@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:oralloy wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:FOR THE RECORD:
I dissent from the notion
that extant gun control laws shud be enforced.
Thay r unConstitutional. Thay r unAmerican.
On a federal level, they are likely all unconstitutional, as the feds have no jurisdiction in that area.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendment was written as a
UNIVERSAL NEGATIVE proposition,
(
Barron v. Baltimore to the contrary notwithstanding),
i.e.: " . . . shall not be infringed"; accordingly,
if that right
is infringed, that is a
USURPATION that violates the Bill of Rights,
therefore being null & void.
Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
Lack of jurisdiction is more restrictive on the government than a right is.
With a right, the only question is whether a law infringes that right. If there is no infringement found, then the law stands.
But even if a law is found to not violate any rights, if the government has no jurisdiction to pass laws in that area, then the law is still unconstitutional.
This means that even if a federal gun law passes muster with the Second Amendment, it is still unconstitutional. It would be OK as a state law though, so long as it didn't violate any rights.
OmSigDAVID wrote:oralloy wrote:OmSigDAVID wrote:Thay help only on-the-job criminals. Their victims shud not be disarmed.
But each law should be judged on it's own merits. A truly-instant background check would be a hindrance to criminals, for example.
That 'd be a violation of the "equal protection" clause
and of the due process clause, in that loss of the right of self defense
is not in the imposed sentence (and therefore, cannot be appealed).
Maybe for sentences passed before the law was passed. But after the law was passed, any subsequent criminal sentences would have the loss of the right incorporated into them.
Felons still have the right to self defense, BTW. They just do not have the right to carry a gun so that they are prepared ahead of time. If they found themselves in a self-defense situation, they would still have the right to temporarily pick up any convenient weapon and use it to save their lives.
OmSigDAVID wrote:Abrogation of the right of self defense (e.g., legally compelling ex-convicts to freely allow mountain lions or packs of dogs
to feast upon their living flesh 'd violate the 8th Amendment as cruel & unusual punishment,
no matter which government afflicts defendant with that sentence; reminiscent of Russian Roulette).
David
I'm not sure it would be cruel unless the ex-con were forced to be in an area with such dangerous predators.
A few years ago, a black bear moved into the woods in my area. I've given a bit of thought to a suitable defensive weapon against the bear (I'm thinking the
.450 Marlin sounds about right), but until such time as I get around to acquiring such a weapon (I'm the ultimate procrastinator), I've simply stopped going for walks in the woods, so am never in any danger from the bear.
