Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

@oralloy,

Hmm. Executive orders that violate constitutional rights...I'm going to have to look into that. My first thought is the internment camps for Japanese descendants in WWII. Not even sure that was an executive order, but it was declared to be unconstitutional after the war. Off to do some reading.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I would want the police (including the feds) to be required to use the same stamped ammo that the civilians have to use.

I agree.

The police find bullets and casings all the time, doesn't tracking ammo make a ton more sense than how we try to solve shootings now? Decent gun lovers/users cant really have a problem with new and better ways to catch those who misuse guns, can they?

Quote:

If there is no good reason to prevent someone from buying ammo, they have the right to buy it.

Why does the second amendment demand this? Cant we solve this issue by deciding that it gives us the right to have all the guns we want, but if we want ammo to use them we need to pass a safety test and register our ammo so that the state can solve shooting crimes? I would not have a problem with that. I might have a problem with doing what it would take to make this super effective, which is criminalize the making of ammo without markings, and the import of Ammo without markings.

2 Replies

@FBM,

Quote:

but it was declared to be unconstitutional after the war.

So far as I know you are not correct. Congress long after apologized and handed out money, but

Quote:

The Court's decision in Korematsu, loudly criticized by many civil libertarians at the time and generally condemned by historians ever since, has never been explicitly overturned.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/personality/landmark_korematsu.html

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

OK, so it was an executive order, but even though the gummit admits that it was an error, SCOTUS hasn't bothered to rule on it. Maybe they should, just to prevent a repeat of it.

1 Reply

@FBM,

You think a court that does not shut down gitmo is going to rule against emergency wartime internment?

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

I'm not holding my breath, no.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Why does the second amendment demand this? Cant we solve this issue by deciding that it gives us the right to have all the guns we want, but if we want ammo to use them we need to pass a safety test and register our ammo so that the state can solve shooting crimes?

The right to have guns includes a right to have ammo for those guns.

That said, reasonable safety tests and registration do not prevent people from having ammo. The Constitutional problems come when something prevents people from having ammo.

However, just because registration doesn't violate the Second Amendment doesn't mean that the NRA will allow it to happen.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

You think a court that does not shut down gitmo is going to rule against emergency wartime internment?

Guantanamo is a legitimate POW camp. The WWII internments interned people who should not have been interned.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
You think a court that does not shut down gitmo is going to rule against emergency wartime internment?

Guantanamo is a legitimate POW camp. The WWII internments interned people who should not have been interned.

You must have a personal definition for the word "legitimate", because the definition that the rest of us use does not allow it to be in your sentence. The japanese internment camps were legal then, and they are legal now. A good idea maybe maybe not.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The right to have guns includes a right to have ammo for those guns.

I think that we can stretch what ever the framers might have intended into making the 2nd amendment functionally the Barney Fife amendment..... you can carry a gun if you want to, as for getting bullets maybe and maybe not.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

You must have a personal definition for the word "legitimate", because the definition that the rest of us use does not allow it to be in your sentence.

The prohibition against massacring enemy soldiers when they attempt to surrender developed alongside the right to detain those captured soldiers until the end of the war.

If America is now denied our right to detain captured enemy soldiers until the end of the war, then we immediately regain our right to slaughter all enemy soldiers upon capture.

hawkeye10 wrote:

The japanese internment camps were legal then, and they are legal now. A good idea maybe maybe not.

The camps were legal. Holding people who could not be shown to be a threat was not legal.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

I think that we can stretch what ever the framers might have intended into making the 2nd amendment functionally the Barney Fife amendment..... you can carry a gun if you want to, as for getting bullets maybe and maybe not.

No. The right to have the gun includes the right to have ammo for the gun.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. The right to have the gun includes the right to have ammo for the gun.

and you will have your ammo, all you need to do is pass a safety class so that the rest of us have our right to take minimal efforts to keep ourselves safe, and register your ammo numbers.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

and you will have your ammo, all you need to do is pass a safety class so that the rest of us have our right to take minimal efforts to keep ourselves safe, and register your ammo numbers.

If those are the only issues, then there should be no Constitutional problems. However, the NRA is not going to allow the registration of ammo.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

Quote:

They put out the memo, that was enough. Our first black President becomes president and the first warning they put out is against our vets? None of you guys have any respect for the military.

It seems you have no respect for facts.

Quote:

The report was produced by staff members during the Bush administration but wasn't published until then Homeland Security Janet Napolitano had taken office. Napolitano criticized her own agency for the report.

It seems "you guys" are Republicans.

1 Reply

@parados,

"Bush did it, blah blah blah..." I can tell that excuse never gets old with you guys.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

Quote:

The report was produced by staff members during the Bush administration

Quote:

"Bush did it, blah blah blah..." I can tell that excuse never gets old with you guys.

Why let facts get in the way? Which administration was in office when the report was produced?

2 Replies

@parados,

There are gun laws. Shocked

Hell I thought you could carry a fully loaded AK 47 into church now days.

0 Replies

@parados,

What facts? I see your words and nothing else. Where's your proof?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

And what about the people that reload their own ammunition?
If their reloads don't have the markings on them, are you going to make them criminals?
How long will people have to use their unmarked ammo before they must buy the marked ammo?
What happens to all of the unused, unmarked ammo?

1 Reply

Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know