Little-Acorn
12-08-2015, 11:22 AM
An odd article I found on the home page of Yahoo.com.
It's odd in that, despite its headline and a paragraph header that say they checked the Constitution, no reference to the Constitution appears anywhere in the actual story. Rather, they "check" various Court opinions. Historically, court opinions (especially on guns) often have little to do with what the Constitution actually says. And when they do, they just as often get it wrong.
So why do these authors claim to "check the Constitution" when they don't check it at all?
The Const does have a passage directly addressing the right to keep and bear arms. For the article's authors, it's called the Second Amendment - something they might want to look up.
It says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.
Does that sound like a statement giving governments the power to ban guns?
Keep in mind that the Federal government has NO POWERS AT ALL except those specifically given to it by the Constitution. And with that passage in the Constitution, and no other reference to arms at all, how can the govt possible say they have any power to restrict or take away your right to own a certain kind of rifle?
The second amendment applies just as strongly to state and local governments, of course, just as the 13th amendment does. If an amendment doesn't specify which government it applies to, then it applies to every govt in the U.S. And the 14th amendment even blurs that line: The 1st amendment originally was designed to apply only to the Fed Govt ("Congress shall make no law....") and not the states or local govts. Unsurprising, since most states had official state religions when it was first passed, and the Framers clearly didn't want to mess with that. But the 14th amendment changed that.
But unlike the 1st, the 2nd amendment has no such specification for which govt it applies to, so it applies to all of them, and has ever since it was ratified. It is illegal for any govt in the U.S. to take away or restrict your right to own and carry a gun.
It would be nice if the Supreme Court justices would notice that.
And the authors of this article.
---------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-guns-used-mass-shootings-banned-113606637--politics.html
Constitution Check: Can guns used in mass shootings be banned?
National Constitution Center
By Lyle Denniston
4 hours ago
Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, analyzes the Supreme Court’s refusal to take a case about banning assault weapons.
THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“Assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in many shootings? A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs….If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to over-estimate the likelihood of salient events.” – Excerpt from the majority opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, upholding a ban on assault weapons and larger ammunition magazines in the city of Highland, Park, Ill.
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to review that appeals court decision, thus leaving the city’s weapons ban in place.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
For the past seven years, it has been a settled constitutional issue that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to have a gun for use in self-defense. But that Supreme Court ruling, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, only made a start on defining the scope of that right. The only other decision that added any clarity to that right was a decision in 2010, extending nationwide that personal right (McDonald v. Chicago).
Gun rights advocates have been attempting repeatedly over the past five years to get the Supreme Court to return to the issue, complaining with increasing fervor that lower courts are not respecting Second Amendment rights, and, indeed, are engaging in what some advocates have called “massive resistance” to the court’s decisions.
It's odd in that, despite its headline and a paragraph header that say they checked the Constitution, no reference to the Constitution appears anywhere in the actual story. Rather, they "check" various Court opinions. Historically, court opinions (especially on guns) often have little to do with what the Constitution actually says. And when they do, they just as often get it wrong.
So why do these authors claim to "check the Constitution" when they don't check it at all?
The Const does have a passage directly addressing the right to keep and bear arms. For the article's authors, it's called the Second Amendment - something they might want to look up.
It says that since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted.
Does that sound like a statement giving governments the power to ban guns?
Keep in mind that the Federal government has NO POWERS AT ALL except those specifically given to it by the Constitution. And with that passage in the Constitution, and no other reference to arms at all, how can the govt possible say they have any power to restrict or take away your right to own a certain kind of rifle?
The second amendment applies just as strongly to state and local governments, of course, just as the 13th amendment does. If an amendment doesn't specify which government it applies to, then it applies to every govt in the U.S. And the 14th amendment even blurs that line: The 1st amendment originally was designed to apply only to the Fed Govt ("Congress shall make no law....") and not the states or local govts. Unsurprising, since most states had official state religions when it was first passed, and the Framers clearly didn't want to mess with that. But the 14th amendment changed that.
But unlike the 1st, the 2nd amendment has no such specification for which govt it applies to, so it applies to all of them, and has ever since it was ratified. It is illegal for any govt in the U.S. to take away or restrict your right to own and carry a gun.
It would be nice if the Supreme Court justices would notice that.
And the authors of this article.
---------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-guns-used-mass-shootings-banned-113606637--politics.html
Constitution Check: Can guns used in mass shootings be banned?
National Constitution Center
By Lyle Denniston
4 hours ago
Lyle Denniston, the National Constitution Center’s constitutional literacy adviser, analyzes the Supreme Court’s refusal to take a case about banning assault weapons.
THE STATEMENTS AT ISSUE:
“Assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in many shootings? A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs….If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to over-estimate the likelihood of salient events.” – Excerpt from the majority opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, upholding a ban on assault weapons and larger ammunition magazines in the city of Highland, Park, Ill.
On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to review that appeals court decision, thus leaving the city’s weapons ban in place.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND…
For the past seven years, it has been a settled constitutional issue that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to have a gun for use in self-defense. But that Supreme Court ruling, in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, only made a start on defining the scope of that right. The only other decision that added any clarity to that right was a decision in 2010, extending nationwide that personal right (McDonald v. Chicago).
Gun rights advocates have been attempting repeatedly over the past five years to get the Supreme Court to return to the issue, complaining with increasing fervor that lower courts are not respecting Second Amendment rights, and, indeed, are engaging in what some advocates have called “massive resistance” to the court’s decisions.