Again, common sense does not justify violating the Constitution. Common sense is only justification to try to change the Constitution to coincide with that sense. Furthermore, common sense is subjective. You may think it makes sense to establish a registry of guns and gun owners. I may think that makes no sense at all. Whose sense is the common one? Who decides? The whole idea of the Constitution was to protect the invidual from the tyranny of the majority in power. What good is it if you keep changing it every time the majority public opinion changes?
The Court that is their whole point of existing.
The problem is the court is unfortunately just as political as the other two branches of government.
It’s not supposed to be. But it is.
That is some scary stuff.
There is still a lot of controversy in the art/music/entertainment world over what constitutes freedom of expression and what constitutes harm in the form of stealing someone’s intellectual property. Courts have commonly ruled in favor of intellectual property over freedom of expression when plaintiffs have raised 1st amendment challenges. There are always limits to what we can say and express ourselves.
In terms of gun laws… many many states have passed gun control legislation including assault weapons bans, high capacity magazine bans, gun possession prohibitions for high risk individuals, red flag laws, etc. Courts have rarely overturned these “infringements.”
As much as you’d like to think the 2nd is some sacred cow, it has long had limits placed on it, constitutionally upheld- for good reason.
No, not Constitutionally upheld.
No, not for good reason. For one reason and one reason only.
Yes- Courts have upheld these measures as constitutional.
There is no legal precedent regarding fully automatic weapons by the Supreme Court. What was wrong about the decision in Miller was that they ruled against Miller because (they said) that short-barreled shotguns were not military weapons and, therefore, were not protected by the 2nd. They were wrong … short-barreled shotguns were used extensively by the Army during WWI. But regardless of that error, the implication of the decision was, that individual ownership and use of military arms is intrinsically covered by the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
no they haven’t. No court has claimed they aren’t infringements. They simply rule they are necessary infringements for “public safety.”
What a joke.
The Court does not decide public opinion, the Court decides the Constitutionality of the law. I repeat, what good is the Constitution if it is subservient to public opinion?
I don’t disagree that those things have occurred and that lower courts have for the most part gone along with them. But it does not change the fact that they violate the Constitution, and it is allowed to stand because enough people (public opinion) care less about the letter of the Constitution than they do about whatever meme is pushing public opinion on any given day. And unfortunately the Court is rue (take Heller for example) to set them straight.
And they are ignoring Heller.
Um no. The whole point of a court decision is determine the constitutionality of these gun control laws. Most all of them have all held up.
“Will Democrats Declare A National Emergency to Get Rid of Guns?”
Oh, I do so truly, truly hope so!!!
I would say that the judicial system has essentially green lighted the idea again and again that limits to the 2nd are legitimate and constitutional. I agree.
Uh no. They don’t claim the infringements are Constitutional. They claim they are necessary and then rationalize it like the hoplophobes in this very thread, by pointing to infringements of other rights.
However, the 2nd has a couple of important distinctions in it when compared to the others.
2 Likes
Not Constitutional. They don’t make that claim.
There have been over 1300 second amendment cases since 2008 alone. In the vast majority of those cases, gun laws have been upheld. Judges were literally deciding if those laws violate the 2nd or not- and justices said no- i.e. that they were constitutional. I’ll bring up individual cases with the wording if you want.
No. Not Constitutional. “Necessary”.
A self licking ice cream cone.
OK i can go through a dozen or more if you like-
#1…
I’ll highlight the language upholding the constitutionality if you can’t find it.
