What are your Second Amendment rights? Mostly the Fourth Amendment.

[mountaineer]

This was posted by an attorney in W.Va., who specializes in civil rights cases involving government overreach. He's a staunch 2d Amendment supporter. His analysis might be useful, keeping his disclaimer in mind: Note: The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.

The Civil Rights Lawyer.
What are your Second Amendment rights? Mostly the Fourth Amendment.
Posted on February 18, 2020   

Here’s a brief, but decently thorough, rundown on the current state of “Second Amendment rights” in the United States. Unfortunately, it involves much more than just pulling out your pocket sized booklet of the U.S. Constitution and reading the Second Amendment. This is the ammunition you need to debate, understand, and exercise, your Second Amendment rights. Of course, see the disclaimer lower right on the home page.

This is a broad topic, and it’s all up in the air, depending on where you live in the country, as you’ll see below. These are excerpts from the larger piece I’ve been working on, so I’ve left citations in where possible.    ...

What is “Second Amendment law?”

This has created a body of law – Second Amendment law – which is amazingly one-sided, as far as the government is concerned, and extremely weak for the individual citizen.   ...  So, as lofty as the Second Amendment sounds, and as much as it is used in speech referencing the God-given right to keep and bear arms, etc., etc., in practice, and in reality, it has been chiseled away through the years, and has been long established as inapplicable to entire groups of individuals who might want to assert it, but who in reality have no recognized Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. At least not that the federal courts recognize.  ...

Read entire essay.

[Cyber Liberty]

The 4th lacks a "predicate clause," which gets waved by the gun-grabbers like a talisman.

[Smokin Joe]

The 4th lacks a "predicate clause," which gets waved by the gun-grabbers like a talisman.

If the fourth or any other had a clause explaining WHY it was essential that "the Right of the People" remain unmolested, the first thing the government would do is use that explanation to infringe on that right.

So it has been with the 2nd Amendment, even though its existence is to prevent the abuse of Government's power and the usurpation of the powers and rights of the People and the States by reserving that right, uninfringed, to the People.

THese contortions of logic, unfortunately, have been used to excuse over 20,000 acts of legislation and edicts of regulation which, by their very nature, are unconstitutional infringements on the Right.

[Cyber Liberty]

If the fourth or any other had a clause explaining WHY it was essential that "the Right of the People" remain unmolested, the first thing the government would do is use that explanation to infringe on that right.

So it has been with the 2nd Amendment, even though its existence is to prevent the abuse of Government's power and the usurpation of the powers and rights of the People and the States by reserving that right, uninfringed, to the People.

THese contortions of logic, unfortunately, have been used to excuse over 20,000 acts of legislation and edicts of regulation which, by their very nature, are unconstitutional infringements on the Right.

...an early example of "don't explain it, just do it!"

[Smokin Joe]

...an early example of "don't explain it, just do it!"

And of "If they can find a way to foul it up, someone will." (Nothing remains foolproof, because fools are constantly developing their craft.)

[Cyber Liberty]

And of "If they can find a way to foul it up, someone will." (Nothing remains foolproof, because fools are constantly developing their craft.)

There was an argument at the time of the Founding, that the Bill of Rights would be a bad idea because the government would take it as a limited list of Rights, and then construe them in an extremely limited manner to the detriment of our rights.  It should have been heeded.

[Smokin Joe]

There was an argument at the time of the Founding, that the Bill of Rights would be a bad idea because the government would take it as a limited list of Rights, and then construe them in an extremely limited manner to the detriment of our rights.  It should have been heeded.

Nah, they even covered that in the Bill of Rights (9th Amendment)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Cyber Liberty]

Nah, they even covered that in the Bill of Rights (9th Amendment)

The 9th and the 10th were the first Amendments to be nullified by a thirsty SCOTUS.  One of the Justices (Frankfurter?) outright said the 10th is a "dead letter."

[Smokin Joe]

The 9th and the 10th were the first Amendments to be nullified by a thirsty SCOTUS.  One of the Justices (Frankfurter?) outright said the 10th is a "dead letter."

That alone was a sign the Scotus was off the Rez.

[Cyber Liberty]

That alone was a sign the Scotus was off the Rez.

Ayup! 

[EdinVA]

Unlike the dictatorships that the founders escaped, our founding document(s) make the assumption that people are intelligent, self driven and caring and are capable of the effective application of their god given rights as laid out in the Constitution.  ONLY when it has been proven in court that a person has abused those rights can the court take ANY of our rights away. 
While it is true that we have agreed that the application of our rights are not unlimited, (yelling fire in a crowded theater, discharging a firearm in town, etc,) we are born with those rights and the government has no authority to legislate away ANY of our rights without amending the constitution.The real issue is that our legal system spends insane amounts of time refining "is" looking for obscure definitions to enable the overall degradation of the Constitution and would support the further intrusion of Government into our lives. 
The tragedy is that the SCOTUS is running down this same path and is legitimizing the anti-constitution movement.  During the conversation about obamacare there were all types of conversations about weather the commerce clause allowed the government to take over the insurance industry but there was never a conversation about the impact of the take over on the lives of the citizenry so there was no consideration of protecting citizens from the government.  The SCOTUS is way off track and the damage is not going to be repairable.
I have committed no crime, yet the state wants to declare me a criminal with no trial and is seeking to legislate my constitutional rights away. 

[verga]

BKMK