The Partisan Divide on Issues

[David Horn]

(02-07-2020, 07:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-07-2020, 07:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: As for supporting a gun grab -- I have no problem with the government separating firearms from criminals, addicts, habitual drunkards, lunatics, spouse-abusers, illegal aliens, idiots, and people on the no-fly list. None of those would have protection of any 'gun rights' in accordance with the militia clause. If the military will not trust someone with a military weapon, then perhaps one should not be the sort to have one. OK, I have left room for the elderly and the handicapped who would never be inducted into the Armed Services.  Gun-grabbing legislation could be drafted without discrimination. 

Well, some call it the militia clause, others more accurately as a justification clause.  All other rights with a justification clause are not read as the justification clause limiting the implementation clause.  There are allowed more than one possible justification, and no requirement to list them all.  I have told you this many times before.  You choose to remain willfully ignorant.   Political opinion over rides rule of law?

Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it? How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent? So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past. I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites.

Bob Butler Wrote:That said, most of the types of people you list above do show just cause for the removal of the right without any modification of the 2nd.  The limitation is that you would have to follow due process.  The removal of a right, any right, does include a requirement for due process.  You cannot grab arms on a whim.

The no fly list has a problem there.  It is a quick and blanket list.  It does not take due process, a court action and proof beyond reasonable doubt to end up on the no fly list.  The creators of the list were more concerned with prompt reaction to threats than following legalities.  There is also no established way to get off the list should a mistake get made.  As such, you cannot apply the no fly list to void a constitutionally guaranteed right.

This could change, but that is one reason why the list as currently formulated does not effect the right to bear arms.

I have an easier modality: license owners and register weapons. I see nothing in the 2nd that can be stretched far enough to deny that solution. By implication, 'bearing arms' is a public display, so a manufactured right of privacy is out in this case. Nor can it be considered a burden, when licensure is common for a wide variety purposes already. Are you OK with that option?