NO gun confiscation

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified? Is there some legal precedent concerning this situation that trumps the Bill of Rights?

[Cumulonimbus]

It's because people argue the wordings. People argue what is actually the definition of "people." And other people argue that times change, and that gun control might be necessary in the forefathers' eyes if they saw our current time.

But I think that's all bulls***. The Bill of Rights should not be altered or trumped ever. It's our only protector of rights.

Yeah but it clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There's not much to argue there. How can it be ignored? Is it just because there isn't enough public outcry against the unconstitutional action? I'm seriously confused as to how/why this is happening.

Are there really so many americans that want a big brother/babysitter state that we can let this slide?

[HDPM]

"Are there really so many americans that want a big brother/babysitter state that we can let this slide?"




We can't but we have. Obviously unconstitutional gun control laws have been accepted without a peep. Because "guns are scary", or it's "for the common good", or "that gun isn't good to shoot bunnies with", or whatever BS du jour is spewed. People don't get it.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified? Is there some legal precedent concerning this situation that trumps the Bill of Rights?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the highest courts in the land can conclude that "public use" means "private use", that "personal use" equates to "interstate commerce", then why would it surprise anyone if they end up interpreting "keep and bear" to mean "be free of"? How about "keep forebearance"?

Whether it's being justified or rationalized, the court will have to participate and be a willing accomplice for it to happen.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified? Is there some legal precedent concerning this situation that trumps the Bill of Rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its because of the "martial law" or whatever they have to declare in Louisiana. Did you think you had rights under martial law or something?

I'm a card totting member of the NRA... and I don't mind guns be taken away from criminals...

However, I missed the story about law abbidding citizens having their weapons takend away.

SOURCE PLEASE?

[andyfox]

An argument can be made that the wording of the amendment indicates that the right of the people to bear arms only applies insofar as the militia is concerned. Otherwise, the founders, who were very careful about their choices of words, would just have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." without the qualifying clause.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified

[/ QUOTE ]
Why just law abiding folks? The Amendment doesn't make that distinction. Why are you? Wouldn't it take an activist judge to add that to the language?

[etgryphon]

There is no provision for "Marshall Law" in the LA state constitution. However, there is a provision that in times of emergency that the cheif law enforcement officer has the ability to "regulate" the possession of firearms.

Now the question is whether "regulation" extends to "confiscation" of legally owned firearms. I would put forth that it does NOT cover the possession within the house at a BARE minimum. There will probably be a ton of suits out of this.

The 2nd Amendment can only be invoked as a part of the 14th Amendment and possible the Commerce Clause in this case.

The La. Constitution only states:

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

So I think "regulation of possession" only extends to the possession of a "concealed firearm" in certain places.

-Gryph