zillaorange

Using N. Y. as target for gun grab. Cuomo is out to disarm law abiding citizens, I want to track his attempts. His gun registry did not work. I figure he's going to try to label all semiautomatic firearms as "assault weapons". Any info from any state would be appreciated.

buffalo Loc: Texas

It doesn't in the 2nd but is covered elsewhere:

As spelled out in Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), federal law bans convicted felons from possessing firearms or ammunition. (The U.S.C. is a compilation of congressional laws organized by topic and subtopic: Title 18 defines federal crimes and criminal procedure, and Chapter 44 (Sections 921-931) covers firearms.)

According to Section 922(g)(9), no one "who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year" may own or possess a gun. This rule covers all felonies, but does not apply to state misdemeanors that carry less than a two-year sentence. It also exempts several kinds of felonious white-collar crime, as well as felony convictions handed down in foreign countries [sources: 18 U.S.C. § 921; 544 U.S. 385; Williams].

Lest you think Section 922(g) is too lenient, however, read on: It also bans guns for (among others) fugitives, illegal users of controlled substances, mental defectives, illegal aliens, dishonorably discharged soldiers, renounced citizens, subjects of certain court orders and persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Violating these statutes can net you 10 years of imprisonment and/or a $250,000 fine [source: Rhode Island Probation].

As for persons convicted of a federal crime, they can always apply to the president for a pardon [sources: 28 C.F.R. § 1; DOJ].

LOL ... good luck with that.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

How do you propose to take guns from felons and gangs?

If you black folks don't have a plan to disarm your dangerous ghettos, many murders will keep on with your people.

Why is that particular area a taboo subject amongst your own?

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

So if you're subject to the draft or being called to active duty you have a right to have guns because essentially you are the militia. If you're over 60 you still have a right to have guns because for the 40 previous years you earned the right by being responsible with your guns. If women become subject to the draft, and they have already won the right to be in combat positions then they have the exact same rights. You don't have to belong to a state guard unit to be able to have guns. Just because we currently have an all-volunteer force doesn't matter, the draft can be brought back within hours if physical standards and the number of volunteers decline to maintain an effective fighting force for the nation. Every member of the active and guard units come from the general population. We are all the militia and subject to being called up barring mental or physical handicaps like bone spurs. Sorry, had to throw that in just for fun.

zillaorange

LOL

woodguru

So ramp up the fear, hype up the sensible gun legislation as the first assault... putz

plainlogic

Who is going to have gun control on the criminals??? C'mon, need answers. if all the honest people are disarmed, who's going to disarm the criminals.

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

I have asked that question many times and the reply is crickets or deflection.

Nancy Pelosi had the reasoning that if the criminals and gangs see law abiding citizens give up their guns, they'll take that in good faith and follow suit.

Bad Bob Loc: Virginia

The cops NNs.

Smedley_buzkill

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/gun-laws/no-one-wants-to-ban-or-confiscate-guns-huh-these-quotes-from-anti-gun-leaders-say-otherwise/
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-actually-any-mainstream-Democrats-who-want-to-ban-all-guns

Now who's the putz, putz?

Peewee Loc: San Antonio, TX

Rose42

I recall a former democrat vice chair saying we should abolish the second amendment a while back. Of course the MSM mostly ignored it. When someone that high up in the party says that its not a fluke.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Your total ignorance of our nation's founding is noted. The glaring clue in your thoroughly ridiculous opinion is the use of the word "collective". That is about as Marxian as one can get. Communism all the way, hey Kev?

There was no National Guard when the 2nd amendment was written, the militia referred to in the 2nd amendment is neither a federal or state controlled military force, it is every American capable of bearing arms.

If I thought you were capable of honest research, I'd recommend you study Federalist #29 and #46. Our founders made it quite clear who and what the "militia" is.


Gun Control Myth: The Second Amendment Makes Clear Guns Aren't Just For the Military

A common misconception about the Second Amendment is that it only protects arms for the militia, or in modern day, the National Guard or other government-organized military group. This is simply untrue; a belief arising from ignorance about the language used in the Second Amendment and understanding its meaning as it was understood originally when the Bill of Rights was ratified. Fortunately, the Supreme Court helps us understand the original intent of the Second Amendment and the words used in their historical context.

In the landmark Supreme Court case, D.C. vs Heller, the court explains that all citizens are the militia; the Second Amendment is an individual right, just like every other right protected in the Bill of Rights, and is independent of membership in any organized group or military unit.

The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

There are two clauses that comprise the Second Amendment, an operative clause, and a prefatory clause.

Operative clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause is the actual protected right; kind of the 'meat and potatoes.' The court wrote: "1. Operative Clause. a. 'Right of the People.' [used 3 times in Bill of Rights] ... All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not 'collective' rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (p.5).

Prefatory clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State."

The prefatory clause is the lead-in that “announces a purpose” for the operative clause. The court stated: "The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms"(Heller law syllabus p.1).

The court also stated: "The Amendment could be rephrased, 'Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'” (Heller law syllabus p.3, emphasis added).

Note: “syllabus” in law briefs is not like a college course summary, but “a short note preceding the text of a reported case that briefly summarizes the rulings of the court on the points decided in the case."

The Militia is all of the people

The court states: "It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia" (p.20), adding "Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people” (p.7).

It's clear from the court's ruling regarding the relationship between the prefatory and operative clause (p.25) that the militia meant that all of the people were armed.

“The 'militia' comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Anti-federalists feared that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved” (Heller law syllabus, p.2, emphasis added).

“Keep arms” was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else" (p.9).

Congress creates the Army and Navy, but not the already existent militia

The court states that while Congress is given the power in Article I of the Constitution to create the Army and the Navy, it may simply organize the militia because it already existed:

"Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create, the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power ... to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence," (p.23).

Second Amendment doesn't mean any organized military unit

We find on page 11: "In numerous instances, 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia," adding further that, "It is clear from those formulations that 'bear arms' did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit" (p.11-12). Fun fact: The National Guard, as it exists today, wasn't created until 1903.

So we see that at the time of its writing, it was clearly understood that the Second Amendment protected the right of all citizenry to have and carry arms. Our ignorance of the terminology, and perhaps the phrasing of the two clauses has clouded this truth, so obvious to our Founders. The Second Amendment means all of us, since we are all since we are all the militia, and in no way means only an organized military unit or the National Guard.

Rose42

The leadership on ghe left isn’t honest about their agenda and the members don’t want to see it

Michael Rich Loc: Lapine Oregon

Blade that is a Clear and Definite layout of the Second Amendment.

Case Closed!!!