coerced versus regulated? It effectively set a nation wide speed limit of 55 mph, regardless of the Constitution. Congress is the only branch Constitutionally authorized to declare war, and yet the Executive along with the War Department has the power to pretty much burn Bejing, Moscow, Tehran or Riyadh to the ground. As a Federal Prosecutor, how many cases did you prosecute that lacked a Constitutional basis? What is the Constitutional basis of ULSD? What is the Constitutional basis for the Federal Government to set operating limits on power stations to prioritize protecting air quality versus delivering power during winter storms? The list is endless my friend.
There's no Constitutional basis for a great many things regulated, coerced and controlled by the Federal Government is my point. What's the Constitutional basis for outlawing plants like weed and mushrooms? If I want to cook a batch of meth in my kitchen, what Constitutional basis is there for the Feds to make that illegal?
No that doesn't work. If you're barred from the regulation of arms by the 2nd and the 14th incorporation doctrine, then you're barred from the regulation of arms. It would OVERRIDE any police power that would allow the regulation of arms in the absence of the 2a's prohibition incorporated by the 14th. You'd still be able to punish malum in se crimes, like shooting someone without a legal justification or causing an explosion that harms others or their property. That doesn't mean you could regulate arms.
"Laws that ban the USE of firearms may well still be viable" Aren't these two statements saying the same thing?
well here is the problem with your analysis. under your interpretation, a court house could not prevent litigants or defendants from carrying arms into it. It would bar a state from preventing a juvenile or felon on probation from possessing firearms. Do you have any rational belief that any court would uphold your interpretation ?
1) Defendants and litigants are parties before the Court. The Court can abridge their freedom of speech ffs (say **** you in a courtroom and tell me otherwise), the contempt power is broad. It can penetrate your privacy in your personal effects and writings. It can require you come dressed a certain way, and speak in a certain manner. It can quite literally imprison you for acting otherwise, until you purge yourself of this behavior. It is authorized to act as the law itself, which none may have supreme force over. When you are before the court in danger of your liberty, you are effectively seized. When seized you do not have a good deal of your liberty including the freedom to leave. Part and parcel to that is the court retains superior force to all others in the form of armed guards and the parties are compelled on pain of imprisonment to attend and to participate in accordance with the various rules that apply. That you don't mention these concepts here speaks to either lack of full consideration of the idea, or coyness for some other purpose. Either way, its ****ing annoying. 2) A person on probation is released early when they have no right to be and must comply with terms of same. You can limit who they speak to, where they go, what they do, what they consume, ways they can earn a living, etc. Why? Because they're still seized under the 4th amendment and their liberty is still the state's. The state gives it back to them on terms, one of those terms can be thou shalt not possess a weapon during the term of your probation just as it can be thou shalt not associate with Lil Moco because he is a known gang member. You are aware of this. You understand this. Yet you fail to mention it. 3) Whether or not a court would follow the law does not change what the meaning of the terms are. In point of fact, that this inanity would be your final refuge plainly admits I am correct.
well according to you government doesn't have the power to do this. You are trying to play both sides of the coin
Ah the old one sentence reply for a nuanced concept. You admit I'm right again. Again: The government can't do many things it can otherwise do when you're seized under the 4th amendment. You're aware of this, as you claim to be a former US Attorney, but you're playing coy because you're embarrassed you've staked out a non-sensical position and your final refuge is essentially "well the courts won't do that so it must be incorrect". Example: I'm normally free to come and go as I please. However, when I'm seized under the 4th amendment I am not free to leave. Normally, when I'm free to leave, if someone attempts to physically restrain me that is 1) assault, 2) battery, 3) kidnapping/false imprisonment, and I am free to respond with necessary force to resist such aggression against my person no matter who the other person is. This would include a cop. A cop cannot simply assault you on a whim or hold you for no reason. You're able to resist such things. However, when I'm seized under the 4th amendment, I am now no longer authorized to resist such things and those actions become no longer assault etc at all. Appearing before a Court as a defendant, one is still seized. Also as explained: When one is offered probation or parole one is offered contractual terms one does not otherwise have a right to IE conditions for the partial return of one's liberty despite having a sentence to serve during the term of the contract. You do not have to accept the contract, and can remain imprisoned, or you can voluntarily accept conditions on your liberty for its partial return ahead of the appointed time. When you voluntarily bind yourself to a contract to obtain something you otherwise have no right to, you have made a choice. YOU the person limited your rights, not the state. Your argument is therefore moot.
ok I need a good laugh from someone who obviously doesn't have a law degree. WHAT powers do you claim say Ohio or Georgia, KY or Illinois still has after incorporation you can list YOUR views and then you can list what the federal court will actually do
Dude we've been here for years, you volunteer the same tired mallninja style 'no **** there I was' doj stories with holes on their holes, and I'm tired of humoring you. You keep laughing, and I'll keep practising law and charging for it. What powers? They have the same powers they've always had. They still retain their police power. It just doesn't allow them to regulate the keeping or bearing of arms because incorporation changed what rules applied to them in the same way that the equal protection clause created a new rule to apply to them and the feds. Yeah dude I already did, and your responses have been deflection of the sort a sov cit can muster ffs. As stated: That a court won't follow the law does not change what the law is. It means a court won't follow the law because the humans in the chair are chickenshit boomers.
well I will tell you what most courts will do. outright bans on commonly owned guns, ammo, magazines are all unconstitutional because that directly infringes on your ability to keep and bear arms stuff like prohibited carry in "sensitive areas" will remain intact laws preventing felons (18 USC 922 prohibited persons) and minors from buying guns etc will remain the big gray area is going to be these "red flag" laws from a due process inquiry
Again: That courts refuse to follow the law because they are results focused rather than philosophically focused, doesn't change what the words mean or the what the law actually calls for. It simply indicates that, like you, they will refuse to follow the law in favor of some self serving interest balancing test or other. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/09/19/second-amendment-texas-case-buy-guns-felony-indictment/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ba...s-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules-2023-02-04/ Seems some of your predictions are wrong there Karnack.
Can a state government prevent a minor child from voting? What about from engaging in acts which require consent, IE contracts for purchase, sex, etc? They CAN!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?? OMGZORGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I GUESS THAT MAKES EVERYTHING I JUST SAID MEANINGLESS BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T ATTAIN 100% OF THEIR RIGHTS PRIOR TO MAJORITY!!! O THE HUGE MANATEE!!!! O wait.... states not being able to regulate arms has no effect on their being able to regulate children not having attained majority. Just as their not being able to regulate arms has no effect on their being able to regulate persons seized under the 4th amendment or whom have traded their rights for parole or probation on a temporary basis. Why do you feel the need to engage in this intellectual dishonesty? Its tiresome.
Don't be obtuse. You take my meaning. Association is. Yet states are free to prevent the delinquency of minors and do numerous other things they could not do to an adult in majority who has not been adjudicated mentally unfit. The police power remains, that does not give them the right to supercede the 2nd amendment that now applies to them and make blanket malum prohibitum laws relating to the keeping and bearing of arms. They CAN still act on someone seized under the 4th amendment, just as the feds might. Keep tilting Quixote.
you're equivocating. If a state has the power to deny a citizen firearms, you have claimed that is a violation of the second.
Which does not equate to a state or the federal government never being able to disarm someone seized under the 4th ****ing amendment and you would know that if you'd actually practised law there Gecko45. Likewise, minor children do not possess all their faculties and so like the insane do not possess all of their rights until they are in their right mind. Another basic fact of the common law that underpins our constitutional system and wasn't erased by the Constitution. You're upset that the only reason you can find to justify your position is that chickenshit boomers lacking the courage of their convictions or the ability to parse basic logic won't uphold the law.
You seem unaware of the law and what courts will do. I will state again that no federal court will find that incorporation gives the federal courts the power to strike down all sorts of gun control laws -especially those that 1) prohibit certain classes of persons (the 18 USC 922 categories) from owning guns 2) prohibit the keeping, bearing and carrying firearms in certain areas-both public (court houses, jails) and some private areas (schools, banks etc)
Usually I've seen this in reference to using a hollow point round vs ball ammunition. Hollow point causes more damage by mushrooming/expanding and disintegrating on impact, being more likely to cause significant damage rather than wasting energy passing through. Forensic pathologists tend to have to learn a bit about bullets, and I didn't take that route, but I remember this forensic autopsy I shadowed. Alleged hunting accident, so the forensic pathologist's role was to figure out the approximate distance the shotgun was from the victim, and confirm it was the shot that killed her, and then the detectives could take it from there to figure out if the shooter's story adds up. I remember there were about a half dozen tiny bloody holes, smaller than a BB. Only one of them was fatal, and it hit her in the temple, but with a slightly different trajectory any of the other pellets could have severed a major artery and done the job on their own. Things like hitting intestines can kill from sepsis, but there's at least a chance of survival with treatment. Point is, within reason, it's more about them hitting a critical location than the size, per se. But something disintegrating and expanding will be more likely to do this assuming it goes deep enough.
1) Read the posts instead of ignoring them and you won't do this twice. 2) As stated: Keeping secure areas secured does not require the ability to generally prohibit the keeping and bearing of arms, and neither the states nor the feds will be hindered there. Further: Banks etc are entirely private areas where the owner may dictate who may be armed. Schools: I think a rather rousing argument can be made in the modern day for making these areas the same as a courthouse, if the state is going to continue to demand those of majority inside be disarmed then it can provide armed guards as in any other secured area.
I totally agree about the red herring. There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses abortion (that's why the Court sent the matter to the states) but there certainly is specific verbage in the Constitution addressing the right to bear arms.
the "abortion is a holy rite/right crowd" seem to ignore that the supreme court is not allowing the federal government to ban abortions-which makes it different than the supreme court striking down federal gun bans. and since there has been no amendment incorporated upon the states through the 14th amendment, the states can make their own laws consistent with their own constitutions
