Law School Discussion

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mason123

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 50
I press it because I can see the potentially serious consequences. All firearm restrictions and safe guards will be at risk when the Supreme Court returns an influential decision. Save a congressional amendment, the only legal and constitutional work around for this Amendment is the review of the term 'Arm'.

Plastic pistols are legal. Military grade munitions and rockets would become legal for personal possessions. What the framers intended or did not intend, what weapons existed during the time of the constitution's birth, is of little consequence to the reality of the situation.

I love guns. I want a gun. But I do not want to make it easier for a loon or crazy person or someone who is a habitual felon to shoot up a school, business, post office, and what have you.

Ever heard of pistol whipping?

In the eyes of the law, if you use an unloaded gun in a robbery, it is taken into consideration for charges and sentencing. I do not think it works the same way if you throw bullets at people.

Is ammunition a weapon without a trigger mechanism? That seems debatable. It surely does not explicitly speak of ammunition like your definition does.

Is ammunition a weapon without a trigger mechanism? That seems debatable. It surely does not explicitly speak of ammunition like your definition does.

The way the first Amendment is written, all limitation on speech and the press are invalid. Still, Janet Jackson's boob, shown on the television "press", can be fined and restricted? Why?

I do not think the fine and restrictions are legally valid.

I think that prohibiting the screaming of fire in a crowded theater is unconstitutional, and that if the government wishes to expound on the First Amendment, it should add a reasonable restrictions clause. But that's my opinion.

No need to thank me; the way I see it now, the only way to legally/constitutionally limit the right to bearing arms without an amendment is limiting ammunition. The term 'arm' is ambiguous which makes it potentially dangerous. Hence I choose to consider arms and ammunition to be two separate categories.

As the Second Amendment is written, all limitations on bearing and keeping arms are pretty much invalid. That is a bit worrisome. I think that instead of focusing on the construction and grammatical intricacies of the Second Amendment, we should re-evaluate the definition of 'Arm'.

For search and seizure, we have a little thing called 'reasonable' that changes the whole name of the game.

Militia and official standing army are two different things. Therefore I doubt that our men and women in foreign theater are without the necessary equipment.

Then ammunition is fine as long as it's part of the "arming device" or rather, loaded? So it's storing ammunition outside a weapon you have a problem with?
My problem with the Second Amendment is that I know that 'arms' is a broad term that includes ammunition, but because the Second Amendment prohibits the infringement of this right in any way, we cannot legally prevent the purchase of such items by mentally unstable or unfit individuals. I feel that there must be some loophole for limiting the acquisition of such tools to people of reasonable mind.

I hope that when they send our Army overseas, they send bullets too.
Well I would not doubt that for one bit, seeing as how the Second Amendment is geared towards average citizens and not the military. So therefore this discussion does not apply to the standing army.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 50