Yeah. Ok.
So which of the laws that we are talking about did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
BTW, you still didn’t respond to the hypotheses that the ill informed, factually wrong Miller ruling technically should have overturned the 1934 NFA restrictions on fully automatic firearms.
No court has ever denied the laws they upheld were infringements.
1 Like
You should read them.
I have compromised dozens of times. I have posted the list of compromises I have made here. It’s extensive.
1 Like
With no age limitation let alone a background check.
1 Like
I don’t want to get in the weeds about every case, but needless to say there are many infringements that have been on the books and they have been examined judicially and found to be Constitutional.
Even in Heller conservative justices understood that common sense restrictions were not unconstitutional. I get that you would like to see literally no restrictions of any kind or manner. Ok- we disagree. I think you will find more rulings going in your favor but I doubt all restrictions (infringements) will be eradicated.
No. They haven’t.
No. They didn’t.
I would like the Constitution followed.
1 Like
It is Biden’s fault. Trump steps went too far. And touched on legal migration
How so?
I would like my interpretation of the Constitution followed as well.
Here is an example-
Gay people in partnership did not have the same rights as heterosexual people. In issues of taxation, hospital visitation rights, adoption, etc they did not receive equal benefits to heterosexual partners.
This was challenged and seen as unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
They won their case on Constitutional grounds. There is no way this could have happened in the decades before because of societal bias.
Times change. Interpretation of the Constitution changes.
I didn’t say “my interpretation”. I said “the Constitution”.
What is unclear to you about the 2nd Amendment?
But that’s the point. If they are infringements, which both you and the Courts admit they are, they cannot be Constitutional. But the Judicial errors in the regarding that truism, are now being used (legal precedence) by contemporary Courts to rationalizing violating the Constitution today. That is a pathetic way to justify ignoring the Constitution.
1 Like
Uh huh. Same thing. You believe you have the right view. Thousands of judicial cases disagree with your interpretation.
I believe gay people should always have had equal rights to heterosexuals via the Constitution.
I am guessing you would disagree. Or maybe you have changed your mind at this point.
Needless to say it comes down to …interpretation.
Like the 1st that says no laws can be made to “abridge”…there is obviously a lot of wiggle room. The amendments simply aren’t absolute with only one way of seeing them.
Hey I appreciate the discussion. First time I have had an honest “discussion” with y’all in a while. Gotta go for now…
No, it is not the same thing. No court has ever claimed it was not infringing. You are quite simply wrong.
It does not come down to “interpretation”. The 14th Amendment is also very clear. The Court simply enforced it, it did not “interpret” it.
You are trying to use a positive to rationalize a negative.
Obergefell v. Hodges did not violate a right, it forced adherence to the 14th Amendment to those choosing to ignore it.
Gun control laws violate the right. The court needs to force adherence, just as it did in Obergefell.
The role of the court is to protect my rights, not rationalize violations of them.
Do you see the difference?
1 Like
Not like the 1st. The 2nd does not say “abridge”.
1 Like
