Federal Circuit Court Rules Gun Selling NOT a Constitutional Right

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Stopped reading here.

Activist Court again betrays their judicial duty in favor of Liberal zealotry. Supreme Court will strike it down. World will continue to turn.

On what grounds will the Supreme Court shut it down?

[schwarzkopf]

"Thus, the ruling is the 2nd gives the right to own a firearm, and what the SCOTUS says it means, it means

Fine - can you PLEASE point out in the constitution where it gives you the right to purchase, own or sell arms ?

Apparently no-one can actually point that out... which I find odd.

If the SCOTUS deemed gravity illegal, I'd certainly do my best to float and I'd avoid long falls .... but I wouldn't confuse what some dudes made legal with some constitutional right to float.

The simple fact is - that ALL rights, where ever they come from are always tempered by other rights.

The constitution gives you the right to use a nuclear weapon .... yet somehow people aren't allowed to.

Please be rational... it helps with a balanced outcome in the end, you head off to extremes and you end up with no guns at all and ten million dead americans.

- - - Updated - - -

On what grounds will the Supreme Court shut it down?

On the grounds that 5/9 of them are beholden to the second amendment and only 4/9 of them are beholden to the first.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

On the grounds that 5/9 of them are beholden to the second amendment and only 4/9 of them are beholden to the first.

But there is no violation of the 2nd. This is a matter of Zoning.

[Kellhound]

Fine - can you PLEASE point out in the constitution where it gives you the right to purchase, own or sell arms ?

Apparently no-one can actually point that out... which I find odd.

If the SCOTUS deemed gravity illegal, I'd certainly do my best to float and I'd avoid long falls .... but I wouldn't confuse what some dudes made legal with some constitutional right to float.

The simple fact is - that ALL rights, where ever they come from are always tempered by other rights.

The constitution gives you the right to use a nuclear weapon .... yet somehow people aren't allowed to.

Please be rational... it helps with a balanced outcome in the end, you head off to extremes and you end up with no guns at all and ten million dead americans.

- - - Updated - - -



On the grounds that 5/9 of them are beholden to the second amendment and only 4/9 of them are beholden to the first.

I have shown you again and again where it does, you are just sticking your fingers in you ears and saying no one has told you. So the right to live is tempered by they rights of others to????

I am being rational, you are being obtuse. I am sorry you cannot accept that the 2nd gives people the right to own a firearm.

[Theodarzna]

Properly controlled=controlled well enough to hit the target.

Well that would make logical sense. I'm not even a gun owner. Crossbows yes, but no actual firearms to my name. But I'd say I'm fairly pro-2nd Amendment rights.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, any item that is a public danger is generally a controlled item. I mean you control kinder eggs because they MIGHT hurt children.

Now - as for the delusion that the constitution gives you some sort of magical right to override the public good - that's another story.

Currently there is no legal right ensuring me the right to own Kinder eggs I do believe. And yes, the rights enumerated on this piece of paper you Americans jack off to does actually work like that.

[schwarzkopf]

I have shown you again and again where it does

Nope - you keep mentioning the SC ruling, that's not what I'm asking. The SC ruling covers a huge range of legal documents - not just one.

- - - Updated - - -

Currently there is no legal right ensuring me the right to own Kinder eggs I do believe.

Well, there is as much a right to eat as there is to have arms.

So yeah - Kinder Surprise eggs are something you have as much right to as an AR-15.

[Theodarzna]

Well, there is as much a right to eat as there is to have arms.

So yeah - Kinder Surprise eggs are something you have as much right to as an AR-15.

Actually, I do not believe there is an explicit right to eat in the constitution. That is just a presumed Natural Right.

[schwarzkopf]

Actually, I do not believe there is an explicit right to eat in the constitution.

Well, we aren't talking explicit here - as there is no explicit individual right to ARMS either.

We are referring in both cases to inferred rights.
We are referring in both cases to a broad category (FOOD / ARMS)
In both cases specific cases can be banned for the public good (Kinder Eggs / Nuclear Weapons)

In neither case is there any owernship, sale or purchase rights for food or arms.

[Kellhound]

Nope - you keep mentioning the SC ruling, that's not what I'm asking. The SC ruling covers a huge range of legal documents - not just one.

- - - Updated - - -



Well, there is as much a right to eat as there is to have arms.

So yeah - Kinder Surprise eggs are something you have as much right to as an AR-15.

The ruling explicitly says the 2nd states that the people have the right to possess (i.e. own) firearms. You may not like that, but that is what is says. You may desire to interpret it differently, but your opinion isnt worth spit when it comes to this.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, we aren't talking explicit here - as there is no explicit individual right to ARMS either.

We are referring in both cases to inferred rights.

Yes there is, unless you also agree that there are no individual rights in the Constitution.

[Theodarzna]

Well, we aren't talking explicit here - as there is no explicit individual right to ARMS either.

We are referring in both cases to inferred rights.
We are referring in both cases to a broad category (FOOD / ARMS)
In both cases specific cases can be banned for the public good (Kinder Eggs / Nuclear Weapons)

In neither case is there any owernship, sale or purchase rights for food or arms.

There is and it has been ruled as such via Supreme Court ruling.

[schwarzkopf]

The ruling explicitly says the 2nd states that the people have the right to possess

Indeed - however:
1. The constitution doesn't explicitly state that
2. Neither the constitution OR the ruling gives the right to OWN, SELL, or PURCHASE.

unless you also agree that there are no individual rights in the Constitution.

There are a few: As for the BoR ..
1st : No
2nd : No
3rd : Yes
4th: No
5th: Yes
6th: Yes
7th: No (not explicit) - but yes by reference
8th: No (not explicit) - but yes by reference

- - - Updated - - -

There is and it has been ruled as such via Supreme Court ruling.

THE SC ruling is one of law, the over all law. However, as a matter of fact - the constitution itself has no such explicit right to own/sale/purchase arms.

If you disagree - I ask again, point to the place in the constitution that does grant ownership/sales/purchase rights on arms ?

[PosPosPos]

Do you support all freedom (including the court rulings) or just the freedoms you agree with? Because honestly, I'm smelling some deep hypocrisy here.

Could you tell us, specifically (and legally), what's wrong with it?

You are talking to someone who supports the freedom to enslave others, I don't think you can ever get anything substantial out of him.

[Theodarzna]

THE SC ruling is one of law, the over all law. However, as a matter of fact - the constitution itself has no such explicit right to own/sale/purchase arms.

If you disagree - I ask again, point to the place in the constitution that does grant ownership/sales/purchase rights on arms ?

As interpreted by later precedent, the 2nd amendment.

[Kellhound]

Indeed - however:
1. The constitution doesn't explicitly state that
2. Neither the constitution OR the ruling gives the right to OWN, SELL, or PURCHASE.



There are a few: As for the BoR ..
1st : No
2nd : No
3rd : Yes
4th: No
5th: Yes
6th: Yes
7th: No (not explicit) - but yes by reference
8th: No (not explicit) - but yes by reference

- - - Updated - - -



THE SC ruling is one of law, the over all law. However, as a matter of fact - the constitution itself has no such explicit right to own/sale/purchase arms.

If you disagree - I ask again, point to the place in the constitution that does grant ownership/sales/purchase rights on arms ?

Well, as you feel "the people" does not mean the rights of individuals, there is no common ground to discuss this as you disagree with mainstream understanding of the meaning of the phrase. Therefore, there is no reason to continue to waste my time on this, as you have a "C.A.T. spells dog" take on it.

[schwarzkopf]

As interpreted by later precedent

Exactly - not explicitly stated in the constitution.

Later interpreted in the context of other laws and social norms.

The outcome - the right to POSSESS. But no right to OWN, PURCHASE or SELL said items.

It also doesn't give the right to even POSSESS all types of said item, laws can deny certain classes of the item as it already does.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, as you feel "the people" does not mean the rights of individuals

I don't feel that - the original authors meant that. The expression "We the people' was a collective term for the populace.

What has been happening since 1970 is an attempt to push the original meaning elsewhere .... and that itself is another story.

[Theodarzna]

Exactly - not explicitly stated in the constitution.

Later interpreted in the context of other laws and social norms.

The outcome - the right to POSSESS. But no right to OWN, PURCHASE or SELL said items.

It also doesn't give the right to even POSSESS all types of said item, laws can deny certain classes of the item as it already does.

The traditional interpretation is the one I side with. That has been the traditional understanding of what it means as ruled by court cases and our society.

People have worked to curtail those rights, but thankfully organizations exist to lobby against such actions.

[schwarzkopf]

The fundamental truth is this... the government could ban all guns except 2 round short range rifles, have a SINGLE weapon that is legal - and the inferred rights of the 2nd amendment would be TOTALLY upheld.

Why - because there is no mention of the right to sell or to purchase, no list of what brands or types are allowed, no mention of round size or fire rate... NOTHING. Just the right for the community to have weapons. Full stop.

So the sooner people stop focusing on the second amendment and start focusing on rational sensible approaches to a civilised society the better.

You go extreme one way with this, and extremists on the other side will try and stop you buying weapons because of some other interpretation.

[Mormolyce]

As interpreted by later precedent, the 2nd amendment.

"Later precedent".

You are referring to the 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago.

- - - Updated - - -

The traditional interpretation is the one I side with. That has been the traditional understanding of what it means as ruled by court cases and our society.

That hoary old tradition from 7 years ago.

[Theodarzna]

"Later precedent".

You are referring to the 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago.

That hoary old tradition from 7 years ago.

Well that is how precedent works, but even before then that was how the 2nd amendment functioned. A person could buy and sell a gun.

[Xeones]

On what grounds will the Supreme Court shut it down?

The supreme court has repeatedly ignored the fact that the second amendment specifically calls for "regulation" in gun ownership.

You think they can interpret this correctly which a conservative court?