Chicago AR ban lifted

[Racer X]

Unfortunate, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, but if you go through the process to open up the Constitution to Ammendments, you open up every single word and phrase to change, with the exception to one single part, which escapes me at this moment. edit, found it. The ammendment process itself can't be ammended http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...dable.html

So, be carefull what you wish for. Codifying reproductive rights, altering the 2nd A, and more voter protections might also cost religious freedoms and only male and female being recognized from a legal standpoint.

But it also could be that they never foresaw that society would erode to the extent that it has, criminals being not punished appropriately, victims being treated like the criminal, criminals having more rights than the victims, and that people would abdicate their own safety for others to protect, making them the perfect victim.

[DeusxMac]

No need for a Constitutional amendment, just need to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller and adhere to the Constitution AS IT WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN!

[Racer X]

If we adhere to it as it was clearly written, no vote for women, and slavery comes back?

[DeusxMac]

Smote wrote:
If we adhere to it as it was clearly written, no vote for women, and slavery comes back?

Permit me to more precisely phrase that: …adhere to the Amendment AS IT WAS CLEARLY WRITTEN!

[Racer X]

and at the time it was written, militia was each and every citizen, as there wasn't much of a permanent standing army, and well regulated meant in proper working order, especially their equipment. Oxford dictionary "control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly. "a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function" "

A well regulated clock is functioning properly and accurately.

but it is a moot point, as today's reality is that the Supreme Court has decided it is an individual right, and includes self defense.

So we circle back to why not focus on what we CAN DO? Right now, today?

[DeusxMac]

Smote wrote:
and at the time it was written, militia was each and every citizen, as there wasn't much of a permanent standing army, and well regulated meant in proper working order, especially their equipment. Oxford dictionary "control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly. "a hormone that regulates metabolism and organ function"
A well regulated clock is functioning properly and accurately."

You are incorrect. The phrase “well regulated Militia” does not refer “especially to their equipment”. That is entirely your specious construction.

regulate - verb
to govern or direct according to rule
1. to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
2. to make regulations for or concerning

And, to repeat the pertinent sections I’ve quoted elsewhere, it could not be more obvious that it is A Militia; singular, that is being referred to, NOT a loose catch-all term for anyone who happens to own a gun.

“Article 1, Section 8. The Congress shall have Power...”

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the “Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia , and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

“Article 2, Section 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;”

[Racer X]

don't argue with me, argue with the 9 people who currently decide these things. That body of legal experts, the highest in the land, decided that militia is also singular, and self defense is also iincluded. This is between you and them.

The Oxford Dictionary defined regulated, in several different contexts, not me. A properly functioning clock is well regulated. It is accurate and consistant. Just as a militiaman is (or should be) accurate and consistant. https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/regulated in 1828, one context of regulated was "put in good order" good WORKING order perhaps? fully functional and accurate?

Dictionary.com https://www.dictionary.com/browse/regulate #2, 3 and 4 sure sound like in good working order and accurate, and to the same standards.

"as it was clearly written" (your words) in the late 1700s, using the language of the time, and the meanings of the time, obviously. Regulator clocks were literally well regulated clocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum_clock

"More accurate pendulum clocks, called regulators, were installed in places of business and railroad stations and used to schedule work and set other clocks. The need for extremely accurate timekeeping in celestial navigation to determine longitude on ships during long sea voyages drove the development of the most accurate pendulum clocks, called astronomical regulators. These precision instruments, installed in naval observatories and kept accurate within a second by observation of star transits overhead, were used to set marine chronometers on naval and commercial vessels. Beginning in the 19th century, astronomical regulators in naval observatories served as primary standards for national time distribution services that distributed time signals over telegraph wires" Regulator clocks very much pre-dated the 2nd A, and the meaning of regulated has nothing to do with large groups of people under restrictions in that context, so why should we assume it means those constraints in the document in question? They weren't called regulator clocks because they timed people writing regulations.

And in your quote above, the president is not the Commander in Chief of the Marines, Air Force, Space Force, or Coast Guard. Things change and evolve.

The current state of evolution says it encompasses (but is not limited to) singular right, encompassing, but not limited to, self defense.

[sekker]

Smote wrote:
Unfortunate, as I understand it, and I could be wrong, but if you go through the process to open up the Constitution to Ammendments, you open up every single word and phrase to change, with the exception to one single part, which escapes me at this moment. edit, found it. The ammendment process itself can't be ammended http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft...dable.html

So, be carefull what you wish for. Codifying reproductive rights, altering the 2nd A, and more voter protections might also cost religious freedoms and only male and female being recognized from a legal standpoint.

But it also could be that they never foresaw that society would erode to the extent that it has, criminals being not punished appropriately, victims being treated like the criminal, criminals having more rights than the victims, and that people would abdicate their own safety for others to protect, making them the perfect victim.

There will not be an amendment anytime soon - except maybe to force ethical rules on the SCOTUS.

Your statements that the Second Amendment interpretation has been resolved is not accurate. It has changed over time, and the current set of SCOTUS 'originalists' have left plenty of room for further intepretation.

I stand by my statements that there are plenty of changes that can be made within CURRENT interpretation. In each case, to my knowledge they have passed legal tests within recent timelines. You keep claiming they will NOT stand a SCOTUS challenge; I do not know by what evidence you say that.

For example, background checks pass SCOTUS: we do them poorly and with tons of loopholes. Close those. Second, registration is fully acceptable. We need REAL registration rules. Third, I stand by the view that insurance TIED to the first three will do two things:

1) If you are a law-abiding and responsible gun-owner, you are PROTECTED from lawsuits if your gun gets stolen and then used in a crime.

2) Insurance will enable/empower victims to start to get real compensation. Right now, they are lucky to even see justice. Financial balance is a key part of our civil society.

Ok, now come and tell me how any/all of this is against the Second Amendment. Except, please provide examples of modern court rulings that say this is not possible.

[Acer]

Speaking for myself with regard to "9 people who currently decide these things" I don't have near the money I would need to get Thomas, Alito or Kavanaugh's vote. What's Gorsuch' going rate?

[Racer X]

How could you possibly compell a criminal to get firearms liability insurance that would never cover an illegal act anyway. I'm scratching my head over that one. I understand your general thinking, but insurance companies have never covered willful illegal acts, to the best of my knowledge. Malpractice insurance, for example, covers accidents, but not willful acts. People don't accidentally become mass shooters, or accidentally go on a violent robbery spree.

Never have I ever said I, or the Supreme Court, was against background checks. If I even alluded to that, I certainly didn't intend to. My mistake. Safe storage acts might be iffy from a legal standpoint, but I use a gun safe just because it is the right thing to do for my community.

The 3 or 4 lawsuits in California, and the at least one in Illinois, the 2+ in Washington, and at least one in Oregon, and one or two in Texas and Louisianna, all likely have components in the individual legislation that will survive. That's pretty common. If one contains 6 components of "gun control" for example, the magazine capacity ban and the firearms characteristics ban shouldn't survive. But safe storage and background checks likely would, and waiting period might survive. Not every component violates federal law or the Constitution, as they stand today.