THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894), states:

[Miller challenged a law banning the carrying of dangerous weapons on the person.] In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.

We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts. And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court.

0 Replies

I remember that case.
Lemme check it again n get back to u.
Its been a few years since I read it.

David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Glad to see that cj and Half feel that gun control is constitutional. Dave, you are out there alone.

Your blanket "gun control is constitutional" statements are too broad to be accurate.

Some gun control is constitutional.

Some gun control is not constitutional.

It all depends on the specifics of what a particular gun control does.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

RONG!!!! The right to bear is clearly in the context of a militia. The amendment would not have mentioned "militia" were this not the case. The courts have overwhelmingly upheld this view. Rant and rave all you want, it is not going to change.

All that means is that people have the right to have the type of weapons that a militia uses (for instance, machine guns).

I wouldn't be too bold about proclaiming that nothing is going to change.

If the Supreme Court refuses to hear Parker vs. D.C., then the lower court's ruling will become law of the land in D.C. That'll be a pretty big change for people in our nation's capital.

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case, it is pretty much a given that things are going to change.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, you infer that gun control is illegal because the B of Rs doesn't provide for it, or even mention it. That is downright silly. Since gun control is not proscribed, it is legal.

The Second Amendment proscribes some gun control.

The Tenth Amendment proscribes most federal gun control.

It all depends on the details of the gun control.

0 Replies

Halfback wrote:

So let's say we completely ban guns, and we "save" half of the murder rate, 5,750 (I don't believe it would be that high a "save" rate, but just for the sake of argument....) We STILL would be better off concentrating our efforts on banning driving by a long margin, like 6 to 1!

You are right -- it wouldn't save that many. The murder rate would only drop one or two percent.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Half, no one, or virtually no one, is taking guns away from people (especially in N. Carolina).

That freak Nagin stole guns from a lot of people when Katrina hit New Orleans.....

Advocate wrote:

The courts overwhelmingly disagree with your interpretation of the 2A.

Let's just see what happens with Parker vs D.C.

Advocate wrote:

I think that all of us, except for Dave, believe that gun control is constitutional.

Some gun control is constitutional.

Some gun control is unconstitutional.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Dave, cj, Half, et al., are you guys dense? Neither I nor almost anyone else wish to seize your guns.

Funny, I recall some recent votes in the Senate where some people tried to ban handgun hunting ammo, and tried to ban guns designed for self-defense.

Most of them were Democrats, believe it or not.

And Obama hates our freedom just as much as Osama, as he is on record calling for a ban on all semi-automatics.

Advocate wrote:

Moreover, the courts have overwhelmingly upheld the legality of gun control. This, I know, is a bitter pill for Dave, who has dedicated his life to denying the facts of the matter.

Let's see what the Supreme Court has to say about Parker vs. DC.....

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

Halfback wrote:
So let's say we completely ban guns, and we "save" half of the murder rate, 5,750 (I don't believe it would be that high a "save" rate, but just for the sake of argument....) We STILL would be better off concentrating our efforts on banning driving by a long margin, like 6 to 1!

You are right -- it wouldn't save that many.
The murder rate would only drop one or two percent.

It went up thru the roof,
in D.C.

David

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Half, no one, or virtually no one, is taking guns away from people (especially in N. Carolina). The courts overwhelmingly disagree with your interpretation of the 2A.

BTW, the constitution was enacted before the B of Rs were enacted.

We may be closer to agreement that it appears.

I think that all of us, except for Dave,

believe that gun control is constitutional. So what is your argument?

OK, OK: u got me over a barrel:
I admit that gun control IS constitutional if it REQUIRES
that every citizen be fully armed when appearing in a public place
and that all guns be loaded with hollowpointed slugs, with W-I-D-E cavities
and that each citizen be required to work out with his gun every week.
David

0 Replies

and that everyone is mandated
to join his neighborhood militia

0 Replies

like the merchants' militia,
that defended their stores, during the L.A. riots

or

like the Free French

0 Replies

Without their being consciously AWARE
of it, the passengers on United Airlines Flight 93
formed themselves into a " well regulated militia "
( in the sense that thay were free of any government control )
when thay organized to counterattack against the Moslems, on 9/11

David

0 Replies

Dave, good for you in admitting that gun control is constitutional. I never thought I would read this, and I assume you won't back off of this admission.

I never said that, in the future, the courts will not reverse themselves and hold that 2A proscribes gun control. The current conservative SC may do this.

Orally, please give me an example of gun control that is unconstitutional. (You said that some is and some is not.)

DC is the exception that proved the rule. Moreover, banning handguns (or bazookas) does not preclude possessing a rifle.

0 Replies

Advocate: Thanks for "Miller" case, I had completely forgotten it! I believe I will reread it, just for the sake of fact finding.

Halfback

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Orally, please give me an example of gun control that is unconstitutional. (You said that some is and some is not.)

Anything that prevents people from possessing an automatic rifle would be unconstitutional, as well as anything that would prevent people from possessing armor-piercing ammo for those automatic rifles.

On a federal level, that would be the 1934 National Firearms Act (allows local officials to make it bureaucratically impossible for people to purchase an automatic rifle), the 1986 ban on new machineguns (forces people to buy old automatic rifles at ever increasing prices), and the 1993 ban on AP ammo (prevents people from having armor-piercing ammo).

In addition, the 1994 "10-year-ban" on new assault weapons, while only covering semi-auto rifles, was unconstitutional because it banned the closest thing available to the automatic rifles that people have the right to have.

-------------------

The Parker legal team seems to be taking a different view of the Second Amendment than I do though. I haven't had time to figure out whether I agree with it or not.

The way they see it, we have the right to have a handgun with a high-capacity magazine, but no full-auto weapons.

0 Replies

If the constitution does not proscribe gun control, and most courts agree it doesn't, then gun control laws, such as those you mentioned, are not unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, the present court is entirely results-oriented. Thus, there is a good chance that 2A may be reinterpreted as proscribing gun control. Then, every man, woman, child, nutcase, and ex-con could pack any type of gun. However, nongovernmental organizations (e.g., McDonalds) could ban them from being brought into their premises.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

If the constitution does not proscribe gun control, and most courts agree it doesn't, then gun control laws, such as those you mentioned, are not unconstitutional.

That is incorrect. It is hardly a case of "all gun control is constitutional" vs. "all gun control is unconstitutional".

Look at freedom of speech. Some laws restricting it are OK (no yelling fire in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire, no libel and slander, etc). But that hardly means that all restrictions on speech are allowed.

You need to understand just what the Constitution says, and whether a given law conflicts with it. And the gun laws I mentioned most definitely conflict with the Constitution.

0 Replies

Notice how advocate chooses an intentionally confusing word "proscribe" to attempt to make his point.

It's a word that is in itself a double negative. Beware of the doublespeak.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

Notice how advocate chooses an intentionally confusing word "proscribe" to attempt to make his point.

It's a word that is in itself a double negative. Beware of the doublespeak.

Pro = before + scribere = to write

Where's there just one single negative?

0 Replies

THE DANGER OF GUN-FREE SCHOOL ZONES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know