The Revolution Starts: Confiscation

[rogue06]

That was before the 2nd Amendment was incorporated in 2010 (McDonald v. Chicago)


I think if this is challenged they will lose. They might be able to stop the sale of such guns in their town but not force anyone to hand them over who legally owns them.

A number of historians say it was incorporated with the passage of either the 13th or 14th Amendments, an important part of which was allowing blacks to own firearms.

[Sparko]

A number of historians say it was incorporated with the passage of either the 13th or 14th Amendments, an important part of which was allowing blacks to own firearms.

I think that is what McDonald v. Chicago found.

[Roy]

And that says "carrying" not "possessing" or "owning." I'm sure even you realize that's not the same.

I'm sure you realize that the actual words you used were "ban firearms", and not any of "carrying" not "possessing" or "owning", that a ban on carrying is still a ban, and that you are nitpicking worse than you frequently accuse me of.

[JimL]

And that says "carrying" not "possessing" or "owning." I'm sure even you realize that's not the same.

So they didn't ban the right to possess, but they banned the right to bear, arms?

[seer]

Just WOW!

[rogue06]

So they didn't ban the right to possess, but they banned the right to bear, arms?

I live in a town that reacted to the Morton Grove handgun ban by "requiring" all households to have a firearm^[1], so technically I not only have the right to have a gun in my home but I'm supposed to. And yet, if I took any one of them (most of which are hunting rifles and shotgun from the 1940s and early 50) and started carried it while walking down the street I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself surrounded by cops, arms drawn or at the very least at the ready ordering me to drop the gun.









1. Not enforced or enforceable since there were so many allowed exemptions all the way up to essentially "I don't wanna"

[rogue06]

I'm sure you realize that the actual words you used were "ban firearms", and not any of "carrying" not "possessing" or "owning", that a ban on carrying is still a ban, and that you are nitpicking worse than you frequently accuse me of.

Carrying would cover all travelers coming into town and possibly the local citizenry from walking around armed. It would not in any way ban people from owning them (having them in their house or in many cases place of business).

[Sparko]

I live in a town that reacted to the Morton Grove handgun ban by "requiring" all households to have a firearm^[1], so technically I not only have the right to have a gun in my home but I'm supposed to. And yet, if I took any one of them (most of which are hunting rifles and shotgun from the 1940s and early 50) and started carried it while walking down the street I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself surrounded by cops, arms drawn or at the very least at the ready ordering me to drop the gun.









1. Not enforced or enforceable since there were so many allowed exemptions all the way up to essentially "I don't wanna"

Yeah the reason places can have carry permits is because the "keep and bear arms" has been interpreted to not just be anywhere in public. You can keep and bear them on your own property, or out hunting etc, but on public ground they can still require you to have a permit or prohibit you from carrying altogether.

If the town had just done that they would be legal. No "assault" weapons allowed in public. But when the try to ban owning them altogether, they have overstepped the constitution.

[JimL]

I live in a town that reacted to the Morton Grove handgun ban by "requiring" all households to have a firearm^[1], so technically I not only have the right to have a gun in my home but I'm supposed to. And yet, if I took any one of them (most of which are hunting rifles and shotgun from the 1940s and early 50) and started carried it while walking down the street I wouldn't be surprised if I found myself surrounded by cops, arms drawn or at the very least at the ready ordering me to drop the gun.









1. Not enforced or enforceable since there were so many allowed exemptions all the way up to essentially "I don't wanna"

But the 2nd amendment says that your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[JimL]

Yeah the reason places can have carry permits is because the "keep and bear arms" has been interpreted to not just be anywhere in public. You can keep and bear them on your own property, or out hunting etc, but on public ground they can still require you to have a permit or prohibit you from carrying altogether.

If the town had just done that they would be legal. No "assault" weapons allowed in public. But when the try to ban owning them altogether, they have overstepped the constitution.

But where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about where you can "bear your arms?" Whatever happened to your literalist interpretation?

[Sparko]

But where in the 2nd amendment does it say anything about where you can "bear your arms?" Whatever happened to your literalist interpretation?

JimL, strictly speaking I don't think the government has the right to make any gun restrictions. Such laws are a 'loop hole' that the supreme court has allowed. Most people go along with it because it is practical.

[JimL]

JimL, strictly speaking I don't think the government has the right to make any gun restrictions. Such laws are a 'loop hole' that the supreme court has allowed. Most people go along with it because it is practical.

So you believe that we should be able to have any kind of weapon and carry it around anywhere we want?

[Sparko]

So you believe that we should be able to have any kind of weapon and carry it around anywhere we want?

Any personally equipped weapon. Arms refers to armaments equipped by people for personal use. Knives, Swords, Bows, Guns, Clubs, Tasers, etc. - I don't think it would include bombs.

[JimL]

Any personally equipped weapon. Arms refers to armaments equipped by people for personal use. Knives, Swords, Bows, Guns, Clubs, Tasers, etc. - I don't think it would include bombs.

Why do you get to define what arms are? Any and all arms are equiped by people and if used by them then they're for personal use. I think you're altering the 2nd amendment to say what you want it to say.

[Sparko]

looks like it is being challenged already:

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/deerfield/news/ct-dfr-assault-weapon-ban-lawsuit-tl-0412-story.html

Lawsuit challenges Deerfield's assault weapons ban: 'It flies in the face of state law'
...
Joining Deerfield resident Daniel Easterday and the Illinois State Rifle Association in the lawsuit is the Second Amendment Foundation based in Bellevue, Wash., which says its membership includes Deerfield residents.

“We moved swiftly to challenge this gun ban because it flies in the face of state law,” said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation in a statement. “While the village is trying to disguise this as an amendment to an existing ordinance, it is, in fact, a new law that entirely bans possession of legally-owned, semi-automatic firearms, with no exception for guns previously owned, or any provision for self-defense.”

© Copyright Original Source