2nd and 14th Amendments.......

[Bravo8]

There is obviously a lot of disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Some states allow their citizens to keep and bear arms, while others restrict or bar that right. Many states that do allow the citizenry to possess arms restrict the rights of out-of-state residents to carry.

Under the 14th Amendment, other states are required to recognize the "official" documents of another state (marriage certificates, driver's license, etc). I know this is a simplified explaination, but for the sake of brevity.............

Does the 14th Amendment not require all other states to recognize the firearms permits from other states?

I realize this is an emotional issue, so please only rational responses.....even if you disagree with my freedom (you pansy, tree-hugging, democRAT liberal..... )

 

[Bravo8]

18 page views and........

not a single response.....

No insightful comments about our forefathers, no astounding revelations regarding our freedoms, no intellectually stimulating debate..........

Hell, not even a damn flame.

I expected more from our legal scholars........

 

[racer72]

Sorry, I'm one of the so called liberals you hate so much. I will not lower my self to scum level to call you names.

 

[Bravo8]

That was meant in jest..................

 

[TYRIS]

There is obviously a lot of disagreement over the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Some states allow their citizens to keep and bear arms, while others restrict or bar that right. Many states that do allow the citizenry to possess arms restrict the rights of out-of-state residents to carry.

Under the 14th Amendment, other states are required to recognize the "official" documents of another state (marriage certificates, driver's license, etc). I know this is a simplified explaination, but for the sake of brevity.............

Does the 14th Amendment not require all other states to recognize the firearms permits from other states?

I realize this is an emotional issue, so please only rational responses.....even if you disagree with my freedom (you pansy, tree-hugging, democRAT liberal..... )

-Since no one has responded bravo, I guess I will, although I wouldn’t classify myself as a scholar.

My first question is… are you asking as a citizen or as a cop? There is a difference.

As a citizen, I believe it is your right to possess a firearm to protect your family and property. As a cop, I believe it is your right, if lawfully able to do so, to possess a firearm to protect your family and property, but at home only. Do I believe that citizens should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon? No I don’t. This is not the “old west”. As a peace officer, look at what types of calls for service you go to. How much worse would most of those calls be if the participants had been armed? Especially if the people involved were from out-of-state and were unfamiliar with the laws of the state that they were in?

Right now there is a bill that is attempting to get passed that would allow peace officers to carry in all states. I support this bill wholeheartedly. Do I believe that every citizen should have this right? As I peace officer, no I do not.

I do not believe that fourteenth amendment applies due to the fact that the federal government has give each stated the right to govern itself within its own bailiwick. This is as it should be lest the federal government takes over.

But I transgress… we were talking about the second amendment which states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

Webster’s dictionary defines militia as: 1: (a): a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency (b): a body of citizens organized for military service.
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

Webster defines people as: (plural): human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

At no time does it state a person’s right, but a people as a whole. I don’t believe our founding fathers would believe the amount of controversy this amendment or its wording has caused.

Your serve Bravo.

Tyris

 

[Bravo8]

Thanks, Ty.

First let us tackle the actual amendment. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.......

You see, it is an individual right (I think this is what you were refering to in your people vs. person argument???? I was a bit confused). The preamble, "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State......" simply states a reason why the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Now I am far from a linguistic expert, but many English scholars have supported this interpretation. Alledgedly this was a common mode of speech all those years ago.

For the sake of argument, let us stipulate that the 2nd amendment does indeed protect an individual right.

I believe the 14th amendment applies. Allow me to explain.......

The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. It specifically states, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

So stipulating that the 2nd applies to private firearm ownership, which is in keeping with recent decisions by the Dept of Justice and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the creation and enforcement of "anti-firearm" laws is illegal and unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms being the "privillege or immunity" described in the 14th.

Therefore any state that prohibits (or restricts to the extent to virtually prohibit) private firearm ownership is in direct violation of two Constitutional amendments, the 2nd and the 14th.

As both a police officer and a citizen, I support the right of private citizens to carry concealed weapons. I respond to the same calls you do. I deal with the same type of people. These people are the way they are. If they were so inclined to start shoting, the ywould have a gun already. Outlawing guns is obviously not working (look at Maryland.....almost no guns and incredible crime).

A gun does not suddenly make a person lose their mind. I have no fear of good guys with guns. It's the bad guys with the illegal guns....the illegal guns that still were not stopped despite all this gun control....that scare me. Why not level the playing field?

I, too, support HR 218 (the bill to allow cops to carry nationwide) and would also support a bill to allow all carry permit holders to carry nationwide.

 

[lauras2u]

Well tyris now you know why no one replied. He is baiting to get is own platform.

 

[Bravo8]

Laura, go away.

I posted this thread to try to initiate some intelligent discussion regarding an issue that I obviously feel strongly about.

My question was regarding the application of the 14th amendment to the 2nd amendment.

No where in my initial post did I ask for an interpretation of the 2nd amendment, nor did I ask everyone's opinion on the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet Tyris chose to post his thoughts on the subject. Unlike some other members here, I don't get pissed off and start complaining about "opinions" posted here when I don't agree with the poster.

Tyris then posted, "Your serve". I interpreted that as he wished me to respond accordingly, which I did.

If you don't like the subject, stay out of the thread. If you don't like me, stop following me.

If you wish to add something contructive to the thread, by all means contribute.

 

[TYRIS]

Laura, go away.

I posted this thread to try to initiate some intelligent discussion regarding an issue that I obviously feel strongly about.

My question was regarding the application of the 14th amendment to the 2nd amendment.

No where in my initial post did I ask for an interpretation of the 2nd amendment, nor did I ask everyone's opinion on the right to keep and bear arms.

Yet Tyris chose to post his thoughts on the subject. Unlike some other members here, I don't get pissed off and start complaining about "opinions" posted here when I don't agree with the poster.

Tyris then posted, "Your serve". I interpreted that as he wished me to respond accordingly, which I did.

If you don't like the subject, stay out of the thread. If you don't like me, stop following me.

If you wish to add something contructive to the thread, by all means contribute.

-




-hey bravo, isn't that internet stalking?

but getting back to our discussion... i agree with you that each person should be allowed to possess firearms and that the government has too many restrictions. but my question is this. how far do we take it? do we not restrict any firearms and allow citizens to carry military grade weapons with impunity?

while i don't agree with complete restriction, i believe a little is in order. but thats just my belief.

as for the fourteenth amendment... i believe it is open to your own interpretation. the federal government gives each stated the right to make its own laws and to enforce them. most state laws differ to some degree from other state laws as well as laws that the federal government imposes. look at the debate on marijuana. california says its legal to grow with a doctors note...the federal government says no it isn't. who is right?

you stated- "Under the 14th Amendment, other states are required to recognize the "official" documents of another state (marriage certificates, driver's license, etc)."

i may be wrong (its always a high possibility), but some states recognize same sex mariages while others do not. under your definition of the fourteenth amendment, wouldn't this be unconstitutional?


also, i don't believe you can have a discussion on this topic without putting your own thoughts and opinions in into it. personally, i think that's what makes a good debate. but thats just me.

Tyris