Gun Control & RKBA

gejohnston

(17,502 posts)

18. The 19th century decisions were based on

Tue May 31, 2016, 11:23 PM

May 2016

For much of the nation's history, the Second Amendment was taken to mean that the individual states, but not the federal government, had the power to limit who could or couldn't posses guns, and who was and wasn't part of the state militia. This was the principle that was upheld in Presser v. Illinois in 1886, where the court ruled that the state of Illinois could decide who was and who wasn't part of a proper militia, and who could and who couldn't parade through the streets with guns.

Partly true. Barron v Baltimore said that the BoR restricted only the federal government, but not the states. What
Cruikshank really ruled was.

The First Amendment right to assembly was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens and the Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

It also prevented federal enforcement of federal civil rights laws of the time.
What Presser really said was that states can prohibit private armies and didn't have anything to do with gun ownership per se.

Since then, it's become gradually, but firmly established that the federal government can exercise some authority over the sale and possession of weapons, explosives, and other dangerous materials. The first national gun control laws were passed in the 1920s in response to interstate violence from gangsters. This established a principle, which was upheld in the courts, that the federal government had the power to regulate some aspects of the manufacture and possession of guns

Actually the first one passed in 1927, prohibited sending handguns through the mail. I think they meant the National Firearms Act. I think the St Valentine's Day Massacre had more to do with it than Dillinger.

So basically, the courts have left the landscape completely muddled, both affirming that the federal government can impose reasonable prohibitions, and at the same time taking away some of the state's original powers to regulate them.

They aren't prohibited. State machine gun bans have not been overturned. What it said was firearms that are commonly owned and not unusual.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

200 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Honest question. If gun rights supporters are idiots... [View all] Kang Colby May 2016 OP

If you honestly aren't cognizant of "any form of serious debate or discussion" cheapdate May 2016 #1

Very rarely..gun control supporters usually just result to name calling. That's my take on it. n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #2

Then I would suggest you're looking in the wrong places for serious discussion. cheapdate May 2016 #3

Any leads? Thanks...n/t Kang Colby May 2016 #4

Sure, we can start right here. cheapdate May 2016 #13

The 19th century decisions were based on gejohnston May 2016 #18

Again, I barely give a crap about it. cheapdate Jun 2016 #23

background checks have been federal law since the 1990s gejohnston Jun 2016 #24

Hey, for what it's worth, my thin-skinned, smarmy, insulting, "friend", cheapdate Jun 2016 #42

not so much thin skinned, as it is little patience gejohnston Jun 2016 #78

Thank you for that. cheapdate Jun 2016 #83

which begs the question, gejohnston Jun 2016 #84

None of this much affects the actual cheapdate Jun 2016 #91

"Free speech has limits, but what limits?" beergood Jun 2016 #114

What? Those are not the "only limits" on free speech. cheapdate Jun 2016 #118

"The ACLU is continually defending free speech beergood Jun 2016 #122

You said: cheapdate Jun 2016 #125

you think the aclu beergood Jun 2016 #138

The problem with the militia interpretation... Kang Colby Jun 2016 #25

Your group is responsible for so much violence... scscholar Jun 2016 #127

My group isn't responsible for a single murder or accident. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #128

*Criminals* are responsible for the VAST amount of gun violence....... pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #141

What do you think Duckhunter935 May 2016 #11

I don't think much of it. Life's tough. Get a helmet. cheapdate May 2016 #14

No one can answer that question. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #26

^^Let the record underline this "courageous" dodge. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #60

It's not a dodge. cheapdate Jun 2016 #64

You dodged the second part of the question. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #65

??? cheapdate Jun 2016 #67

I second Kang Colby's remark tortoise1956 Jun 2016 #99

"( I guess no more target shooting out in the desert - NUTS!)" beergood Jun 2016 #115

No tortoise1956 Jun 2016 #196

Do you consider sarisataka Jun 2016 #62

You won't get it here Press Virginia May 2016 #5

"Gun humpers" Kang Colby May 2016 #6

One of my favorites! Press Virginia May 2016 #7

Let's Go Mountaineers! ileus Jun 2016 #29

Yes! Finally someone recognizes the reference! Press Virginia Jun 2016 #38

My first 36 years were in WV. ileus Jun 2016 #44

Go Hokies! Kang Colby Jun 2016 #124

I miss the Big East...if only the ACC hadn't destroyed it. ileus Jun 2016 #152

And of course ammosexual Duckhunter935 May 2016 #12

So many of their insults are sexually-based... theatre goon Jun 2016 #35

I'll be your Huckleberry. Eko May 2016 #8

you can have one, gejohnston May 2016 #9

Well, you cant just have one. Eko May 2016 #10

not an FFL, gejohnston May 2016 #15

From what I can tell Eko May 2016 #17

yes and no. gejohnston May 2016 #19

Either way Eko May 2016 #20

I didn't disagree with your original point gejohnston May 2016 #21

I agree, no you didnt. Eko May 2016 #22

The most common problem is the lack of knowledge on their part. ManiacJoe May 2016 #16

An excellent point. theatre goon Jun 2016 #36

And if gun rights supporters are such geniuses My Good Babushka Jun 2016 #27

Interesting, when we call for better health care Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #28

And what if doctors recommended My Good Babushka Jun 2016 #32

As long as there is a process and there is a Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #33

Gun lobbyists work against improvements in healthcare My Good Babushka Jun 2016 #34

It would be bad public health policy... Kang Colby Jun 2016 #37

What public health policy? My Good Babushka Jun 2016 #39

There is no ban. beevul Jun 2016 #41

So no gun lobby is standing in the way of CDC research? My Good Babushka Jun 2016 #43

The CDC did a study ordered Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #48

One study of one city My Good Babushka Jun 2016 #52

I'm all for free scientific inquiry gejohnston Jun 2016 #69

Wrong study. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #77

There is no ban on research Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #47

This message was self-deleted by its author Press Virginia Jun 2016 #40

The Katies of the ban side base their arguments on lies and misinformation ileus Jun 2016 #30

Gun owners are selfish. Tortmaster Jun 2016 #31

re: "...keeping a gun in your house is either..." discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #45

If your gun is only used ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #71

~~~ discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #72

No. I've been on this soapbox forever ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #85

That's comforting to know. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #104

Brother, I'm the Elmer Gantry of gun control. Tortmaster Jun 2016 #154

I'm sure you are discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #155

It must be the argument that small arms have been obsolete since WWI... Marengo Jun 2016 #156

Well, now that assailants never leave... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jun 2016 #157

LOL....I gotta give that post some points for being funny and creative. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #192

You're far from the first self-appointed "new DU champion of gun control" we've seen friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #111

"You will find them to be interesting reading, I'm sure." pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #119

ill bite beergood Jun 2016 #82

I'm sure they keep them safely locked and unloaded. Tortmaster Jun 2016 #87

"I'm sure they keep them safely locked and unloaded." beergood Jun 2016 #117

Tortured logic. Straw Man Jun 2016 #50

Please feel free to ignore my advice. Tortmaster Jun 2016 #73

"At least I'm looking out for your family's safety..." You merely *claim* that you are looking... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #80

So, exercising my First Amendment Right is ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #86

Your moral-panic mongering differs from theirs only in subject friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #95

Awesome. So Jesus couldn't condemn the money-changers, and ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #100

Oh, I will. And ... Straw Man Jun 2016 #98

LOL! Unless you're a vegan Luddite, so are you. Marengo Jun 2016 #53

I agree. I am. We need to move away from meat as soon as ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #89

Oh no, not far enough. Laboratory produced meat is still meat... Marengo Jun 2016 #96

Carbon footprint is super ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #106

No more extreme than your position on firearms... Marengo Jun 2016 #107

No, whats selfish is blaming the instrument... beevul Jun 2016 #108

I am selfish, a bit. I found there are numerous uses for various guns. jmg257 Jun 2016 #56

A little introspection goes a long way. Tortmaster Jun 2016 #88

Thanks for sharing your opinion - you don't like guns - we get it. I hope however, jonno99 Jun 2016 #61

Guns became useless in war ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #74

Infantry has been outdated since 1916? braddy Jun 2016 #76

Yes. The only reason we have infantry now is because ... Tortmaster Jun 2016 #92

You really need to study up more on warfare and military history. braddy Jun 2016 #93

How many tanks, aircraft, guided missiles, and drones do the Taliban and ISIS/Daesh have? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #81

They aren't in America. Tortmaster Jun 2016 #90

Guerilla warfare is guerilla warfare friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #94

Your position is that small arms are useless in all conflicts, globally? Marengo Jun 2016 #97

A first-world army that hasn't yet defeated the Taliban, after +/- 15 years of trying... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #109

Yes. Castro fought his revolution with T-34s & MiGs. Couple of cruisers, too. Eleanors38 Jun 2016 #176

What if you have 35+ guns that have made it through 3 generations ileus Jun 2016 #70

You've been lucky so far. Tortmaster Jun 2016 #75

"If the gun is locked up in a safe and unloaded it's useless." Strawman. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #120

I disagree with your post in its entirety. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #126

Actually we do. Gun rights supporters that hang out in forums and groups like this one flamin lib Jun 2016 #46

Who uses the terms ammosexual Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #49

"Too bad you think a firearms owner correcting misinformation........." pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #58

Would calling others "glib sociopaths" be "belittling an besmirching"?N/T beevul Jun 2016 #102

Lol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #105

As a gun owner yourself, you are ok with arguing for restrictive legislation... Marengo Jun 2016 #51

Bring something constructive to the conversation or just go away flamin lib Jun 2016 #54

I'll take that as a yes then. Anything goes so long as the goal is achieved... Marengo Jun 2016 #55

Stop trying to hijack this thread. The OP asked why we don't have productive discussions. flamin lib Jun 2016 #63

I'm commenting on something YOU wrote. Why won't you answer the question? Marengo Jun 2016 #66

Because IT IS OFF TOPIC. Typical attempt to launch a red herring and ignore the topic at hand. flamin lib Jun 2016 #68

Unless your commentary was off topic, it's spot on and you know it. Why are you so evasive? Marengo Jun 2016 #79

I will answer one more time that the OP asked 'why isn't there productive discussion flamin lib Jun 2016 #110

In other words, you cannot answer honestly as that would fatally weaken... Marengo Jun 2016 #112

No, I refuse to engage you in a personal argument over a red herring. We can keep this going or you flamin lib Jun 2016 #113

Right, just as I said earlier, it's obvious you refuse because you can't without damaging... Marengo Jun 2016 #116

Oh, too much work to start a thread? Exhausted from typing so much trying to flamin lib Jun 2016 #137

You wouldn't be pushing back so hard unless you have realized your integrity is threatened... Marengo Jun 2016 #142

Sigh. This is a red herring. If you'd like to add something to the question posed in the OP flamin lib Jun 2016 #146

i think we've already well enough established your disingenuous nature... Marengo Jun 2016 #149

Oh, and since you have so much time on your hands... Marengo Jun 2016 #150

No. You refuse to answer because it would fatally weaken your argument. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #121

You have no part in this conversation. nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #135

Says you. And I dismiss your viewpoint. NT pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #136

Are you the arbiter of who may and may not post a reply in this thread, and to what? Marengo Jun 2016 #143

And what game is that? Pointing out logical fallacies? Not taking bait? Or is it poor form to ask flamin lib Jun 2016 #145

Attributing logical fallacies where they don't exist in order to camouflage... Marengo Jun 2016 #147

Where none exist? flamin lib Jun 2016 #158

Oh, there is no question, you simply don't have any... Marengo Jun 2016 #159

Yes, attempting to take a conversation in an entirely different direction is, by definition, flamin lib Jun 2016 #160

You must not be capable of fully comprehending what you wrote... Marengo Jun 2016 #162

It isn't my comprehension that's a problem here. nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #164

Why are you so apparently fearful in answering a simple question? Marengo Jun 2016 #161

I'm not fearful, just insistent that you stop attempting to hijack a thread so flamin lib Jun 2016 #163

The argument is clear. You either cannot comprehend it, or cannot respond without... Marengo Jun 2016 #166

I have made no premise, only steadfastly refused to engage your red herring. nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #169

The strength of you argument should easily be able to banish that red herring... Marengo Jun 2016 #172

Would you be so generous to explain with your ample time... Marengo Jun 2016 #168

46 was a reply to the OP and contained quotes from gungeoneers to explain flamin lib Jun 2016 #170

Those are quotes from posts here on DU? Why haven't you provided links or cites... Marengo Jun 2016 #171

Because it would be like providing links to explain why the sky is blue. Everybody else in the flamin lib Jun 2016 #174

So, they are NOT actual quotes as you have claimed? Marengo Jun 2016 #175

Yes, they are very close paraphrases. flamin lib Jun 2016 #177

Bullshit, a paraphrase is NOT a quote... Marengo Jun 2016 #178

You most certainly did, with your fake quotes... Marengo Jun 2016 #179

Good start to posting for Imaginary Me. flamin lib Jun 2016 #180

Where are the links to those quotes, real disingenuous you... Marengo Jun 2016 #182

Oh, good move! Demand links from Imaginary Me! flamin lib Jun 2016 #184

Did someone else hack your account, write post #170, and apparently lie? Marengo Jun 2016 #186

Not up to your other posts but still not bad, finding a way call me a liar without flamin lib Jun 2016 #188

As it wasn't imaginary fingers that typed that post, it would appear that you are either... Marengo Jun 2016 #189

Well, two out of three isn't too bad. nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #190

Still no links to those "quotes" which form the basis of your argument? Marengo Jun 2016 #193

WTF, your red herring was a take off on the theme. nt flamin lib Jun 2016 #195

Waiting for the links or cites for those quotes... Marengo Jun 2016 #173

Your interlocutor is just playing games. beevul Jun 2016 #181

True, I assumed as much, but am somewhat surprised he made the blunder... Marengo Jun 2016 #183

Just sayin... beevul Jun 2016 #185

Absolutely true, as is clear in this thread. Marengo Jun 2016 #187

Also, keep in mind what that poster is defending. beevul Jun 2016 #194

It's been a few days now, still no links to the alleged quotes? Marengo Jun 2016 #197

Another way of calling me a liar is to to demand I provide links to established gungeon flamin lib Jun 2016 #198

I won't call you a liar. However, your claims as to what's been said remain faith-promoting rumor friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #199

I'm still waiting for links to those quotes, or your acknowledgement... Marengo Jun 2016 #200

What sort of authority do you have to control who may respond to what... Marengo Jun 2016 #151

This isn't private messaging. Straw Man Jun 2016 #148

There can be no "productive discussions", when you refuse to answer questions asked of you. beevul Jun 2016 #103

Wow Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #57

Excellent example sarisataka Jun 2016 #59

"Fringe"? beevul Jun 2016 #101

Thank you, flamin lib. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #123

There is the whole "gun culture" aspect. jmg257 Jun 2016 #167

I think you've missed the point, KC. Gun rights supporters are scum! pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #129

haha..thanks for pointing that out, Pablo. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #130

Anytime, brother. pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #131

I'm willing Matrosov Jun 2016 #132

That's false. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #133

Not really Matrosov Jun 2016 #134

sorry beergood Jun 2016 #140

I wouldn't call you a communist, it's not a pejorative in my mind having thought myself one in my... Marengo Jun 2016 #144

For someone who shoots often... Kang Colby Jun 2016 #153

"The problem is, many RKBA supporters can't argue beyond:" pablo_marmol Jun 2016 #139

Hey Kang, want to see why we can't have cogent discussion? flamin lib Jun 2016 #165

I'm OK flamin. Kang Colby Jun 2016 #191