14th Amendment = All Gun Control Illegal

>>34301975
>but doesn't this, plus the fact they just used it to justify faggot marriage, absolutely BTFO all state-level gun control?
No

>>34301975
It's all down to the interpretations of the people in charge (i.e. the people making gun control laws)

>>34302004
>It's all down to the interpretations of the people in charge (i.e. the people making gun control laws)

Their interpretations are bullshit, though. Fuck these "living document" cocksuckers.

>>34301993
Explain how it doesn't.

*Must be 3rd generation in country, before can own/carry.

>>34301975
im pretty sure states are allowed to make laws

a lot of this sort of confusion could have been avoided had US lawmakers just been actually literate though

I don't think non residents should be able to own firearms and I think there should at least be some sort of federal standard on manufacturing. I'm also against ownership of explosives and weapons that are crew served. I am completely for CC and OC (though I'd always CC personally) and I would remove all retreat legislation. Scrap the NFA.

Basically if you can carry it and fire it alone I'm fine with it regardless of how big it is, how often it fires, what it looks like and so on. I'd call the above a reasonable level of gun control.

>>34302211
>im pretty sure states are allowed to make laws

Not that contradict the constitution. Isn't that what the whole gay marriage shit was about?

>>34301975
The Constitution doesnt matter at all. Hasnt for a long time. Thats just the way it is.

>>34302067
It's up to the supreme Court to interpret it that way basically, and they have refused to, so it remains a states rights issue. It's obvs a lot more complex but that's gist of it.

>>34301975
I'm afraid you have a few concepts muddled. But at the core, the 2nd amendment is not a "privelege" or an "immunity", it's a restriction on the power of Congress which later got added on to the power of state governments. That the necessary corollary is that people do have a right to keep and bear "arms" ('Arms' has never actually been defined at a SCOTUS level) is legally irrelevant. You do not have the right to own arms. You have a right to keep a legislature from banning arms.

That's different than in Obergefell vs Hodges, the 14th amendment was in regards to the right of marriage; every state recognizes a right to get married in the abstract, and only differences being in what the state defines a a valid marriage. You won't see the term "marriage" in the constitution, but it is nonetheless one of those common law privileges that a normal citizen has in his state, alongside things like free travel and the ability to own property.

>>34302230
>Not that contradict the constitution.
well duh
>Isn't that what the whole gay marriage shit was about?
all i heard about it was MUH MORALITY vs MUH PROGRESSIVES and not anything about it being constitutional or not

>>34302226
Your summary needs something about your previous mention of explosives. We wuz angsty teens with MANPADS 'n' sheit.

>>34302191
Sucks to be you plebs. I have at least on ancestor who fought in the revolution...for the crown...and then stayed.

>>34302283
Whilst I concede that if someone wants explosives they can manufacture them or procure them easily, I don't think they should fall under 2A. Ownership of breech loading guns should be allowed (though not under 2A), but firing of explosive or area effect shells prohibited.

ban all americans from owning guns and distribute them evenly among people from other countries who want a gun but are too lazy/poor to go buy one

americans are children who cant handle nice things and ruin it for everybody

>>34302323
>>34302323
Then what will we play with?

>>34302301
Look at this Benedict Arnold mother fucker bragging about his red coat Gran pappy. Go eat shit.

>>34302331
nothing, because all the good toys are banned after some kid swallowed a LEGO once

>>34302333
No Arnold went the other way around.
Hessian mercenaries (my ancestor) turned when they were offered a better option than fight or be killed.

>>34302301
Right. Fuck off baby killing, church burning, redcoat.

>>34302253
>You do not have the right to own arms.

I would think that is implicit in the "keeping" part. A Federal district court in Illinois (iirc), and the Ninth Circuit have both ruled that purchasing firearms is a 2A protected activity.

>>34302323
Commie get out!

>>34302365
the distribution of weapons will be paid by the selling off of AR15s to police and military forces, since no private citizen should have an AR15, because they are plebshit for retard mallninjas

>>34302323
Sounds like somebody's jealous.

>>34302241
>It's up to the supreme Court to interpret it that way basically, and they have refused to, so it remains a states rights issue.
I think he's more talking about the principles in play, and not the state of things as they are currently.

>>34302226
>carry and fire it alone
>yfw i strap a metal pole to a flag holder and attach a .50, making me a walking tech.

>>34301975
It basically comes down to the 2A itself using language which is somewhat open to interpretation. Presumably the reasoning is that banning "assault weapons" doesn't "infringe on the right to bear arms" since the 2A doesn't explicitly state "any and all arms", nor does it specifically define what "infringe" means. And I mean in practice the standing interpretation of the 2A seems to be that the right to bear arms is NOT an absolute, as I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be considered legal to deploy operational surface-to-air missiles on your property, and you'd probably lose if you went to court over it.

And ultimately, it seems that the 14A is really about extending federal rights to the state level, rather than stating anything official about what federal rights actually are. IIRC, it came about at the end of the civil war, and the intent was that with a federal right not to be enslaved (except as punishment for a crime), that right must be protected by all states as well, it wasn't merely a promise that the Federal government wouldn't enslave you, while allowing states to do so. Same reasoning with gay marriage presumably - first it was decided as a federal right, and then 14A was used to extend it to the states. So in terms of gun rights, the 14A merely means that states must respect any gun rights granted by the Federal government. AFAIK the Federal government hasn't really made much in the way of solid official statements on gun rights, and as a result states have plenty of freedom to interpret "the right to bear arms" however they want.

>>34302317
How do you reconcile your beliefs with the fact that artillery including bombshells were privately owned during the revolutionary war in the United States?

>>34302361
It's basically an edge case IMHO. If commies took over the government but agreed to still follow the Constitution, they could abolish the notion of property ownership but not be in violation of the 2A so long as they permitted citizens to carry and have physical possession of firearms.

>>34301975
You are wrong in thinking this. The Supreme Court castrated the privileges and immunities in the 1920s.

Gay marriage and every other new "right" has been granted under the equal protection and due process clause of the 14th.

Also MacDonald v. Chicago applied the second amendment through the states as a fundamental right.

>>34302421
man what if american lawmakers actually could write law properly

>>34302421
The federalist papers are expanded explanations to the Bill of Rights. In them is included explanation of what "arms" and "infringed" really mean.

Effectively, it has been the Supreme Court for the longest time refusing to hear cases based on the 2nd that has created precedent that some infringements are acceptable. If you look into the Gun Control Act, the prevailing theory was that it would only be a short time before the Supreme Court would rule it unconstitutional. It was basically a Hail Mary attempt to curb out of control organized crime that was never expected to last more than a few years.

>>34302426
Not them, but was it more like individual private ownership in those days, or was it kind of like PMCs? What's the legal status of PMCs in the modern US anyways?

>>34302487
>The federalist papers are expanded explanations to the Bill of Rights. In them is included explanation of what "arms" and "infringed" really mean.
What's the official legal status of those papers? Is there any kind of official statement on whether the US government is to follow the intent or the word of the Constitution?

>>34302426
Not him, but the mere fact that Congress has not banned something does not mean it lacks the right to do so.

Even in the strictest readings of the commerce clause, Congress would retain the right to tax the movement of any given commodity, say hardwoods, across state lines. You can't point to a lack of such taxes to claim that Congress isn't allowed to.

>>34302426
Probably because most American fighters we're members of militias at that point. That's actually why we had to create a standing Army. Militia members were willing to fight for their property and surrounding area, but wouldn't travel far away to fight for other colonies.

>>34302497
There were artillery pieces owned by individuals. Just like some wealthy business owners could own frigates or other warships. The only restriction was the cost and if you could afford that.

Fun fact, antique artillery is legal in most states. I know a guy who owns a cannon (used to own more) in NJ.

>>34302519
>Fun fact, antique artillery is legal in most states. I know a guy who owns a cannon (used to own more) in NJ.
Is it legal to keep them in working, ready to fire condition (presumably registered as a "destructive device" or whatever the term is), or are they basically just limited to being yard art?

>>34302512
As far as I can understand, they hold no official legal power but provide context for much of the constitution. Because of that the Supreme Court references them almost as much as the Constitution itself.

>>34302532
Fully functional. Federally they are considered antiques and as such bypass most states restrictions as well. There are even live fire competitions.

Before you go out and look to buy one, they cost anywhere from a new car to a house. Also each shot will cost around $10-20 in just powder alone.

>>34301975
A better argument would be Article 4 section 1: the Full Faith and Credit Clause

>Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

>>34302618
Translate that to non lawyer talk please.

>>34302628
' don't be a cunt'

>>34302618
It's not a good argument. Full Faith and Credit only applies to judgments, not laws.

>>34302628
Say you live in Ohio, but you get in an auto accident in Indiana. You sue the guy who hit you, who lives in Ohio as well. And let's pretend (I have no actual knowledge of the state of the personal injury liability laws in either state) that Indiana allows for a greater recovery in these kinds of cases than Ohio does; by some theory of liability that Ohio rejects.

You sue in Indiana, which you can because the accident happened there. You win, and you get a judgment of 80,000 dollars. If the case had been done in Ohio, at most you could have gotten would be 40,000. But you live in Ohio, the defendant lives in Ohio, and when it comes time to actually compel the guy to pay, it's an Ohio sheriff that is going to do the job. He can't turn around and refuse to enforce the judgment merely because it would go against his own state law to enforce a judgment like that had the case been tried in Ohio, they give full faith and credit to foreign judgments.

It gets a LITTLE trickier when you deal with foreign countries, but for inter-state judgments, its a lock.

>>34302301
Republican detected

>>34301975

There are some rational limitations. Children, criminals, the mentally ill or those in jail or other institutions where access to weapons is strictly controlled.

>>34302301
And? I have a confederate turncoat shipjumper in my line.

>>34301975
>implying the 9th circuit court of appeals doesn't wipe their ass with the constitution every day
they dont care, dude. when you're a judge appointed for life, you can use your position to further your own agenda.

>>34301975
>I'm fine with closing the gun show loophole or whatever the fuck.

Fucking noguns summerfag.

>>34301975
>I'm fine with closing the gun show loophole
what loophole? please explain what this "gun show loophole" is as I've seen the phrase tossed around but nobody can tell me what it is. so since you're all legal eagle tonight, asshole, go ahead and tell me what this supposed "gun show loophole" really is.

show your work, you will be graded.

>>34301975
>pretends to be pro-gun
>but hey im totally cool if you want to symbolically mount me by making me pay a $20 fee to cc
>yay let's just STREAMLINE and CENTRALIZE this shit so we get more CONVENIENCE amirite? Those FEDS sure know what they're doing

CIA are you this retarded? Your IC mind tricks do not work on me. And what the fuck is that picture? And holy shit op if you're not a shill or IC nigger, you need to stop posting for a few years and lurk. There is no excuse for ill thought out bullshit like this.

>>34305562
those are discriminatory. why should my son not have the right to defend himself? why should the person who has paid their debt to society not be able to exercise their god-given right to keep arms? who is the judge of what is mentally ill?

neck yourself, liberal scum.