Kolbe en banc decision

[abu Haqiqa]

<snip>
[1] we are on a upswing, people are embracing the second amendment. Take a moment and search all the states that are looking into or have approved constitutional carry.
...
[2] It basically says that God and the laws of nature are higher than the federal government

(1) Gun ownership as a percentage of households has been trending downward for a long time, though guns owned per gun owner is increasing. The movement towards constitutional carry says nothing about larger societal attitudes towards guns and gun ownership. The best synopsis of current nationwide attitudes toward the 2A, as revealed by pretty much every poll over the last decade, would be "we can have our guns, but let's please keep them out of the hands of terrorists and nutcases."

(2) Uh, no. It just says that this particular individual right cannot be infringed by the gov't. Reading God or natural law into the Constitution reflects a serious misunderstanding of the Constitution and the people who wrote it.

 

[pitpawten]

(1) Gun ownership as a percentage of households has been trending downward for a long time

I thought I just saw data showing the opposite (essentially refuting that point) posted here recently.

Maybe this thread?

EDIT: Looks like after a steady decline for some years (hitting a low of 36%) it has risen back up to 44% in recent years: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-gun-ownership-rises-to-44-of-all-homes/article/2600319

 

[Rob00taws6]

(1) Gun ownership as a percentage of households has been trending downward for a long time, though guns owned per gun owner is increasing. The movement towards constitutional carry says nothing about larger societal attitudes towards guns and gun ownership. The best synopsis of current nationwide attitudes toward the 2A, as revealed by pretty much every poll over the last decade, would be "we can have our guns, but let's please keep them out of the hands of terrorists and nutcases."

(2) Uh, no. It just says that this particular individual right cannot be infringed by the gov't. Reading God or natural law into the Constitution reflects a serious misunderstanding of the Constitution and the people who wrote it.

(1) http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...erica-so-why-isnt-media-telling-about-it.html

(2) Personally I could care less about religious affiliation. The declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights is a charter of Negative liberties, that is a fact. it's easy FOR ME to take the leap that Government is not higher that God. How you do that is your own Business, but all the roads lead to the same path, so there is no sense in arguing about it.

 

[abu Haqiqa]

I thought I just saw data showing the opposite (essentially refuting that point) posted here recently.

Maybe this thread?

EDIT: Looks like after a steady decline for some years (hitting a low of 36%) it has risen back up to 44% in recent years: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/surprise-gun-ownership-rises-to-44-of-all-homes/article/2600319

There is one Pew Poll from August 2016 showing that figure. But it appears to be an outlier, and one datum is not a trend.

Other polls from same year show still declining trend - e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.7bb00eb9e80f

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see an uptick this year, as lots of people terrified by the ascent of white nationalists in this country are looking to obtain a means of defense.

 

[abu Haqiqa]

(2) Personally I could care less about religious affiliation. The declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights is a charter of Negative liberties, that is a fact. it's easy FOR ME to take the leap that Government is not higher that God. How you do that is your own Business, but all the roads lead to the same path, so there is no sense in arguing about it.

The Declaration of Independence is not law. It serves a different purpose and is framed differently.

The problem is, once you introduce God into the Constitution, then you open the door for arguments about whose God(s) is/are right, and having religious doctrine impose on civil society. And the people who wrote the Constitution were very purposeful in not opening those doors, given that these things were among of the major reasons that people came to the new world. There's a reason the Establishment Clause is the first thing in the Bill of Rights.

 

[pitpawten]

There is one Pew Poll from August 2016 showing that figure. But it appears to be an outlier, and one datum is not a trend.

Other polls from same year show still declining trend - e.g., https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.7bb00eb9e80f

I actually wouldn't be surprised to see an uptick this year, as lots of people terrified by the ascent of white nationalists in this country are looking to obtain a means of defense.

Take a look at this link: http://crimeresearch.org/2013/11/pr...neral-social-survey-to-measure-gun-ownership/ as well as the one posted by Rob00taws6.

It would actually appear that the WaPo poll you posted is some mixture of Outlier, Outdated and/or Inaccurate.

Either way, I concur with you that over the past 4 years (starting with Sandy Hook) many new American households have begun to own guns (can count me in here).

 

[Rob00taws6]

You trust (for example) the same Republican led NY state legislature which passed the SAFE act to ratify a new constitution (Everything is game to be rewritten in an article 5 convention)?

I sure don't. Our politicians are the problem, not the Constitution. Trusting our politicians to fix the problem will just make it worse.

I don't trust New York, Connecticut, et all non freedom loving states. but the second amendment I believe to be safe, and perfect as written, the left cant touch it and the right cant touch it. But, half the problem we face is judicial activism, and article V can address that, the beautiful things is you can paint it as criminal justice reform. Lets say you passed an amendment that stated that 2/3rds of the states could review a decision such as the kolbe en banc decision and overturn it, because its an egregious case of judicial activism, that would be great! right that's what we all want! Lets say you were to pass this amendment by saying we want to be able to protect minorities form racist judges? just brainstorming.

check this article out,
https://www.conventionofstates.com/an_article_v_convention_can_be_limited

 

[Rob00taws6]

Take a look at this link: http://crimeresearch.org/2013/11/pr...neral-social-survey-to-measure-gun-ownership/ as well as the one posted by Rob00taws6.

It would actually appear that the WaPo poll you posted is some mixture of Outlier, Outdated and/or Inaccurate.

Either way, I concur with you that over the past 4 years (starting with Sandy Hook) many new American households have begun to own guns (can count me in here).

I'm one of them, I didn't own a gun before sandy hook, I use to live near there too. But, I waited 90 day's for my first handgun. I use to Vote mindlessly Democrat. The Obama administration forced me to love my Freedom by practically taking it away form me, I'm sure I am not the only one that this happen to. I'll tell you it taught me a life lesson!

 

[pitpawten]

I'm one of them, I didn't own a gun before sandy hook

Yep, another stinkin 13'er

 

[Rob00taws6]

The Declaration of Independence is not law. It serves a different purpose and is framed differently.

The problem is, once you introduce God into the Constitution, then you open the door for arguments about whose God(s) is/are right, and having religious doctrine impose on civil society. And the people who wrote the Constitution were very purposeful in not opening those doors, given that these things were among of the major reasons that people came to the new world. There's a reason the Establishment Clause is the first thing in the Bill of Rights.

does it matter?? your hear because you believe in your second amendment rights, I'm here because i believe in my second amendment rights. I say the government cant take those rights away because the government knowledge it is not the highest power that governs people. You said the government can't take away our gun rights because it said it wouldn't. I'm saying it doesn't matter, were are on the same road, how we got there is irrelevant.

 

[Rob00taws6]

Yep, another stinkin 13'er

View attachment 199189

I'm a little behind in the posting department... but I do a lot more reading then posting.

 

[abu Haqiqa]

does it matter?? your hear because you believe in your second amendment rights, I'm here because i believe in my second amendment rights. I say the government cant take those rights away because the government knowledge it is not the highest power that governs people. You said the government can't take away our gun rights because it said it wouldn't. I'm saying it doesn't matter, were are on the same road, how we got there is irrelevant.

As a lawyer and professor of law, yes, it matters a lot. The Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed, not appeals to higher authority. The former is fundamentally legitimate; the latter is not.

 

[clandestine]

I.P. Check in aisle 6

 

[Don H]

(1) Gun ownership as a percentage of households has been trending downward for a long time, though guns owned per gun owner is increasing. The movement towards constitutional carry says nothing about larger societal attitudes towards guns and gun ownership. The best synopsis of current nationwide attitudes toward the 2A, as revealed by pretty much every poll over the last decade, would be "we can have our guns, but let's please keep them out of the hands of terrorists and nutcases."

(2) Uh, no. It just says that this particular individual right cannot be infringed by the gov't. Reading God or natural law into the Constitution reflects a serious misunderstanding of the Constitution and the people who wrote it.

I'm impressed with the fact that, considering the way things are today, that over 30% of those polled would even admit to owning a firearm. I had some pollster call a few months ago asking all kinds of political questions, one of which was "do you own a firearm?". My answer was a resounding "NOPE"!

 

[Rob00taws6]

As a lawyer and professor of law, yes, it matters a lot. The Constitution derives its power from the consent of the governed, not appeals to higher authority. The former is fundamentally legitimate; the latter is not.

What if a simple majority of the governed consented that my 2A rights are a relic of the past and that it was necessary to infringe upon those rights for the good of the collective?

What if a simple majority of the governed consented that because my speech was deemed inflammatory that I needed to be segregated from society? What if they deemed that I needed to be put in a camp with like minded sub human individuals?

That's exactly why the system needs to change, because if that way of governing is being taught to my generation then the ruling class has NO limitations. And, that is exactly how Maryland general assembly behaves and much of the federal body.

 

[fabsroman]

What if a simple majority of the governed consented that my rights are a being a relic of the past and that it was necessary to infringe upon those rights for the good of the collective?

What if a simple majority of the governed consented that because my speech was deemed inflammatory that I needed to be segregated from society? What if they deemed that I needed to be put in a camp with like minded sub human individuals?

That's exactly why the system needs to change, because if that way of governing is being taught to my generation then the ruling class has NO limitations. And, that is exactly how Maryland general assembly behaves and much of the federal body.

You need to keep in mind that the Constitution is a living document. In essence, it can be changed. If a vast majority of the people are against firearm ownership, an Amendment could be passed to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

We elect the morons that pass the laws and appoint the judges. We can also change the Constitution should we like. You just have to have enough people pushing for the change.

Doubt we will see the 2nd Amendment going away anytime soon though. They are whittling away at it little by little so the sheep feel safer.

 

[fabsroman]

I'm impressed with the fact that, considering the way things are today, that over 30% of those polled would even admit to owning a firearm. I had some pollster call a few months ago asking all kinds of political questions, one of which was "do you own a firearm?". My answer was a resounding "NOPE"!

So, you are in the closet. It isn't until ALL of us gun owners stop worrying about being labeled as a gun owner that things will change in this state, or the nation for that matter.

 

[kcbrown]

The threshold for approving a amendment is 2/3rds, i just looked it up and that threshold has been met, republicans sit in 68% of state legislative chambers.

No, the threshold for calling the Convention is 2/3. The threshold for ratification is 3/4:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

(bolded emphasis mine).

As far as the second amendment being a minority right, or even a right that's loosing ground, I have to disagree with you.

It is a fact that the right to bear arms in public was all but erased, and not all that long ago (1986):

I agree that it has changed over time, but we are on a upswing, people are embracing the second amendment.

So what? That's beside the point. That a majority might now support the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the rights it protects doesn't mean that the majority always has. Quite the opposite is true, as proven by the widespread prohibition on carry in the not so distant past. And regardless, the real point is that a right isn't truly a right in its operational sense if it requires majority support. And the rights protected by the 2nd Amendment most certainly do, for majority support of the underlying rights has been necessary for exercise of those rights to be allowed in the first place!


I generally agree with your arguments about Article V.

 

[Rob00taws6]

You need to keep in mind that the Constitution is a living document. In essence, it can be changed. If a vast majority of the people are against firearm ownership, an Amendment could be passed to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

We elect the morons that pass the laws and appoint the judges. We can also change the Constitution should we like. You just have to have enough people pushing for the change.

Doubt we will see the 2nd Amendment going away anytime soon though. They are whittling away at it little by little so the sheep feel safer.

That is exactly what I'm advocating for and the discussion is about! Amending the Constitution through Article V to combat judicial activism.

 

[Rob00taws6]

kcbrown

"No, the threshold for calling the Convention is 2/3. The threshold for ratification is 3/4":


Thanks I stand corrected!

There was a change in the beginning of the "progressive era" that would be helpful in this discussion, that i cant put my finger on.