The limits of the 2nd Amendment

[gouch]

I wonder how many Hunt Talkers are guilty of this same crime. It is my understanding that Biden is the first person to be charged of this as a standalone crime. Everyone else charged was also charged with committing some other crime with the firearm. That may speak to motives for bringing charges, but it also takes all pressure of the judge when it comes to sentencing.

Personally, I think the question on the form and the form itself are unconstitutional. The supreme court can put restrictions on the constitution by their interpretation of the wording of the constitution, but the legislative and executive branches don't have the ability to put any restrictions on the constitution, including the Bill of Rights. So, saying that drug users or convicted felons can't buy or possess guns out of their job description.

 

[Elky Welky]

but the legislative and executive branches don't have the ability to put any restrictions on the constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

This isn't correct. Both the federal and state legislative branches are allowed to regulate our rights and do so all the time, so long as what they are doing passes the strict scrutiny standard (1. Compelling Government Interest, 2. Narrowly tailored). For example, just because we have freedom of religion, that doesn't mean someone can sacrifice their child in the name of their own religious beliefs and that they won't get prosecuted for homicide. The executive is also allowed to curb constitutional rights in the event of emergencies.

Another example often seen in the gun debate: we have the freedom to move across state lines, but our roads and vehicles are heavily regulated, people need to have licenses to drive, take classes, etc.

 

[Rie Bread]

Dose anyone find it funny they are gonna be this to death about drug use and he’s probably not gonna get a hard drug charge?

 

[SAJ-99]

Dose anyone find it funny they are gonna be this to death about drug use and he’s probably not gonna get a hard drug charge?

People don’t typically get charged with the use of illegal drugs. It is more the distribution or intent to do so that gets them.

 

[Elky Welky]

People don’t typically get charged with the use of illegal drugs. It is more the distribution or intent to do so that gets them.

This. It isn't a crime to be high; it's a crime to possess or distribute. Also, the statute of limitations has expired to charge him with possession.

 

[Rie Bread]

People don’t typically get charged with the use of illegal drugs. It is more the distribution or intent to do so that gets them.

Yes but possessing such things is illegal. I agree with you though pointing that out. I’m simply pointing out semantics of drugs use

 

[Rie Bread]

This. It isn't a crime to be high; it's a crime to possess or distribute. Also, the statute of limitations has expired to charge him with possession.

Isn’t there a video of him in the internet smoking crack with a hooker and paying with a revolver?

 

[TheGreek]

This. It isn't a crime to be high; it's a crime to possess or distribute. Also, the statute of limitations has expired to charge him with possession.

In Colorado it is.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 18 - :: Criminal Code :: Article 18 - :: Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 2013 :: Part 4 - :: Offenses and Penalties :: § 18-18-404. Unlawful use of a controlled substance

law.justia.com

 

[Elky Welky]

In Colorado it is.

2016 Colorado Revised Statutes :: Title 18 - :: Criminal Code :: Article 18 - :: Uniform Controlled Substances Act of 2013 :: Part 4 - :: Offenses and Penalties :: § 18-18-404. Unlawful use of a controlled substance

law.justia.com

Thank you! I stand corrected. I'm now curious about how many states make it illegal to be high. That concept is laughable in MT. So although I think suspending people's drivers licenses is still the worst criminal law we have on the books from state to state, this one is now up there with one of the dumber laws I've seen. Curious to know how frequently that gets charged there.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes but possessing such things is illegal. I agree with you though pointing that out. I’m simply pointing out semantics of drugs use

I think using is illegal (at least at Fed level?), but I have never heard of someone being charged with it. What's the point? You would grind the legal system to a halt to a larger degree than it already is. It's not semantics. It's practicality. Law enforcement tends to try to roll up people (users and small possesion) to get to dealers. It doesn't work to stop illegal use because Americans love their drugs as much as they love their guns.

Back to your originally scheduled program of how the constitution and entire system of government should be organized around the 2nd amendment.

 

[rogerthat]

Hunters planned defense

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

Isn’t there a video of him in the internet smoking crack with a hooker and paying with a revolver?

I mean who doesn’t have a video of themselves doing that?

 

[Dave N]

I mean who doesn’t have a video of themselves doing that?

 

[noharleyyet]

I mean who doesn’t have a video of themselves doing that?

That's what laptops are for...

 

[Rie Bread]

I think using is illegal (at least at Fed level?), but I have never heard of someone being charged with it. What's the point? You would grind the legal system to a halt to a larger degree than it already is. It's not semantics. It's practicality. Law enforcement tends to try to roll up people (users and small possesion) to get to dealers. It doesn't work to stop illegal use because Americans love their drugs as much as they love their guns.

Back to your originally scheduled program of how the constitution and entire system of government should be organized around the 2nd amendment.

State level

I mean ithe drug use must be illegal for this gun charge to stick right?

 

[TheGreek]

Thank you! I stand corrected. I'm now curious about how many states make it illegal to be high. That concept is laughable in MT. So although I think suspending people's drivers licenses is still the worst criminal law we have on the books from state to state, this one is now up there with one of the dumber laws I've seen. Curious to know how frequently that gets charged there.

Not often

 

[Forkyfinder]

This isn't so much Bruen as it is simply the concept of "Originalism." Depending on which Justice writes the opinion, some rely on originalism, some don't. Scalia was a big proponent of originalism when it served his purposes. But it's heavily debated amongst constitutional scholars and there was even concern at the time of drafting the constitution that there would be people unwilling to adapt. (Neither here nor there, but like Thomas Jefferson, I'm in the camp that thinks its silly to try to apply antiquated thinking to contemporary problems.)

Thats a LOT of power to give to judges....

This isn't correct. Both the federal and state legislative branches are allowed to regulate our rights and do so all the time, so long as what they are doing passes the strict scrutiny standard (1. Compelling Government Interest, 2. Narrowly tailored). For example, just because we have freedom of religion, that doesn't mean someone can sacrifice their child in the name of their own religious beliefs and that they won't get prosecuted for homicide. The executive is also allowed to curb constitutional rights in the event of emergencies.

Another example often seen in the gun debate: we have the freedom to move across state lines, but our roads and vehicles are heavily regulated, people need to have licenses to drive, take classes, etc.

I dont agree with your assessment. Obviously - being a lawyer you have certainly forgot more about legal theory than i know. So please bare with my ignorance.

I would say that speech is not limited. People are free to say things that are untrue, or even vile. The right ends when it is threatening, violent, or produces an emergency causing public harm (bomb on a plane, fire in a theater). People are still free to be racist and say racist things - for example. Or that we should give transferable land owner tags out @Treeshark .

The religious example - killing their child would represent an infraction against the childs right to life (14th amendment).

As far as driving - that example is reliant on your use of a public infrastructure. No rules exist for you to walk state to state or be driven/bused.

Do you have a better example or can you educate me further?



Hopefully im not taking this off the rails... if so feel free to pm me - we can gladly return to the regular scheduled programming of our banana republic's demise!

 

[SAJ-99]

State level

I mean ithe drug use must be illegal for this gun charge to stick right?

Good question. I'm not really sure, so Elky can jump in. I thought the charge was lying on the application? IF we look at the other question, it isn't illegal to be crazy, but is illegal to lie and say you are not crazy (over simplified to make the point, obviously). I'm not sure how closely the act embedded in the question is tied to the actual charge. Regardless, I am sure that there are a TON of people that have lied on that form, just like I'm sure that there are a TON of people with previous felony convictions that have guns.

 

[Elky Welky]

Thats a LOT of power to give to judges....

I dont agree with your assessment. Obviously - being a lawyer you have certainly forgot more about legal theory than i know. So please bare with my ignorance.

I would say that speech is not limited. People are free to say things that are untrue, or even vile. The right ends when it is threatening, violent, or produces an emergency causing public harm (bomb on a plane, fire in a theater). People are still free to be racist and say racist things - for example. Or that we should give transferable land owner tags out @Treeshark .

The religious example - killing their child would represent an infraction against the childs right to life (14th amendment).

As far as driving - that example is reliant on your use of a public infrastructure. No rules exist for you to walk state to state or be driven/bused.

Do you have a better example or can you educate me further?

View attachment 328919

Hopefully im not taking this off the rails... if so feel free to pm me - we can gladly return to the regular scheduled programming of our banana republic's demise!

Caveat: the Bill of Rights applies to the fed gov.

“TPM.” Speech is limited to “time, place, and manner” restrictions. Also can’t yell “bomb” in an airport. There are other examples, but speech is actually quite heavily regulated.

The religion one can be replaced with a goat or something, but your point raises an interesting question: which amendment do you prioritize?

 

[Forkyfinder]

Caveat: the Bill of Rights applies to the fed gov.

“TPM.” Speech is limited to “time, place, and manner” restrictions. Also can’t yell “bomb” in an airport. There are other examples, but speech is actually quite heavily regulated.

The religion one can be replaced with a goat or something, but your point raises an interesting question: which amendment do you prioritize?

The second one

That I dont know - interesting point.