Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

[unofan]

Yes, but those things are very suspect to the courts. There has to be a compelling public interest, other than "we just want to reduce it." Permits and fees for protest marches are to ensure that the protesting *does* occur - in a safe and fair way - not so that there will be less of it.

Preventing mass shootings isn't a compelling public interest? I mean, you can spin these proposals 100s of ways, but finding a compelling reason is not going to be the tough part of the argument.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

A database of people different from you is a database of people different from you. I don't care if it's based on religion, gun ownership, or BC fans.

That database is a tool for untoward ends.

A database that results in US governmental action based on race or religion is against US civil rights law. So what your inferring is incorrect.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

A database that results in US governmental action based on race or religion is against US civil rights law. So what your inferring is incorrect.

What it really comes down to, I think, is that gun-owners are not a protected class. It would be a true facepalm moment if the supreme court were to rule that they are.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I'm aware. When you stop ignoring the differences, they become different. Just like if you were to stop ignoring the difference between people who choose to own something and people who are something, the gun-owner and brown persons databases would become different. By saying a gun owner database is "Trump-esque", you are suggesting a level of persecution that isn't there and is quite honestly ridiculous.

You keep saying "brown people".

How about Muslim or gun owner -- both Constitutionally protected rights. So yeah, I don't see a difference.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

You keep saying "brown people".

How about Muslim or gun owner -- both Constitutionally protected rights. So yeah, I don't see a difference.

See previous post.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

What it really comes down to, I think, is that gun-owners are not a protected class. It would be a true facepalm moment if the supreme court were to rule that they are.

They aren't a protected class.

They're exercising an enumerated Constitutional right, a right protected, not bestowed, by the Constitution. Some choose to not exercise that right, just as some choose to not exercise other enumerated rights.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

What it really comes down to, I think, is that gun-owners are not a protected class. It would be a true facepalm moment if the supreme court were to rule that they are.

Ignoring, of course, the pesky little thing called the Bill of Rights.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

What it really comes down to, I think, is that gun-owners are not a protected class. It would be a true facepalm moment if the supreme court were to rule that they are.

I'd say we're one GOP presidential term away from that Court.

Reason #835 to not let them sniff the WH until the fever breaks.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Preventing mass shootings isn't a compelling public interest? I mean, you can spin these proposals 100s of ways, but finding a compelling reason is not going to be the tough part of the argument.

Again, is it more compelling than taking away enumerated rights? I don't know. That's for the SCOTUS to decide.

 

[Jimjamesak]

They aren't a protected class.

They're exercising an enumerated Constitutional right, a right protected, not bestowed, by the Constitution. Some choose to not exercise that right, just as some choose to not exercise other enumerated rights.

It's a right that's "guaranteed" by a loose interpretation of an Amendment, something that SCOTUS can change at their own will.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

They aren't a protected class.

They're exercising an enumerated Constitutional right, a right protected, not bestowed, by the Constitution. Some choose to not exercise that right, just as some choose to not exercise other enumerated rights.

The only thing I disagree with you here is suggesting that the right to bear arms is not bestowed by the constitution. Are you suggesting what I think you are suggesting, that bearing arms is among those rights that some would say are bestowed by a higher power?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Again, is it more compelling than taking away enumerated rights? I don't know. That's for the SCOTUS to decide.

Again, that all goes away once the Second Amendment is again interpreted the way it was for the 220 years before Heller.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Ignoring, of course, the pesky little thing called the Bill of Rights.

You're saying that the bill of rights makes gun owners a protected class?

 

[mookie1995]

Ignoring, of course, the pesky little thing called the Bill of Rights.

Living breathing document. Ready to accept change at any time.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Living breathing document. Ready to accept change at any time.

US Constitution, Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

or at least, that was the plan....

nowadays, it seems far too many people (for my comfort, at least) prefer the Humpty Dumpty version of constitutional interpretation:

A [law] means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Original intent could not have imagined the technology today.

Living breathing document

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Again, is it more compelling than taking away enumerated rights? I don't know. That's for the SCOTUS to decide.

You mean like yelling fire in a movie theater?

 

[unofan]

You keep saying "brown people".

How about Muslim or gun owner -- both Constitutionally protected rights. So yeah, I don't see a difference.

Owning a gun is a protected right, but it's not a protected class for purposes of anti-discrimination laws.

How about this, we create a list of non-gun owners, starting from the point of birth. If you buy a gun, you're stricken from the list. There, the gov't is no longer keeping a list of gun owners, and their rights are not being infringed.

 

[unofan]

Again, is it more compelling than taking away enumerated rights? I don't know. That's for the SCOTUS to decide.

That's not the test. The reason didn't have to surpass the right being restricted, it just has to be a rational/legitimate/least restrictive means available depending on what standard the court decides to apply.

The reasoning is the easy part to prove. The second half of the test is where it gets interesting.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

That's not the test. The reason didn't have to surpass the right being restricted, it just has to be a rational/legitimate/least restrictive means available depending on what standard the court decides to apply.

The reasoning is the easy part to prove. The second half of the test is where it gets interesting.

Is there any part of the test that considers whether it's likely to be effective?