Firearms Talk banner

21 - 40 of 49 Posts

Premium Member
Joined
11,358 Posts
It was however thr first time and continued since that SCOTUS claimed the field of " judicial review".

Point being the constitution was not written to be interpreted. Only those who want to violate its limits claim it needs to be.

It says, very clearly what it means and its primary intent was to limit gov power.
Adam & Eve could not follow the rules, no reason to suspect politicians would either.

Maybe the new scotus will cast the offenders out of Eden!
 

Registered
Joined
894 Posts
Adam & Eve could not follow the rules, no reason to suspect politicians would either.

Maybe the new scotus will cast the offenders out of Eden!
I would like to know what most govt. employees do day in and day out. I do know come to think of it. There is a very large federal govt. facilitie(s) near me and too many of them say they do literally nothing. I had a well paid 28 y.o. engineer resign to go to "work" for the govt. then come back a year later. Said they wouldn't give him enough to do and he needed to continue learning hands on at 28 y.o. It reminds me of a virus constantly replicating and morphing itself....

A private company will sell to whom they want. Simple.
 

Registered
Joined
495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
Oh, I absolutely agree on the current makeup of the court and the RTKBA. I also agree on the purpose of the COTUS, to limit government's power, but that still does not absolve, or change the SCOTUS's purpose. I personally consider myself a Constitutionalist, but even I recognize that our rights as written are not absolute, or perhaps more succinctly, open ended or unlimited. The wording, while short and sweet in most Amendments, are not without room for interpretation.

Let's take the opening phrase of the 1st Amendment for example; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This phrase is often pointed to as meaning separation of church and state. Some claim it doesn't mean that, but rather only that Congress can not interfere with the creation of a religion. Some think it means the government has no authority over religion in any way, shape, or form (I've seen these points argued infinitum on many other forums). The point is, the fact that we the people take the wording and interpret it, means there must be a body concerned with interpreting it as the defacto standard by which laws are weighed. It is absolutely because people interpet things differently that the SCOTUS has to interpret the Constitution. The lower courts would forever wallow to and fro on any given challenge of Constitutional law without it.

Let's analyze part of the 2nd Amendment, specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If we take that simple wording at face value, then by all accounts there is, literally, no limits. By that premise, we should be able to own, manufacture, or produce any arms we desire, up to and including nuclear weapons. Or....is that simply "my" interpretation of that wording? If someone disagrees or has a different idea of what those words mean, what then, is the recourse?
 

Premium Member
Joined
12,995 Posts
In order to interpret law, they must also weigh it against, hence, interpret the COTUS. You can't have one without the other. There are any number of searchable documents, articles, etc, that clearly state their job is one of interpretation of the Constitution.

Heck, the famous ruling in District of Columbia vs Heller is as clear cut an example as you can get. The SCOTUS interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean it protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

I think mnost here will agree that the meaning of the 2nd has been a source of controversy for many years.

Amending the COTUS is a mutually exclusive process as SCOTUS does not alter or amend it, they interpret it and apply the interpretation to case law they choose to take (grant certiorari (or 鈥渃ert鈥) when it agrees to decide a case).
If the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the Constitution, the "and" part of 2A was in error, then they could proclaim that you could keep bear arms, and it would be the law of the land. That is just a fact of life. That is why they are called the Supreme court.
 

Registered
Joined
659 Posts
Oh, I absolutely agree on the current makeup of the court and the RTKBA. I also agree on the purpose of the COTUS, to limit government's power, but that still does not absolve, or change the SCOTUS's purpose. I personally consider myself a Constitutionalist, but even I recognize that our rights as written are not absolute, or perhaps more succinctly, open ended or unlimited. The wording, while short and sweet in most Amendments, are not without room for interpretation.

Let's take the opening phrase of the 1st Amendment for example; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" This phrase is often pointed to as meaning separation of church and state. Some claim it doesn't mean that, but rather only that Congress can not interfere with the creation of a religion. Some think it means the government has no authority over religion in any way, shape, or form (I've seen these points argued infinitum on many other forums). The point is, the fact that we the people take the wording and interpret it, means there must be a body concerned with interpreting it as the defacto standard by which laws are weighed. It is absolutely because people interpet things differently that the SCOTUS has to interpret the Constitution. The lower courts would forever wallow to and fro on any given challenge of Constitutional law without it.

Let's analyze part of the 2nd Amendment, specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If we take that simple wording at face value, then by all accounts there is, literally, no limits. By that premise, we should be able to own, manufacture, or produce any arms we desire, up to and including nuclear weapons. Or....is that simply "my" interpretation of that wording? If someone disagrees or has a different idea of what those words mean, what then, is the recourse?
There is only one way to take that sentence.
SHALL NOT be infringed. Not shall not be infringed except when someone cant read a clearly written sentence.

The , oh who shall decide what a clearly written sentence means is how we lost the RTKABA .

Its time to stop tap dancing and take the RTKABA back.

Not debate what the meaning of the word is is.
 

Registered
Joined
659 Posts
Where other than lawyers pulling stuff out of their butt did the fallacy that the 2a anywhere allows limits on the RTKABA ?
The 2A says plainly just the opposite.
Infringed had the same definition then as it does now.
Limit or interfere with.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited or interfered with.

It doesn't get any plainer than that.

The RTKABA is an unlimited right . Per the 2A .
 

Registered
Joined
1,060 Posts
The second amendment is one of the few laws including a statement of principle "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state". Our founders had something not possessed by modern Americans...perspective having endured oppressions by their own government. I'm preaching to the choir but our founders new that our own government as well as outside powers would represent the gravest of threats to our freedom...so, should I be able to own an M-60? I have no way to know what our country would look like if people, average law-abiding people, had military weapons but I don't think we'd be in a shooting gallery as the vast majority of people just want to be left alone to live their lives.

My largest concern from a SCOTUS standpoint is the possible corruption that might exist and the disinterest/lack of rulings on key BOR cases. Not making a decision is making a decision. And now I read the "packing of the courts" which at its surface, intentionally, is nothing more than rendering the courts impotent from ruling from a constitutional perspective, which by definition, is unconstitutional in terms of the purpose of said packing. Can the courts effectively rule to ensure their own relevance and protecting the "check and balance" idea of our constitutional republic? Time will tell, it always does, but the further we go down our current rabbit hole, the harder it will be to extract ourselves from it.
 

Premium Member
Joined
4,073 Posts
Let's analyze part of the 2nd Amendment, specifically "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If we take that simple wording at face value, then by all accounts there is, literally, no limits. By that premise, we should be able to own, manufacture, or produce any arms we desire, up to and including nuclear weapons. Or....is that simply "my" interpretation of that wording? If someone disagrees or has a different idea of what those words mean, what then, is the recourse?
Problem with that, though, is that there are very clearly weapons and tools that have a vastly greater reach and range than the one (or few) offending perpetrator(s) a person is targeting. In the case of nuclear arms, it's simply impossible to strike down only the miscreants while avoiding collateral, unjustifiable deaths. Same with other, lesser, bombs: grenades, Claymores, pipe bombs.

That indiscriminate nature is a recipe for ... well, murder, at least wanton disregard for life.

Of course, in the case of "ammunition" it's clearly what's fed to firearms (or other similar 'projectile' arms, like slingshots, bows and the like). Without ammo, many contemporary arms simply are non-functional paperweights. Which is of course the goal of such nanny-staters who believe the citizens should be told what they'll be allowed and not allowed.

Fact remains: in the U.S., the BOR prohibits government interference in an explicit short-list of fundamental liberties (or nearly fully curtails such intrusion). In the case of the 2A, it explicitly states that it's the People (individuals) who hold that liberty, and that encroachments into that arena shall not be tolerated.

Kudos to the ammunition companies and other arms-related companies who tell Uncle Sam to go chew their socks. Let them attempt to acquire ammo and arms from, oh, Bulgaria or China. So long as gross abuses of the 2A occur.

Bummer that there's not a general hanging penalty specified for outright deliberate and egregious breach of the BOR's specifications. That'd probably put a rapid halt to much of the fooling around.
 

Premium Member
Joined
11,503 Posts
A private company will sell to whom they want. Simple.
Exactly.

It's a case of cause and effect, on both ends of that.

Cause, you voted for Biden, he won the election. Effect, He's pushing to ban civilian gun ownership, and was never discrete about it, so you knew that, when you voted.

Effect, this company, now that you are freaking out over what is happening, refuses to sell you, part of the cause, their product.

That also is a cause, as you now chose to spend your money at a company that isn't making a stand, along with several other Biden voters, who don't wish to support them.

But Trump voters will make up those losses, as an effect.

Just a politicized version of me buying parts for big twin Harleys from Jirehcycle, rather than the local HD dealership, because I can get them for about a 75% lower price. Or buying my groceries at Save A Lot, rather than Wegmans.

Do I think it's smart on their part? I'll answer that with a question.

How many Biden voters own guns, or did before the current **** show, compared to Trump, and Jorgenson voters?

Wanna bet they wouldn't lose more money, if they were turning those voters down?
 

Registered
Joined
495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 ·
Problem with that, though, is that there are very clearly weapons and tools that have a vastly greater reach and range than the one (or few) offending perpetrator(s) a person is targeting. In the case of nuclear arms, it's simply impossible to strike down only the miscreants while avoiding collateral, unjustifiable deaths. Same with other, lesser, bombs: grenades, Claymores, pipe bombs.

That indiscriminate nature is a recipe for ... well, murder, at least wanton disregard for life.

Of course, in the case of "ammunition" it's clearly what's fed to firearms (or other similar 'projectile' arms, like slingshots, bows and the like). Without ammo, many contemporary arms simply are non-functional paperweights. Which is of course the goal of such nanny-staters who believe the citizens should be told what they'll be allowed and not allowed.

Fact remains: in the U.S., the BOR prohibits government interference in an explicit short-list of fundamental liberties (or nearly fully curtails such intrusion). In the case of the 2A, it explicitly states that it's the People (individuals) who hold that liberty, and that encroachments into that arena shall not be tolerated.

Kudos to the ammunition companies and other arms-related companies who tell Uncle Sam to go chew their socks. Let them attempt to acquire ammo and arms from, oh, Bulgaria or China. So long as gross abuses of the 2A occur.

Bummer that there's not a general hanging penalty specified for outright deliberate and egregious breach of the BOR's specifications. That'd probably put a rapid halt to much of the fooling around.
Yes, clearly there are, but according to Wolfspirit, the 2A is unlimited. To be unlimited, those arms must be included. I understand your point, indiscriminate, etc, and thus, even in this case a line has to be drawn in the sand. It is legal to purchase and own grenades once you go through the NFA process. Do you consider grenades as discriminate or indiscriminate? Certainly that can be argued either way. So, if grenades are legal, why not larger explosives, or do we draw a line at some arbitrary level of indiscrimination?

As with all of the rest of our rights, they too have their own lines. Again, it goes back to who's drawing the lines and whether "we" agree as to where they're drawn. Ultimately, our laws fall into the same category, all are lines drawn in the sand for the purpose of deterring and punishing anyone who crosses them. Lawyer's jobs are to try to place the accused on one side or the other in the minds of the jury, depending on which side of it they stand.
 

Premium Member
Joined
4,073 Posts
Yes, clearly there are, but according to Wolfspirit, the 2A is unlimited. To be unlimited, those arms must be included. I understand your point, indiscriminate, etc, and thus, even in this case a line has to be drawn in the sand. It is legal to purchase and own grenades once you go through the NFA process. Do you consider grenades as discriminate or indiscriminate?
My own belief is: unless the given person in question can be targeted and risk of collateral injuries/damage all but eliminated, then it's an indiscriminate tool.

Essentially, by definition basically, that's any explosive with anything more than a ~1ft diameter explosion radius, I'd think. Which should explain reasonable penalties for use of those things in any situation where damage to non-threatening non-participants cannot be controlled.

Shouldn't mean that in a warfare situation, ie used on a battlefield, that such things could be categorically declared indiscriminate, when basically everyone "over there" attempting to erase you on a battlefield is the enemy.

So, if grenades are legal, why not larger explosives, or do we draw a line at some arbitrary level of indiscrimination?
My own view is: if the tool cannot be targeted, discriminating upon the threat at the time it's used, then it's reasonable to be treated with criminal charges upon such misuse. Can't see how that outlaws the item itself; after all, like anything else, it's just a tool. Still, aside from possession, there's the building of such stuff, in that there's good reason such items tend to be crafted in spots tightly controlled and at some distance from "innocents." (Good thing, too, given how "oops" moments can make a mess of a neighborhood.)

If extremist thought is to be considered, then nuclear weaponry might be on the table. (Indeed, it's often brought up by some folks as the ultimate shutdown of a discussion, given that it's hard to imagine it having any useful application for an individual.) Perhaps on a battlefield in a situation where its use can be argued as appropriate. But, still, it's all but impossible to have a targeted, discriminate use of such a thing. Which is basically a big explosive device, though with nasty side-effects.

As with all of the rest of our rights, they too have their own lines.
I'd argue, quite strongly actually, that ownership and possession of tools isn't something where lines are authorized to be drawn. Yet, in the category of, say, chemical mixing or engineering of stuff like C-4, nuclear material and whatnot, there's every reason to control where and when such production (even use) is made, for all the obvious (earlier specified) reasons.

... all are lines drawn in the sand for the purpose of deterring and punishing anyone who crosses them. Lawyer's jobs are to try to place the accused on one side or the other in the minds of the jury, depending on which side of it they stand.
Sure. But when it comes to discriminate tools that are all but impossible to indiscriminately employ, there's almost no way to justify that a person cannot be in possession of a thing, or trade/sell/buy it, or employ a thing. Even if abusive use, or misuse, of a tool is something a person is held accountable for.

The 2A's damned clear, as is the BOR itself. But hardly anyone wants to treat it that way, 'cause the RKBA is what it is. It's the one thing that scares the pants off the statists and those wishing to control others. Still comes down to one thing: there's no authority allowed to control such things, per the prohibition; even if misusers are held to account.


Anyway, back to the thread topic: ammo and the statists' desire to control it. Laying there, ammo is just another thing on the ground. Cannot do a thing on its own, and isn't otherwise problematic for anyone unless misused, or recklessly employed, or poorly stored. As for making it, too, what difference does it make that XYZ Corp. or Bob down the street makes it (loading on a $2M press or "reloading" with a home Dillon unit)? None. If a person wants to make 500 rounds or 500M rounds, it's irrelevant except to a nanny-stater (or supporter of nanny-staters) as to whether that's done. The ammo companies and reloaders should tell the elected snots to "pound sand" on this. It's not their business.
 

Registered
Joined
495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
My own believe is: unless the given person in question can be targeted and risk of collateral injuries/damage all but eliminated, then it's an indiscriminate tool.

Essentially, by definition basically, that's any explosive with anything more than a ~1ft diameter explosion radius, I'd think. Which should explain reasonable penalties for use of those things in any situation where damage to non-threatening non-participants cannot be controlled.

Shouldn't mean that in a warfare situation, ie used on a battlefield, that such things could be categorically declared indiscriminate, when basically everyone "over there" attempting to erase you on a battlefield is the enemy.
So, essentially, YOU are drawing a line. Others may not agree where that line is...which is the point.


My own view is: if the tool cannot be targeted, discriminating upon the threat at the time it's used, then it's reasonable to be treated with criminal charges upon such misuse. Can't see how that outlaws the item itself; after all, like anything else, it's just a tool. Still, aside from possession, there's the building of such stuff, in that there's good reason such items tend to be crafted in spots tightly controlled and at some distance from "innocents." (Good thing, too, given how "oops" moments can make a mess of a neighborhood.)
So, it's OK to own such an item, but not use it. So you'd have no problem with me (or anyone) owning their own nuke just so it's not used? As for crafting them, there was a teenager who built a nuclear reactor in his garage a few years ago....

If extremist thought is to be considered, then nuclear weaponry might be on the table. (Indeed, it's often brought up by some folks as the ultimate shutdown of a discussion, given that it's hard to imagine it having any useful application for an individual.) Perhaps on a battlefield in a situation where its use can be argued as appropriate. But, still, it's all but impossible to have a targeted, discriminate use of such a thing. Which is basically a big explosive device, though with nasty side-effects.
Again, we're splitting the hairs on definitions, effective distances, collateral damage, etc.


I'd argue, quite strongly actually, that ownership and possession of tools isn't something where lines are authorized to be drawn. Yet, in the category of, say, chemical mixing or engineering of stuff like C-4, nuclear material and whatnot, there's every reason to control where and when such production (even use) is made, for all the obvious (earlier specified) reasons.
Obvious or not, we're discussing where certain lines need to be drawn. You're making your lines clear. I don't disagree, I'm just playing devil's advocate to some degree as the discriminate/indiscriminate argument is often used in the case of nukes...yet, we are legally allowed to own other indicscriminate weapons.

Sure. But when it comes to discriminate tools that are all but impossible to indiscriminately employ, there's almost no way to justify that a person cannot be in possession of a thing, or trade/sell/buy it, or employ a thing. Even if abusive use, or misuse, of a tool is something a person is held accountable for.

The 2A's damned clear, as is the BOR itself. But hardly anyone wants to treat it that way, 'cause the RKBA is what it is. It's the one thing that scares the pants off the statists and those wishing to control others. Still comes down to one thing: there's no authority allowed to control such things, per the prohibition; even if misusers are held to account.
But you know as well as I do it doesn't work that way. We have to accept that the BOR has limits and we operate within that realm (which goes to what I said about the SCOTUS' job to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to case law), or we agree that the BOR is not limited and do nothing other than hold people accountable when they break other laws.
 

Premium Member
Joined
4,073 Posts
So, it's OK to own such an item, but not use it. So you'd have no problem with me (or anyone) owning their own nuke just so it's not used? As for crafting them, there was a teenager who built a nuclear reactor in his garage a few years ago....
Didn't say that.

Again, the thing about bomb-making is: it's a tricky devil of a thing, and by its nature it's got a blast radius that's hard to target what you're aiming at. The average person who'd possess any such thing (an explosive) would likely build the damned thing in the basement, almost certainly with nearby neighbors, etc. Which is the point of such laws: it's not the possession of such that's wrong per se, but it's the inherent infliction of manifest threat of harm upon everyone within the blast radius, instead of merely the person at the end of the pointy object or the end of the muzzle. Out in a spot where no unintended innocents are likely to be harmed? Can't imagine why government would have any cause to say a thing, then, as there's no threat to others.

In short, it's not really different than the 1A's protection of speech. Say what you like. But, at the moment there's a manifest or imminent threat or damage (ie, "fighting" words, libel, slander, fraud, conspiracy to commit a violent crime, etc), then at that moment the People have every authority to come down upon a person and say "Wait a minute." Because of that threat.

Merely having a benign knife lying about isn't a threat to anyone. Nor is carrying a sidearm or slung rifle. But, surely folks can agree that an explosive, certainly a DIY homemade one, is damnably threatening to everyone within the blast radius of the thing, simply by existing and being present (in the neighborhood, in the nextdoor shop's work area, whatever).

I suppose one might call such a distinction between manifest threat and none "splitting hairs." But then, that's effectively what the statutes do. If effectively benign, then the law leaves people and businesses the hell alone. The moment there's a manifest threat or harm, then others (the harmed) have every right to step up and hold such people accountable for such threats. It's basically how it works, of course.

But you know as well as I do it doesn't work that way. We have to accept that the BOR has limits and we operate within that realm (which goes to what I said about the SCOTUS' job to interpret the Constitution and apply that interpretation to case law), or we agree that the BOR is not limited and do nothing other than hold people accountable when they break other laws.
The BOR says the liberties belong to the People (or, if stupid enough to cede part of their liberties to their states, the states). Only in a couple cases are there explicit exceptions (the 3A for occupying a property in time of war per laws Congress might create, the 4A allowing "reasonable" searches). The 1A, though, no exceptions specified. The 2A? No exceptions specified; indeed, no encroachments into exercise of the liberty tolerated. Of course, we allow it to "work" differently when we allow "them" to encroach onto them until largely unrecognizable, and that's on us.

Which brings us back to the ammo company in the OP. If they want to only serve certain customers, that's on them. 1A and all. Sort of pointless, I suppose, since anyone really desiring to purchase can easily enter whatever they want for that response box and buy anyway. Don't know who it'd stop, other than some of the offendeds heading elsewhere.
 

Registered
Joined
659 Posts
Yes, clearly there are, but according to Wolfspirit, the 2A is unlimited. To be unlimited, those arms must be included. I understand your point, indiscriminate, etc, and thus, even in this case a line has to be drawn in the sand. It is legal to purchase and own grenades once you go through the NFA process. Do you consider grenades as discriminate or indiscriminate? Certainly that can be argued either way. So, if grenades are legal, why not larger explosives, or do we draw a line at some arbitrary level of indiscrimination?

As with all of the rest of our rights, they too have their own lines. Again, it goes back to who's drawing the lines and whether "we" agree as to where they're drawn. Ultimately, our laws fall into the same category, all are lines drawn in the sand for the purpose of deterring and punishing anyone who crosses them. Lawyer's jobs are to try to place the accused on one side or the other in the minds of the jury, depending on which side of it they stand.
The 2A is the clearest amendment there is.
It doesnt even purport to grant the right , only protect it.
When the BOR was written the gov had no authority over militia. They were volunteer citizen soldiers, even during the revolution.
The milita is the people, armed and ready to fight if need be.
The 2A doesnt say the right of the milita to keep and bear arms etc.
It plainly states in words that meant then what they mean now. No gov interference with or limiting of the RTKABA . That is what the word infringed meant then and now.

There is one legal way to "draw lines " concerning the 2A , thats a constitutional amendment .

Even then its still the gov trying to limit a right as old as man .
 

Registered
Joined
11 Posts
It is all advertising, it is hype, it works because you saw it repeated here. They are pandering to their customers. They have a right to do that. The Constitution does not ban azzholes.

I wouldn't want to do business with any company who required me to tell them how I voted as a requirement of the honor of spending my money with them; I don't need anyone's **** that bad.
They have a right to do this. It is always brave for companies to make a stand whether it is a big one or a little one. Ultimately it is their choice. I prefer not to have to have to discuss my politics in order to buy a product, but I support the right to ask! It has absolutely no relation, but I thought of another scenario that could be fun. What if you were asked if you were a vegetarian before buying a carrot? If you said no, are you not allowed to buy carrots from them?:)
 

Registered
Joined
13,230 Posts
Ammo Inc is the only dedicated ammunition manufacturer publicly traded. It has been 6-7 bucks a share lately. (They diversified into buying Gunbroker, that鈥檚 when the share price went up to 10)
They sell every round they make. Take a close look.

In other news S&W has just announced they are selling T/C. To whom idk.
 

Registered
Joined
495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 ·
They have a right to do this. It is always brave for companies to make a stand whether it is a big one or a little one. Ultimately it is their choice. I prefer not to have to have to discuss my politics in order to buy a product, but I support the right to ask! It has absolutely no relation, but I thought of another scenario that could be fun. What if you were asked if you were a vegetarian before buying a carrot? If you said no, are you not allowed to buy carrots from them?:)
In all fairness, they wouldn't have to ask. If someone was a vegetarian/vegan, they'd know within a few seconds as it seems they have to make sure everyone knows.
 
21 - 40 of 49 Posts
Top