Capitol Armory ad

Question re "Infringe"

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MountainGirl

    Never underestimate the abilities of an old woman.
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 22, 2022
    4,213
    96
    Ten Oaks
    There are many 'laws' and more 'regulations' on this or that re guns, carry, mag capacity, etc... and just as many lawsuits/efforts to counter the anti-gun enactments.

    What I'm wondering is -

    Has there ever been any legal effort, directed solely towards what is at the core of the Second Amendment...

    "Shall Not Be Infringed"

    In my thinking, every law/regulation is an Unconstitutional infringement... and every effort to resist them just bites at whatever pops up, like playing wac-a-mole. I get that they're trying every way possible to get around the barn, and maybe the best we can do is keep wacking at them because otherwise it would mean burning down the barn... which is actually their objective, imo, by tiring us out piecemeal, which they wont, but it does raise my questions.

    Is there a way to take this fight directly to the source?
    Has it been tried before?

    Thanks -
    Hurley's Gold
     

    MountainGirl

    Never underestimate the abilities of an old woman.
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 22, 2022
    4,213
    96
    Ten Oaks
    Miller touches on it.

    Thank you.
    I've read the link, good info there, and its focus (imo, and understandably) is on the unconstitutional wac-a-mole game.

    Time for me to study the NFA and the GCA.
    Time to abort this aberration at the source.
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    Miller touches on it.

    I'm not a lawyer but I always thought I could read and understand written English. So I must begin by offering my profound apologies to the Cornell Law School.

    That said...

    I don't see how anyone can square the plain language of Miller with a conclusion that "...the Court adopted a collective rights approach..." It reads, to me, like the Court was almost begging to be able to find in favor of the defendant. Unfortunately, that's pretty difficult when only one side shows up and the defendant's counsel had been stunningly incompetent from the beginning.

    I also fail to see the logic of the way the Cornell article represents that Heller treated Miller as an exceptional case, something to be discounted except as it allows restrictions on 2A rights. If you actually read Miller, it doesn't say that at all. The frustrations of the court at being unable to do anything other than acquiesce to the only side that showed up in court fairly drips off the page.

    It's entirely my speculation but I'm convinced that Scalia recognized, properly handled, Miller was sufficient to overturn the NFA and that's why he threw so much tortured language into Heller in an attempt to invalidate Miller.

    Aww, crap. I've written too much about this in the past. My apologies for almost starting up again.
     

    MountainGirl

    Never underestimate the abilities of an old woman.
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 22, 2022
    4,213
    96
    Ten Oaks
    I'm not a lawyer but I always thought I could read and understand written English. So I must begin by offering my profound apologies to the Cornell Law School.

    That said...

    I don't see how anyone can square the plain language of Miller with a conclusion that "...the Court adopted a collective rights approach..." It reads, to me, like the Court was almost begging to be able to find in favor of the defendant. Unfortunately, that's pretty difficult when only one side shows up and the defendant's counsel had been stunningly incompetent from the beginning.

    I also fail to see the logic of the way the Cornell article represents that Heller treated Miller as an exceptional case, something to be discounted except as it allows restrictions on 2A rights. If you actually read Miller, it doesn't say that at all. The frustrations of the court at being unable to do anything other than acquiesce to the only side that showed up in court fairly drips off the page.

    It's entirely my speculation but I'm convinced that Scalia recognized, properly handled, Miller was sufficient to overturn the NFA and that's why he threw so much tortured language into Heller in an attempt to invalidate Miller.

    Aww, crap. I've written too much about this in the past. My apologies for almost starting up again.
    Well, I thank you for your reply, and I applaud you for being able to maneuver in the weeds.
     

    toddnjoyce

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Sep 27, 2017
    19,285
    96
    Boerne
    I'm not a lawyer but I always thought I could read and understand written English. So I must begin by offering my profound apologies to the Cornell Law School.

    …That said...

    Aww, crap. I've written too much about this in the past. My apologies for almost starting up again.

    I’m not a lawyer either, and I tees that up. Using that page as a start, the Cornell LII does cover Miller as part of 2A Doctrine and Practice here:
    Even citing Miller’s defense did noting in notation 4.
     

    leVieux

    TSRA/NRA Life Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    I'm not a lawyer but I always thought I could read and understand written English. So I must begin by offering my profound apologies to the Cornell Law School.

    That said...

    I don't see how anyone can square the plain language of Miller with a conclusion that "...the Court adopted a collective rights approach..." It reads, to me, like the Court was almost begging to be able to find in favor of the defendant. Unfortunately, that's pretty difficult when only one side shows up and the defendant's counsel had been stunningly incompetent from the beginning.

    I also fail to see the logic of the way the Cornell article represents that Heller treated Miller as an exceptional case, something to be discounted except as it allows restrictions on 2A rights. If you actually read Miller, it doesn't say that at all. The frustrations of the court at being unable to do anything other than acquiesce to the only side that showed up in court fairly drips off the page.

    It's entirely my speculation but I'm convinced that Scalia recognized, properly handled, Miller was sufficient to overturn the NFA and that's why he threw so much tortured language into Heller in an attempt to invalidate Miller.

    Aww, crap. I've written too much about this in the past. My apologies for almost starting up again.
    Your reply & reasoning are appreciated.
     

    vmax

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    17,304
    96
    John Hinkley Jr is out of prison after shooting President Reagan
    The law says he can't legally possess or buy a firearm.
    Is he being infringed upon?
    Should he be able to carry a gun legally?

    If the answer is yes..then you fall into the "all gun laws are unconstitutional category"

    If not then where does a person fall? Is he/she a Fudd?

    I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

    I'm so about the 2nd Amendment I have it tattooed on my forearm for everyone to see. But I still don't think Hinkley should be able to possess. I feel that some actions are unforgivable and you lose all trust of society.

    I also don't think all felons should be prohibited for life from owning a gun.

    I do agree to keeping violent offenders , especially who used one to rape or robery from possessing.

    Otherwise if you were non violent and serve your time why should your punishment continue for your life after you get out of prison?
    That's what we do to people.

    What about the laws that prevent a 8 year old from buying a gun?
    Are we infringing on them? If not...what age then?
     
    Last edited:

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    John Hinkley Jr is out of prison after shooting President Reagan
    The law says he can't legally possess or buy a firearm.
    Is he being infringed upon?
    Should he be able to carry a gun legally?

    If the answer is yes..then you fall into the "all gun laws are unconstitutional category"

    If not then where does a person fall? Is he/she a Fudd?

    I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

    I'm so about the 2nd Amendment I have it tattooed on my forearm for everyone to see. But I still don't think Hinkley should be able to possess. I feel that some actions are unforgivable and you lose all trust of society.

    I also don't think all felons should be prohibited for life from owning a gun.

    I do agree to keeping violent offenders , especially who used one to rape or robery from possessing.

    Otherwise if you were non violent and serve your time why should your punishment continue for your life after you get out of prison?
    That's what we do to people.

    What about the laws that prevent a 8 year old from buying a gun?
    Are we infringing on them? If not...what age then?
    PERSONALLY I'M OF THE BELIEF THAT ONCE APERSON COMPLETES THEIR SENTENCE ALL THEIR RIGHTS SHOULD BE RESTOED REGARDLESS OF THE CRIME THE COMMITTED ANYTHING LESS IS AN INFRINGEMENT IMOALSO I DON'T THINK DENYING EVE CONVICTED FELONS OF VIOLENT CRIMES DETERS FUTURECRIMINAL ACTS

    18 YEAROLDS ARE CONSIDERED ADULT IN MOST STATES SO I'M COOLWITH THEM LEGALLY CARRYING AT 18
     

    vmax

    TGT Addict
    TGT Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Apr 15, 2013
    17,304
    96
    PERSONALLY I'M OF THE BELIEF THAT ONCE APERSON COMPLETES THEIR SENTENCE ALL THEIR RIGHTS SHOULD BE RESTOED REGARDLESS OF THE CRIME THE COMMITTED ANYTHING LESS IS AN INFRINGEMENT IMOALSO I DON'T THINK DENYING EVE CONVICTED FELONS OF VIOLENT CRIMES DETERS FUTURECRIMINAL ACTS

    18 YEAROLDS ARE CONSIDERED ADULT IN MOST STATES SO I'M COOLWITH THEM LEGALLY CARRYING AT 18
    Are you ok with laws that limit the age of buying guns to 18 or older then?
     

    Vaquero

    Moving stuff to the gas prices thread.....
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Apr 4, 2011
    44,207
    96
    Dixie Land
    At what age should a person be able to walk into a store and legally buy a handgun?
    When their legal guardian walks in with them and says "sell it to him/her, they're responsible enough".

    It's the same as giving a kid a gun as a gift.
    It is a parent's decision. And a parent should be held accountable until the kid is old enough to join the military.
     
    Top Bottom