petition to declare "assault weapon bans" unconstitutional

[justin22885]

i created a petition to declare assault weapon bans to be unconstitutional as the very nature of our constitution is to defend ourselves, our countries, and our freedoms from foreign powers and tyrannical governments, to ensure the united states of america will always remain, and remain free

id like to get as many signatures on this as i can

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...-their-magazines-be-unconstitutional/7GW597Bn

 

[jason41987]

remember.. our second amendment was created to have an armed militia, what a militia is by definition is any military, or militant group made up of normal civilians... therefor the second amendment was created specifically to allow us to have roughly the same equipment as regular soldiers, and should directly protect the ownership of military style rifles

 

[whatthenut]

Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

 

[readyeddy]

Only a court can declare something unconstitutional. Just saying.

 

[barnbwt]

+1 readyeddy--ya'll need to petition the Supreme Court website

Has the Whitehouse responded to any of the petitions put forward so far? I haven't seen or heard of transcripts about the secession or Death Star. Seems these things are more of a distraction for media to "comment" on than anything, and a way for the President to get between the people and their elected representatives.

Go and contact your reps for action, the way our system is supposed to function.

should directly protect the ownership of military style rifles

I think you meant "actual military-grade rifles"

TCB

 

[Njal Thorgeirsson]

I'm as pro-gun as it gets, but I would like to point out that it states "WELL REGULATED militia," not just "armed militia"

I don't remember specifically what legislation defines "Well regulated militia," but it defines it as groups like the National Guard for example.

Clearly the National Guard is a more organized force than the whole of average gun owners. If you disagree with that definition, then do you think that by just purchasing a gun, one is automatically a member of a "well regulated militia"?

Thoughts?

 

[M-Cameron]

I'm as pro-gun as it gets, but I would like to point out that it states "WELL REGULATED militia," not just "armed militia"

I don't remember specifically what legislation defines "Well regulated militia," but it defines it as groups like the National Guard for example.

Clearly the National Guard is a more organized force than the whole of average gun owners. If you disagree with that definition, then do you think that by just purchasing a gun, one is automatically a member of a "well regulated militia"?

Thoughts?

" A well regulated militia being necessary to ensure the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

the 'well regulated militia' is a pretext, it bears no legal influence on the 2A......the important bit is 'the right of the people...'

 

[barnbwt]

"Regulated" is commonly interpretted to mean "Disciplined" in today's parlance; that is, not the guys from Militia Rising, but dedicated, well trained, well equipped, private citizens mustered in the independent defense of their rights, states, and nation. In that order. We are guaranteed access to guns in the second clause, so as to ensure the aim of the first clause (a bit Yoda-like, but that's how phrasing worked back then)

A group of guys who had just violently thrown off the British Monarchy over miniscule taxes and restrictions were not in favor of gun limitations. Besides, the amendment specifically directs such "regulation requirements" at militias, not "the right to keep and bear arms."

TCB

 

[kalel33]

What I still don't understand is why I can't buy C4, RPGs, grenades or any other level military tool. The second amendment states a right to bear arms, which doesn't just mean rifles, shotguns, and pistols. The right to bear arms means I should be able to build my own Nuclear bomb if I had the means and capability to do so. Regular citizens owned the most dangerous arms of that time...canons. Why can't we have the equivalent for this age?

If you don't agree then what's the difference between you and the people that want to ban "assault" weapons?

 

[smalls]

I don't get these petitions and polls. You really think the Supreme Court is going to listen to your petition?

I'm glad you're trying to do something, but maybe do something worthwhile?

 

[Bobson]

" A well regulated militia being necessary to ensure the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

the 'well regulated militia' is a pretext, it bears no legal influence on the 2A......the important bit is 'the right of the people...'

Absolutely correct.

Those of you with anything but the most superb reading comprehension skills and an immaculate grasp on language and syntax, please stop attempting to interpret the Constitution. You're unnecessarily making things worse.

 

[tyeo098]

Regular citizens owned the most dangerous arms of that time...canons. Why can't we have the equivalent for this age?

No, they didn't.

Did you even read the federalist papers?

 

[markdaniel]

The gubment wants us to trust them with nukes. They don't trust us with semi auto rifles just saying.

 

[Hokkmike]

While I applaud your view and zeal, I think energy is best served in trying to influence the decision makers who will formulate an inevitable law of some sort this January that will impact gun owners.

In a sense, the members list of the NRA and other gun rights groups are ready made petitions much bigger than anything you or I could contrive.

 

[armoredman]

I'm as pro-gun as it gets, but I would like to point out that it states "WELL REGULATED militia," not just "armed militia"

I don't remember specifically what legislation defines "Well regulated militia," but it defines it as groups like the National Guard for example.

Clearly the National Guard is a more organized force than the whole of average gun owners. If you disagree with that definition, then do you think that by just purchasing a gun, one is automatically a member of a "well regulated militia"?

Thoughts?

The militia clause has A) nothing to do with the National Guard, a force that came into being over 100 years AFTER the Constitution was ratified, and B) has been held to NOT be connected with the right to keep and bear by SCOTUS case Heller vs D.C. The militia clause has had a stake driven through its heart, and is divorced from our rights.
Last, Heller also give some indication what firearms were to be protected, being thos in "common use"...and the AR-15 has been sold on the civilian market since 1969.

The entire argument is a red herring, and smells strongly of that dead fish. Don't forget, Conn. HAS an AWB right now, and it did NOTHING to prevent this massacre.

 

[LNK]

Clearly the National Guard is a more organized force than the whole of average gun owners. If you disagree with that definition, then do you think that by just purchasing a gun, one is automatically a member of a "well regulated militia"?

Thoughts?

Exactly what the British thought, April 19th, 1775. Ask them.....

LNK

 

[hso]

Since you have to get the states to ratify a change to the constitution you're not going to get anywhere the way the poll is worded.

If you propose that an EO be issued stating that state AWBs be prohibited that's not going to survive a challenge in the SCOTUS since the Fed doesn't have that authority (in spite of trying).

We will have to see an AWB, or other unconstitutional legislation restricting the 2A, be signed into law, a state or group of states sue challenging the law and the SCOTUS end up hearing the case to determine if an AWB is unconstitutional.

 

[beatledog7]

I don't remember specifically what legislation defines "Well regulated militia," but it defines it as groups like the National Guard for example.

It is not within the purview of legislators to define constitutional terms or interpret them. In fact, no body is granted interpretive powers over the language of the Constitution. SCOTUS has illegitimately conferred that power upon itself, and that is all the so-called power is. We've had that argument on THR before.

 

[kalel33]

No, they didn't.

Did you even read the federalist papers?

Yes, and I never found anything stating they couldn't have a cannon.