What are the acceptable limits of the 2nd Amendment?
 

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...119-2czvj.html

This opinion piece by a local barrister prompts some questions in my mind. Given that there are limits imposed on the 2nd Amendment (as stated by Justice Antonin Scalia), exactly what would be acceptable limits in the eyes of the judiciary?

This is meant to be a serious discussion on the law and not an argument for or against the bearing of arms as that right is already understood.

Simple clear limits.
Convicted violent criminals.
Unconvicted accused criminals awaiting trial who are judged to present a credible risk of reoffending.
Mentally unstable(including substance abusers).
Restrictions on minors.
No carrying in licensed premesis as alcohol and firearms do not mix(bar owners and staff may be exempt).
Ban on fully auto(with exceptions)
Full up to date record of guns and gun owners to impliment all firearms regulations

One acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is to enact and enforce very very harsh sentences for criminals that use a gun to commit a crime.

In my opinion, if someone uses a firearm to commit a felony (or types of felonies) there should be an automatic 10 year sentence that can not be plea bargained, and must be served consecutively to all other sentences.

The second amendment grants citizens a considerable amount of power. With that power comes responsibility, accountability, and consequence for using that power.

Another acceptable limit to the 2nd Amendment is that there needs to be some codification on who can legally own a gun. Almost all states have some limitations, but they are not uniform. Nor are the states always communicating with other states/federal government.

There is a delicate balance between medical privacy and public safety.

If I had some very contagious disease, where just by coughing/breathing on people I could cause many deaths, would my right to medical privacy trump the public safety concern? Probably not. Depending on the disease and the situation, the state has, and should have, the right to guarantee me to include involuntary confinement.

I believe the same schema should apply to types of mental illness and owning of firearms. We already had a thread where I outlined my wacky plan. But the bottom line is that IF there is medical evidence that a person may pose a danger to society if they have access to firearms, then it is the responsibility of the states to work together to prevent such individuals from legally obtaining firearms. The devil is, of course, in the details.

Another acceptable limitation to the 2nd Amendment concerns the right to "keep" firearms. There needs to be a legal responsibility to keep firearms securely. The intent is to prevent people not capable of owning firearms from obtaining someone else's firearms.

If a firearm owner chooses not to securely keep their firearm, then that owner should have to accept some level of responsibility if his or her firearms are obtained by someone else. What that level of responsibility is, I don't know.

Again, being able to "keep" firearms is a source of power and that power must be balanced with responsibility, accountability, and consequence.

The Second Amendment states that the government can not infringe on a citizens right to keep and bear arms. By the Incorporation Doctrine, this has also been applied to the state. But no where in the Constitution does it state that there is no responsibility, accountability, or consequence to keeping and bearing arms.

I do not know about other states but in Florida it goes like this 1)be in possession of of a firearm while committing a crime 10 years 2)ANY assault with that firearm in commission of said crime 20 years 3)harm any person in any way if having fired said firearm life.(obviously death is possible if a murder was committed)

We have 1000's of gun laws in varying states, the problem will remain, criminals don't care about laws. The other issue, we hardly enforce the laws that exist, so we feel the need to make more laws to deal with the other laws we don't enforce.

Mental health is tricky. Today big pharma loves to create diseases so they can sell all their pills. Millions of Americans get a little depressed, go to Doc, placed on several meds and labeled mentally ill. It's mostly a profit scam. Fact is, many of these meds are causing issues, not solving them.

Ending, they will pass laws that are most profitable or create more government control and spending.

In terms of federal laws, where do you think the limits will lie for restrictions on particular weapons/classes of weapon?

There are already limitations on full automatic, certain classes of firearm including RPG's, etc. Where do you think these will land with the proposed changes?

There are no limits. Wherever the latest push ends up the government will soon begin pushing for even more restrictions.

Muskets, that's what the 2nd Amendment was drafted with in mind after all. :O:

(Well that and towns having the ability to raise a defensive militia in case of invasion because the US didn't have a standing army at the time.)

I started off at the beginning writing a lengthy post, but found myself unable to stay within that parameter. It looks like I wasn't the only one.

As for the original question of what do we think would be an acceptable limit in the eyes of the Judiciary, I think that changes just as often as the judiciary does. Presidents appoint justices who feel as they do politically. Of course sometimes they get a nasty surprise when push comes to shove, but for the most part Supreme Court justices seem to follow party lines just as much as anyone else in Washington.

Well, being the only nation on earth with such an expressed right to bare
arms the notion of a truly "free people" in not vary popular. Worth noting
the New Marxist doctrine of so called "Human Rights" is totally void of such an
expression. And yet it is sweeping the enlightened civilized world.
Our only hope, as a nation, is keeping the whites a huge majority.
And interpreting the constitution as it was originally intended by the (all white) Founding Fathers.


ZeeWolf

Citizens should have access to any weapon that gov't has access to. Would make for much more responsible gov't. :arrgh!:

Acceptabe limits for firearm regulation eh????
Don't forget your mission to exterminate the jews too you nazi clown:doh:

Nuke 'em eh? Might make for a short lived USA.:nope:

You're assuming that people that could afford one would be less responsible than our gov't? :har:

When was the last time our government irresponsibly nuked anyone?