Judge upholds CT gun laws

[Tilted]

Wow! There's a lot to respond to in this thread. But rather than trying to respond to it all I'd like to try to cut through the noise by asking justiceforall a question:

What do you think was the intent of the Second Amendment when it was drafted and adopted by the Founding generation? That is to say, what do you think were their motivations in considering it and their goals in enacting it?

If we're going to consider what is and isn't allowed in accordance with respective provisions of the Constitution, the intent - the point - of those respective provisions would seem the right place to start. If we can't agree on what those intents are, we're not likely to agree on what is or isn't allowed. But at least then we'd know where the foundation of the disagreements are and where we'd need to look to further consider, and perhaps research, the matter. Or, in the alternative, we'd know that discussing it further is a waste of time.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

So, you're saying that every person in CT was determined either a criminal or mentally ill, thus unfit to possess certain firearms? I wasn't aware of that.

No, he's saying the law itself passed muster and due process was applied. It made it's way through the system, and the judges found it ok. I don't like it. I don't like how the majority Dems in Annapolis essentially ignored all of us, and still passed the law....in the name of safety.

You of all people should know "we deserve the government we get".

 

[This_person]

No, not that I feel the same way, but that I see the hypocrysy of those would would see it that way.

Like you If you find a law unreasonable in its restrictions on rights, you see it as unconstitutional. Just like the people here.

 

[justiceforall]

So, you're saying that every person in CT was determined either a criminal or mentally ill, thus unfit to possess certain firearms? I wasn't aware of that. And in the case of these gun control laws, courts don't determine an entire population's ability to have firearms; the constitution does. If a court rules that entire populations, regardless of criminal or mental status determination, are unfit to have firearms they are in violation of the constitution. And courts do this all the time. Court decisions are not infallible.

Why wont you answer the question: How many guns should be banned that will make you feel comfortable that the problem has ben solved? And articulate how you believe all those bans will actually result in fixing the problem?

No, I said the due process you speak of was done. I'm glad you brought up the fifth amendment which states in part " nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

In so far as your other analogy about the courts banning firearms from all citizens, that didn't happen. The legislature passed a law imposing reasonable restrictions and, after due process the courts upheld that law as being constitutional.

In answer to your question, I am comfortable with Maryland's current gun laws. If new laws are presented my opinion could change, but I like it the way it is now.

 

[justiceforall]

Like you If you find a law unreasonable in its restrictions on rights, you see it as unconstitutional. Just like the people here.

NO, I don't. If that were to happen, I see it as bad law. Not necessarily unconstitutional.

 

[This_person]

No, I said the due process you speak of was done.

They're never wrong? They never disagree up the chain? Plessy v. Ferguson was the right decision?

 

[This_person]

NO, I don't. If that were to happen, I see it as bad law. Not necessarily unconstitutional.

I would find it unconstitutional to pass a law with concern to speech which is not reasonable.

 

[justiceforall]

Wow! There's a lot to respond to in this thread. But rather than trying to respond to it all I'd like to try to cut through the noise by asking justiceforall a question:

What do you think was the intent of the Second Amendment when it was drafted and adopted by the Founding generation? That is to say, what do you think were their motivations in considering it and their goals in enacting it?

If we're going to consider what is and isn't allowed in accordance with respective provisions of the Constitution, the intent - the point - of those respective provisions would seem the right place to start. If we can't agree on what those intents are, we're not likely to agree on what is or isn't allowed. But at least then we'd know where the foundation of the disagreements are and where we'd need to look to further consider, and perhaps research, the matter. Or, in the alternative, we'd know that discussing it further is a waste of time.

I don't know what their original intent was. I am not nor have I claimed to be a constitutional scholar. I don't think though, that our founding fathers envisioned every possible situation, nor did they envision these United States as they are today. I think if you look at the laws which were in place when the founding fathers were still around, you would find there were a lot less freedoms of our citizens than there are today.

 

[justiceforall]

You failed to see the sentence, "not necessarily unconstitutional" which indicates it could be, or it could be just bad law. The courts are the determining body as to which.

 

[Tilted]

I don't know what their original intent was. I am not nor have I claimed to be a constitutional scholar. I don't think though, that our founding fathers envisioned every possible situation, nor did they envision these United States as they are today. I think if you look at the laws which were in place when the founding fathers were still around, you would find there were a lot less freedoms of our citizens than there are today.

I don't think I can agree with your last statement, not as a general proposition though surely it is true in specific regards (e.g. with regard to particular people). But we don't need to have that debate today as it isn't crucial to the particular point we're addressing here.

As to the rest your response, fair enough. Yes, they surely didn't consider every possible situation or every possible change in society or technology or circumstance that might occur in the future. That's why they laid out basic principles that could, hopefully, be applied to future circumstances. If those basic principles no longer sufficed, or created clearly unacceptable consequences in light of changed circumstances (i.e consequences that a large enough portion of people agreed were unacceptable), they left us a mechanism to get rid of or change those basic principles.

So... even acknowledging that you don't know their original intent in enacting the Second Amendment... would you agree that, in order to sincerely consider what might or might not violate that provision of the Constitution, we need to have a fair understanding of what their intent was? How can we, for practical purposes, figure out if something is violating the spirit of a rule if we don't understand what the point of the rule is - that is, even if we accept the premise that some exceptions to the rule are allowable? (And accepting the latter seems to be a basis for your position on this matter.)

 

[justiceforall]

So... even acknowledging that you don't know their original intent in enacting the Second Amendment... would you agree that, in order to sincerely consider what might or might not violate that provision of the Constitution, we need to have a fair understanding of what their intent was? How can we, for practical purposes, figure out if something is violating the spirit of a rule if we don't understand what the point of the rule is - that is, even if we accept the premise that some exceptions to the rule are allowable? (And accepting the latter seems to be a basis for your position on this matter.)

WE can't. That should be left up to those in our judiciary who ARE the legal scholars.

My whole point is you can't have it both ways. Most of the people on here would agree that there should be some regulation when it comes to firearms. The rest of it is up to what is reasonable. That is decided by the people, through the legislature, and finally by the courts.

 

[PsyOps]

No, he's saying the law itself passed muster and due process was applied. It made it's way through the system, and the judges found it ok. I don't like it. I don't like how the majority Dems in Annapolis essentially ignored all of us, and still passed the law....in the name of safety.

You of all people should know "we deserve the government we get".

And I contend that decision is unconstitutional. :shrug:

Courts don't always get it right.

 

[Hijinx]

First of all, read Amendment 5 that addresses the loss of rights under due process of law.

You’re taking what I said out of context. I’m all-too-familiar with this trap you’re playing with. There is no infringement of someone’s rights when it has been rationally determined that some should not have guns because they have demonstrated their inability to handle them or that they exhibited a danger to society. You do not pass laws that affect everyone to answer for those few people. You seem to be unable to separate the two. We can make rational determinations about who should or shouldn’t have firearms. It is not rational to just blanket everyone.

Regardless of how you view criminals or the mentally ill, my rights are still my rights. The constitution protects those rights. I can make this about me if I wanted to; but I am making it about the vast majority of our population that the constitution pertains to. You can either apply rational applications to this or play stupid games of gotcha with extremely rare exceptions in order to somehow justify why gun control is a good idea. If you think gun control is a good idea I’d like to know what you think gun control is aimed at accomplishing?

You are exactly right. He laid this trap long ago, I saw it immediately, now he is just having fun sticking pins in his little Voodoo doll.
Calling people hypocrits for having common sense, and enjoying his fraternity immunity.

Him and the horse he rode in on.

 

[PsyOps]

No, I said the due process you speak of was done. I'm glad you brought up the fifth amendment which states in part " nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

In so far as your other analogy about the courts banning firearms from all citizens, that didn't happen. The legislature passed a law imposing reasonable restrictions and, after due process the courts upheld that law as being constitutional.

In answer to your question, I am comfortable with Maryland's current gun laws. If new laws are presented my opinion could change, but I like it the way it is now.

Wait, so you’re saying the the 5th is saying that my possessing a firearm puts others’ in jeopardy of life and limb? This was determined how? The clause of that amendment I was talking about is: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In other words your rights cannot be infringed upon until and unless you – the individual – have gone through due process to determine you are guilty of something. Once you – as an individual – have been determined unfit to exercise your rights in a responsible manner, you lose those rights. Gun control laws violates this clause. I have not been determined a threat to society and unfit to exercise all of my rights as a responsible, law-abiding citizen.

And you keep saying firearms haven’t been banned from all citizens… They have. In MD the sale of semi-automatic assault rifles are banned, to everyone. What that means is no one can buy one. What that means is those that have one, if that firearm becomes nonfunctional and irreparable, you cannot get another. Your contention that just because I have mine therefore my rights are intact is not the definition of “right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”. That clause means that the government is limited from passing laws that prevent people from obtaining arms. It doesn’t matter if they can still get a bb gun while all others are banned… It means government cannot pass such laws limited your access to firearms – PERIOD! It is a limit on government that they cannot institute law regarding gun ownership – PERIOD! It would be the same as the government coming in and saying “We have determined that Islam is too dangerous and we decree that religion banned. We are doing this for the public safety. You can still exercise your right to religion. Just not Islam.”

 

[PsyOps]

You are exactly right. He laid this trap long ago, I saw it immediately, now he is just having fun sticking pins in his little Voodoo doll.
Calling people hypocrits for having common sense, and enjoying his fraternity immunity.

Him and the horse he rode in on.

I have to operate on the premise that he really believes what he's saying; that he really doesn't get the illogical argument he's posing. He's admitted he doesn't know what the intent of our founders was; which speaks volumes as to why he holds this opinion.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

And I contend that decision is unconstitutional. :shrug:

Courts don't always get it right.

And I'm not saying they always do. Afterall, many circuit courts have ruled for and/or against 2A, and how it applies outside the home.

Until the SCOTUS rules on the expanded view of the 2A, we'll have to continue watching anti-gun states create law after law pushing the boundaries of Constituionality.

 

[PsyOps]

And I'm not saying they always do. Afterall, many circuit courts have ruled for and/or against 2A, and how it applies outside the home.

Until the SCOTUS rules on the expanded view of the 2A, we'll have to continue watching anti-gun states create law after law pushing the boundaries of Constituionality.

The only way to get past this is to keep having these discussions and keep drumming the point to people that seem okay with more and more dismissal of the constitution. It starts with the people electing people that conjure up and pass these laws. And I’m assuming justiceforall votes.

 

[PsyOps]

WE can't. That should be left up to those in our judiciary who ARE the legal scholars.

Oh yes WE can!

I really am not trying to be insulting, because you've been honest and respectful; but… you’re indicative of the ‘low information’ voter. Sitting back and letting others make your decisions for you. I’m not a constitutional scholar by any stretch, but I am making a huge effort to understand our constitution and what our founders’ intent was when writing it. I consider it a duty as a citizen of this country to be most informed so I can make smarter decisions about who I vote for to avoid electing people – and ultimately those people putting judges in power – that aim to destroy our constitution. I don’t have all the best answers for these things, but I do encourage you to not be content with believing any of our people that SERVE US in our government are serving our best interest.

I'm not asserting there is some perfect application of any part of our constitution. There are going to be exceptions to things; and those exceptions are (and should be) in the extreme and dealt with individually and not a paintbrush on everyone. Because some may have their rights limited because of exceptional circumstances, this does not diminish the intent of our constitution to apply to all citizens. Although it may not apply to everyone, the intent is that it does; and the special circumstances should be dealt with on a very limited basis, not through broad application of law.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The only way to get past this is to keep having these discussions and keep drumming the point to people that seem okay with more and more dismissal of the constitution. It starts with the people electing people that conjure up and pass these laws. And I’m assuming justiceforall votes.

I agree. But unfortunately, people don't really seem to care about other Ammendments until it effects them.

The people who are feverishly anti-gun, typically won't say they agree with limiting free speech, or advocating getting rid of the 4A.

I hope there's a light at the end of the tunnel....

 

[PsyOps]

I agree. But unfortunately, people don't really seem to care about other Ammendments until it effects them.

The people who are feverishly anti-gun, typically won't say they agree with limiting free speech, or advocating getting rid of the 4A.

I hope there's a light at the end of the tunnel....

Well, I'd say it's not looking good. I'm anxious to see how the courts deal with the MD law.