply to  HP

stopped any of them? #1 washington: sent a militia to collect taxes (whiskey rebellion) just as he’d done as a military commander under the articles of confederation with shay’s rebellion. #2 john adams: sedition acts prohibiting free speech #3 jefferson: unconstitutionally acquired the louisiana purchase lands for expediency. #4 madison: “until his experience as president with a weak national government during the War of 1812 caused Madison to appreciate the need for a strong central government . . . he began to support a national bank, a stronger navy, and a standing army.” and it continues… #44 and will continue…… Read more »

Hoosier Veteran
Hoosier Veteran
4 years ago

How about the Marshals sending SWAT teams to crash in doors and arrest people for the high crime of defaulting on student loans? Can you say “Ruby Rige”, or “Waco”, or…

TJK
TJK
4 years ago
Reply to  eaglesnester

I could be mistaken but it is my understanding that international treaties signed by the US will supersede the Constitution. So all Mr. O has to due is sign the UN treaty to limit small arms and we are all left defenseless.

Blue
Blue
4 years ago
Reply to  TJK

I believe that any treaties obama might wish to put in place have to be approved by 2/3 of the Senate.

Dana
Dana
4 years ago
Reply to  TJK

You ARE mistaken. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution. Treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of those senators present to vote, but they still do not take precedence over the Constitution. If terms of a treaty violate the Constitution, then those portions (or possibly the whole treaty) should be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Smedley54
Smedley54
4 years ago
Reply to  Dana

Thanks Dana! Very good response that I understand to be accurate. No foreign state or international body (UN) can override the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Law. Our representatives – elected or appointed – can sign treaties, but then Congress AND the President have to sign legislation changing our laws, and constitutional amendments would be referred to the states. Constitutional changes would require a constitutional convention. This decision hinges on Heller, and together they make any gun ban or “Australian Style” gun law a difficult task. It would be interesting to hear how this court might rule on the 1994 Assault… Read more »

Eric_CA
Eric_CA
4 years ago
Reply to  Smedley54

I believe the case was Medellín v. Texas. SCOTUS’s “decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is ‘self-executing.’ Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice [world court] are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.” By the way, as a… Read more »

RayJN
RayJN
4 years ago
Reply to  Dana

Should and is are different. Also how long does it take to get a case to SCOTUS if ever. The government of WE THE PEOPLE has been sold out.

USPatriotOne
USPatriotOne
4 years ago
Reply to  TJK

I hold JD and NO Treaty supersede the U.S. Constitution. That is a common mistake made by many individuals, including Attorneys. Many Attorneys have taken the minimum (usually one class) on Constitutional Law in Law school. I on the other hand have studies Constitutional Law in-depth and know for a fact that Treaties do not supersede the U.S. Constitution. BO and the Commie/Left want the American people to believe this to be fact, but it is not, IT IS A LIE…PERIOD..!!! The Courts opinion lays to rest any low court opinions on the 2nd Amendment on the ownership of nearly… Read more »

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago
Reply to  USPatriotOne

If you hold a JD and were studying so much in Constitutional law then you would know the proper title of the Constitution would be, “The Constitution of the United States” and not the US Constitution because there was no such thing as the United States at the time that the constitution was enacted therefore the proper name is and always has been “Constitution of the United States”.

Jim Greaves
Jim Greaves
4 years ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

Right about the “name”, but remember the “united” states (plural) did not and was never intended to mean “a” thing other than “a republic” (“for which it stands” – the stars and stripes). It is common ignorance and illiteracy that we have to blame for the misapplication of terms and names to “unions” as if by naming THEM as “a thing” that removes the uniqueness of the parts. Keep powder dry! And remember what the militia clause is meant to protect – NOT the DC “USA”, but rather EACH STATE.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

USPat has given you a correct statement of the relative status of federal treaties and the US Constitution. Quibbling over the propriety of Constitution of the United States as opposed to the short hand US Constitution (which is faster to type), particularly in this forum, will only work to chase away the people who have the right answers. So… Ammoland non curate diminimis! PS the United States of America did exist before the US Constitution. After the revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which did not work too well. So the several states sent delegates… Read more »

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

“Chase away the people with the right answers…”

If a statement like that chases way, the people with the right answers” then what we’re talking about is relying on cowards to be the only reliable sources of information or THE information that we MUST know?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Gregory Romeu

Dear GregR,
Not cowards just too busy to quibble about such minor things. Constitution of the United States and U.S. Constitution are properly interchangeable.

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago
Reply to  USPatriotOne

You claim to be a lawyer and scholar but write like a third grader. You’re on the side of the angels though.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

I don’t think that I write like a third grader. Do you think that a third grader would even think in terms of ” properly interchangeable”, much less write “Constitution of the United States and U.S. Constitution are properly interchangeable.”?
I, merely, don’t feel the need to write on an academic level in this kind of forum. If I did write on an academic level, in this forum, people would call me pompous, pretentious, and arrogant. I’m just fitting in.
I could give you enough information to confirm my identity, but you or someone else might misuse it.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

And Gene, which third grader would be pompous, pretentious, and arrogant enough to turn “Lex non curate diminimis.” into Ammoland non curate diminimis as a play on words? How many third graders can even spell in Latin?

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

My reply was to USPatriotOne, not Wild Bill. Life can be so terribly confusing.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
4 years ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

Dear GR,
It seems that I owe you an apology. Yes, things can be confusing. I stand corrected, sir!

Gregory Romeu
Gregory Romeu
4 years ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

Wild Bill, as for your comment: How many third graders can even spell in Latin?”

The answer would be I don’t know anybody that he’s being honest and what’s to communicate with you that speaks a dead language?

Gene Ralno
Gene Ralno
4 years ago
Reply to  Gene Ralno

Dear WB, No problem, apology accepted, I’ve been miffed for the same reason. Ammoland needs forum software that eliminates thread confusion.

neverlickthehand
neverlickthehand
4 years ago
Reply to  TJK

Nothing supersedes the SUPREME law of the land. It nor anything else cannot.

DaveW
DaveW
4 years ago
Reply to  eaglesnester

It is apparent that the California legislature has never heard of it, or, if they have, they are ignoring it as they continue to write new bills restricting 2A.

RICHARD BUSHONG
RICHARD BUSHONG
4 years ago
Reply to  DaveW

Don’t forget NJ they apparently have another version of the Constitution of the United States.