Absolutely. But is there any question about the extent Hillary wished to take it and why? "Truthfully"? I'd say it is pretty clear that in her defeat our gun rights ..."dodged a bullet"...
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump just got his first approval rating as president — and it's not good
- Thread starter Crabtownboy
- Start date
Absolutely. But is there any question about the extent Hillary wished to take it and why? "Truthfully"? I'd say it is pretty clear that in her defeat our gun rights ..."dodged a bullet"...
Would she have pushed further than you want? Absolutely. But that would be a virtual certainty for anyone who didn't want to roll back gun control.Absolutely. But is there any question about the extent Hillary wished to take it and why? "Truthfully"? I'd say it is pretty clear that in her defeat our gun rights ..."dodged a bullet"...
and if YOU were the deciding factor - what would be your decision.
(and still waiting on the answer of govt putting restraining church attendance after 5 PM on Sundays.)
I don't have a clear answer. I wouldn't support banning guns, certainly. It would have to be a case-by-case situation. In general, I think there would need to be a compelling interest (which exists, IMO, at least for some regulation) and the regulation would need to be the least restrictive way to achieve that interest.
The other part wasn't on your initial post at first.
Government should not attempt to restrict church attendance after 5 PM on Sundays because there is no legitimate justification to do so. The government has no compelling interest to attempt anything, as church attendance times pose no threat to public safety.
but they could come up with a valid "reason" - just like saying we dont need a mag with 10 rounds.
Yes, and I would support a magazine restriction.
Oh, I see you answered "yes" so the govt could come up with a "Reason" to restrict church attendance after 5 pm.
I misunderstood your post. The yes was about the magazine restriction (or similar gun measures).
The other is theoretically possible, but I can't imagine government establishing a compelling interest to restrict church attendance (apart from possibly in isolated emergency situations--not allowing groups of any kind to meet if there is some legitimate reason, and churches would get lumped in). Targeting a church would not survive judicial scrutiny.
I'm using the term compelling interest on purpose--it requires a very high level of justification, not just any "reason".
infringe
[in-frinj]
verb (used without object), infringed, infringing.
to encroach or trespass, to restrict or regulate.
That dictionary definition is irrelevant in US jurisprudence.
California has a list of guns that a Californian can own and any gun not on that list is banned.
That, by your own statement, is an infringement.
The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" made it illegal to buy or sell an "assault weapon." It banned those weapons.
That, by your own statement, is an infringement.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it illegal to own an automatic weapon (except under very restrictive circumstances and after paying a very hefty tax).
That, by your own statement, is an infringement.
Where did you get your law degree and how long have you had it?
Oh come on. You don't need a law degree for that basic fact. If you do, where's yours?
SCOTUS has upheld at least some gun regulations, so it is indisputable that legal precedent does not rely on the definition that you provided. It is therefore irrelevant, your sarcasm notwithstanding.
In order to address those who are not law abiding. If there is no other way, the restriction may need to be universal for public safety purposes.
But most of the time, a regulation will need to be more narrowly defined.
Hanging on my wall. J.D. (with a proficiency in Constitutional Law). Earned when I was 55 years old.
Yes, they have, and wrongly so. When Strict Scrutiny is applied, as it must be in any case involving an enumerated Constitutional right, in every such case the law has been overturned. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Also see Moore v Madigan (USDC 11-CV-405-WDS, 11-CV-03134; 7th Cir. 12-1269, 12-1788).
There has been no binding precedent set regarding the meaning of "shall not be infringed."
You only think it is irrelevant because it destroys your argument. And there was no sarcasm in any of my posts.
So you cannot offer a compelling interest to restrict owning and carrying by a law abiding citizen?
And how narrow must such a regulation be in order to survive strict scrutiny?
Hanging on my wall. J.D. (with a proficiency in Constitutional Law). Earned when I was 55 years old.
Yes, they have, and wrongly so. When Strict Scrutiny is applied, as it must be in any case involving an enumerated Constitutional right, in every such case the law has been overturned. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). Also see Moore v Madigan (USDC 11-CV-405-WDS, 11-CV-03134; 7th Cir. 12-1269, 12-1788).
There has been no binding precedent set regarding the meaning of "shall not be infringed."
You only think it is irrelevant because it destroys your argument. And there was no sarcasm in any of my posts.
My apologies, then, regarding the law degree.
You can disagree with some of the decisions (all of us disagree with some decisions, I would imagine), but my point was simply that SCOTUS has indeed upheld some regulations. If it has upheld even one regulation, that mere fact would be sufficient to establish that "shall not be infringed" was not being interpreted in a manner consistent with an interpretation equating regulation with infringement by definition. Rather, the court has evaluated challenged regulations, upholding some, and striking down others.
I wasn't intending to state that there was binding precedent to establish the meaning of "shall not be infringed." The court indeed has not outlined a clear definition on this point. It has, however, ruled in a way inconsistent with a definition that regulation automatically equals infringement.
Honestly, I can't construct an argument for a specific compelling interest. I will admit that legal expertise is necessary in this area.
On the second point, the narrowest possible way/ least restrictive means to satisfy the compelling interest.
But without applying strict scrutiny.