Negative - when the Constitution itself grants the legislative body the power to amend the Constitution, including but not limited to the bill of rights; nothing is off the table.
@@bejornv Just for sake of discussion: If you're referring to "repealing the 2nd Amendment," that would be unlawful because it would violate the amendment's "unqualified command" ("shall not be infringed"), which is the current supreme Law of the Land and, of course, "infringement" is specifically prohibited. But, let's just say it was unlawfully repealed anyway, the right to keep and bear arms would still be protected pursuant to the 9th Amendment; and, the SCOTUS has already held that the RKBAs is a fundamental, individual right that preceded the creation of the Constitution and is NOT subject to its existence. In other words, even if the RKBAs were not mentioned in the Constitution nor BoRs, it would still exist and be in full force and effect. By the way, Congress can propose amendments but it takes approval by 75% of the States' legislatures to amend. Furthermore, the statement regarding taking certain subjects off the legislative table came from a SCOTUS decision. So, argue with the courts on that (for instance: the SCOTUS has ruled that "arms in common use for lawful purposes" cannot be banned (Heller v. D.C. (2008). Therefore, it takes banning so-called "assault weapons" off the legislative table. That's why just today, Judge McGlynn in Illinois issued a statewide Preliminary Injunction against enforcement of their legislature's so-called AW and "high capacity" magazine bans (aka: PICA) among other of its provisions). Thanks for engaging.
@@bejornv We've lots of rights, namely to do anything that doesn't infringe the rights of others. Of these many things, a few are enumerated in the Bill of Rights because (A) they are rather more important than others and (B) more prone to being abused by government than others. These two facts go hand in hand. Of the few that are enumerated, only one says shall not be infringed. Removing the amendment wouldn't actually remove the right, no rights are established by the Bill of Rights rather recognized by the Bill of Rights and that these rights shall not be infringed without due process of law or, in the case of the 2A, not at all. All removing the amendment would do is remove the prohibition of government infringing that right, but a government that can legally infringe rights is not a legitimate government and we'd be in the same boat as the colonists at Lexington and Concord when the English tried to infringe their gun rights. It's why they included the 2nd Amendment. It's why they changed there is a right to such arms allowed by law (this effectively makes it a privilege, simply outlaw all arms) in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 to shall not be infringed. This also glosses over any 10th Amendment problems.
Bottom line. The Supreme Court will decide next summer that the 2nd Amendment does give citizens the right to have a firearm any time, any where except in sensitive locations such as schools, Court houses and the like. It will be as I see it a 6-3 decision possibly a 5-4 if Justice Roberts decides to write the minority brief of rebuttal. We are not required to have a license to exercise any Constitutional right and the 2nd Amendment should be no different.
The problem of distinguishing "sensitive places" like court houses and schools and not general public areas as a limitation to the second amendment is that it is not based on principle but arbitrary judicial discretion. If the court can make such distinctions then what prevents the states from making their own distinctions in line with what they consider "sensetive places"?
The purpose of placing the 2A in the Bill of Rights was not to establish the peoples right but to limit the right of the government. The last phrase of the amendment is, . . ., shall not be infringed. This last phrase denies the government the right to pass laws as to who can keep and bear arms. The government does not have the right to pass laws as to what arms a person my keep and carry. The government does not have the right to pass laws limiting where a person can carry arms. This makes sensitive location where the people cannot carry arms unconstitutional weather the Supreme Court recognizes it are not. In areas where our government recognizes our full rights violent crime drops. Sensitive locations simply tell the wolves where the easy sheep may be found. There are not enough sheepdogs to keep the sheep. Please do not be a sheep.
@@gugulethudube578 the states and even city’s can establish sensitive places. Some towns declare their city parks sensitive areas if the city puts a 1,000 yards from the parks and schools they effectively make their city a sensitive area. Of course the establishment of sensitive areas is an infringement of the peoples rights. I see sensitive areas as nothing more then sheep pens so that the wolves can kill at ease. There are not enough sheepdogs to keep the sheep safe. Do not be a sheep.
We need a license to cut hair. My guess is the next line for gun nuts is to override "sensitive" places. They want guns everywhere. Promotes their business.
Well guess what, dude. As much as I appreciate the freedoms we have in the USA, the fact is all the laws we come up with are experiments. The fact that I can own and legally carry a gun with infinite ammo here in Minnesota and you can't in New York City is an experiment. Just because I can legally do that today doesn't mean I'll be able to legally do it tomorrow, and if it changes and I defy the law, I get thrown in jail. See how laws work now? You may not agree with them but once they're set, your rear end is up for grabs if you don't comply. That's how society has done it since before agriculture.
@@nirv , Apparently, George Washington and the Continental Army disagreed with your weak statement. Legality does NOT equal morality. If a tyrannical government were to ignore the Bill of Rights, I'm afraid a second Revolutionary War is inevitable. Strong men create good times. Weak men create hard times.
@@nirv Oh yeah? Let them prosecute him then and make it into a jury trial. Odds are they will say F U judge(not really)and vote NOT Guilty. Thiers certain principals this country was founded on. But back to this case, why can't someone who qualifies on all legal grounds, who is trying legally to get a permit, get the permit?
Ms. McCord seems to think they can or should legislate judicially, If you want to pass laws that prevent mass shootings while preserving the exercise of an enumerated right, do so. If you want to amend the Constitution, and believe you can repeal the 2nd through legislation, convince 2/3rd of State Legislatures, try it. -But don't legislate from the bench, nor ask a judge to do so.
-Our rights AND privileges are not for you to decide, We the People have always reserved all powers unto ourselves, legislated through our elected representatives. -Any aberration to that formula being only that.
The case is really about: Can a law require a bureaucrat to make an arbitrary ruling to determine if you need personal protection, when you have already passed a background check?
Those who shoot and kill with concealable handguns were not lawful in their carry. It’s also illegal to kill people. The shooting you brought up is exactly why a law abiding person wants the ability to carry and protect themselves.
Well, in 1857 the court opined that one of the reasons slaves couldn't be considered citizens was because, "it would give [them] the right to ... keep and carry arms wherever they went."
And she conveniently ignores the fact that every MURDER IS A CRIME! Also, if there were even One armed defender at those events, the number of casualties would be negligible.
The founders described the type "arms" they intended to guarantee to each American as, "arms usual in the regular service," and "every terrible implement of the soldier," and, furthermore, stated things like, "the people should be armed to be little, if at all, inferior to an Army of any magnitude." Just sayin'!!!
@@DrGoyo626 It is the anti-tank version that you have to special order. I have two, so that if the commies ever drop tanks in my city, I can dual-wield.
One of the things that is totally lost here is that there is not been any significant evolution in firearms in over 100 years other than their appearance. Actually the weapons used in World War I and World War II were more powerful than the M-16s and the civilian version A.R. 15‘s that are in common possession today. Progress in firearms virtually ended with the cased cartridge containing a primer powder and projectile. Semi automatic firearms go way back even before 1911. Let’s also left out of this argument is the fact that the majority of gun deaths are suicides. The simplest of facts are that infringements on gun rights only affect those willing to obey those Impairments. The fourth amendment protects criminals unlawfully carrying concealed weapons.
This last Wednesday our Supreme Court heard arguments in a landmark case on our right to carry a firearm outside the home for self-defense. One of the reasons given by the three liberal leaning justices in defense of New York’s permitting scheme is that guns are more dangerous in crowds and that within our large cities because of the very fact that so many people are around all the time as well as law enforcement, people don't need to carry a firearm for self-defence. Well it would seem that by the very nature of the term "High Crime Area" that obviously this premise is wrong. But here is one recent real world example of their theory not working. Raped on a train: For more than 40 minutes, a woman was harassed by a stranger on a public transit train in Philadelphia and then raped while bystanders held up their cell phones, seemingly to record the assault, while no one called 911 police said. Your fellow human beings folks. Not only did they fail to help this woman, they had such a lack of empathy for her, they could pull their phones out to record the attack for future social media postings! More than two dozen train stops passed as the man harassed, groped and eventually raped the woman, the police chief for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority said at a news conference Monday. I'll say it again, unfortunately people are afraid to realize that the idea of being safe is an illusion in society. The reality is, to put it in the simplest terms, you're safe as long as the person standing next to you doesn't decide to kill you. That's not paranoia it's just an obvious fact. You know what would have empowered this poor woman to stop her stronger, bigger, male attacker??? A firearm, it would have made his choice to assault her because of his perceived power over her a bad choice. And hopefully he'd never be assaulting and raping any other women again! Just sayin...
Ms Mary, when you site mass murders by handgun, you ignore that none of those instances would have been as tragic if the victims had been armed. In the case of Ft Hood, the victims were not allowed to carry service sidearms on the base, astounding considering they were are all trained in firearms handling.
@@pietwitten640 the rest of first world countries exist because the American government maintains the peace; otherwise, they would speak either Russian or Chinese. The major item keeping the American government from becoming tyrannical is the second amendment. Power to the People is both figurative and literal. Without the right to keep and bear arms, the US political system will devolve into worsening central control and eventual tyranny.
@@1yehny thats the U S of A 's method of "keeping peace" ,by using violence. And it shows in your own country nowedays,you guys celebrate that a kid who was illigally armed shot 3 people and got off free. The problem is you guys have a HUGE blindspot . So yeah 1000 times thanks for what happened 70-90 years ago,but by now you should look at Switserland Nederland germany ect and learn how to properly run a 1st world country. Geez
Criminals and crazies carrying concealed weapons is not the issue, those people are already prohibited from gun ownership, The substantive issue is; can an ordinary citizen be prohibited by state functionaries from exercising a Constitutional right? No other Constitutional right is as regulated by state functionaries in the same manner as the 2 A. and is this permissible?
Ask yourself this: do you need a special circumstance permit to use your right to speak? Or what about your right to vote? Permit for that too? Keep and BEAR arms means just that. We have a God given, inalienable right to keep and bear arms. And that right shall not be infringed. There shouldn't even be discussions about gun laws. There shouldn't be gun laws. None
The talk that our 2nd amendment rights should be able to be infringed now because of advances in firearms technology is ridiculous considering the core purpose of the right is self-defence. So are you going to tell all the criminals to turn in their firearms for flintlock single shot muzzle loaders??? For smart people they don't seem to be able to critical think through a question they are against!
I'm sorry, but the "core purpose" of the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, is a limit on the authority of GOVERNMENT, not a list of privileges granted or bestowed upon us BY government. Our Rights are inherent to us, individually, by birth as a Free Man, and not as a Subject of the government. Therefore, the government, our Servants, have no authority to regulate our inherent Rights. ALL "gun control laws" are unconstitutional, null and void, and We the People are not obliged to obey them.
What debate? We the people have a right to keep and bare arms....period the founders went so far as to say this right will not be infringed up on people by our tyrant government they cannot take our rights away. To many rights have been removed for our own good under the lies they claim so they can keep the people safe. Was once said by our founders that if we trade freedom for security we deserve neater. We do have a duty to support our constitution,they had the foresight to create the second because they knew government governs ☠️Especially when over time our government goes to far as they do. The founders new it.
How is this a debate it says “shall not infringe”. No one has the right to stop anyone from owning and carrying a gun any where they want! Bring the boys scouts back in the middle and high schools and teach proper gun safety at school. I learned this at my middle school in Ohio and the school had a shooting rang under the gym. We actually were aloud to take guns to school!! I had a gun in my car for hunting after school and a pistol in the glove box for every car I have owned. Put a gun in every American home this is American Heritage and a way of life for real Americans!
Unconstitutional acts in the past do not justify unconstitutional acts in the present nor the future!!! Just because a State passes a law does not mean it's lawful; thus, the phrase, "..., any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Art. VI, CL2, COTUS
Attorney Cottrol "gets" this issue. In 2009, U.S. Army Major Nidal Hassan murdered 13 and wounded 30 soldiers at Ft. Hood. At that time, the possession of private handguns by anyone on that post was restricted. This regulation did not prevent a field grade officer from committing this heinous act. Currently, in our major cities, there are daily shootings conducted by individuals who flaunt numerous laws including the legal possession of firearms. The folks conducting these crimes are not going to apply to get a carry license. Carry licenses are obtained by law abiding people.
Most constitutional patriots and that would include me.We believe we should alway carry daily.We also perceive there should be no form of licensing or permission.They we’re primarily for protection from. Tyrannical government as we all no.That is never heard in front of Supreme Courts.That’s a huge problem.Technically speaking our arms should be equally the same as the Government.we don’t need nukes or anything like that lol.We do want full auto,tanks military surplus without license or registration.Supreme courts should hear and make final ruling on all of that.Make it criminal for elected officials to keep continued assaults on our rights.Thank you I listen to your content alot
The Supreme Court already ruled we can possess arms of ANY DISCRIPTION in public and concealed. The history of firearm laws were for BLACK SLAVES only. They later turned both black and white citizens into slaves and requiring licensing for arms. That was discussed and rejected by Heller and McDonald.
It’s not a “debate”. It’s a law guaranteed by the US constitution and bill of rights. Feelings have no place overriding law. The “proper cause” NY requires to acquire a carry permit is subjective and has no written requirement. This is also a discussion of law abiding people, not criminals. Criminal activity with ANY type of weapon has been and will always be illegal. Don’t confuse legal ownership and carry with criminal ownership and carry. Using a gun when fear of life situation occurs is legal. This country was founded on personal responsibility and more importantly personal accountability. Moving away from that weakens our society.
These characters are talking about history and tradition, the early FBI barely had any firearms training. The same existed for a lot, not all, of law enforcement. That is one of the reasons that they pushed for the NFA and early 20th Century statutes. Firepower over the minimal carried by law enforcement at that time was another.
Robert Leider and Bob Cattrol were on point in this. They made the most sense and raise legitimate points beyond the "but muh security" arguments we often see.
Well, at least one of panel members got it right. His point on the discrimintory intent behind many gun regulations was right on. Since the 14th amendment makes it harder to discriminate in the "Traditional Way," gun grabbers how pit the elites vs. common man (you got money, you got gun.)
This panel of constitutional gun-law experts only serves to show their lack of understanding concerning the minds of the criminal that use guns in crime and why. Also, the panel of experts demonstrates their great ignorance about guns in general and why they are used by criminals. Criminals use guns for their ability to force innocent victims to comply with their murderous intent. Criminals most always choose their victims from a ready pool of victims who are not able to resist effective criminal force without danger to themselves. These so-called gun law experts know nothing about guns or how they function by the criminal. They do not realize that all semi-automatic actions are designed to fire only one shot per trigger pull. Criminals do not care which make or model their particular gun is, it's more about availability and price. Restricting guns with differing cosmetic features has no value to a criminal. You'll see guns with flash hiders, barrel shrouds, or bayonet lugs banned from sale by governments that are no smarter than the criminals. Having any of these prohibited features does nothing to make any gun more "dangerous" than those w/o. When was it last reported that someone was killed by having a bayonet or bayonet lug, or by a flash hider? The only guarantee that criminals will stop killing innocent people is to give them the death penalty since no paper law will do any good whatsoever.
In Great Britain and the European Union the right of freedom of speech is guaranteed unless that speech is illegal under some government statute. That is how the right is stated in the UN Charter of Human Rights and what that means is in reality no one actually has freedom of speech. That is how a comedian got convicted of making a joke. That is the reasoning used by every Circuit to uphold what are clearly violations of the Second Amendment. Using intermediate scrutiny the Courts have held that you do have a 2A right but government interests override that right, especially the 9th Circuit. So in reality these Courts have found the Second Amendment to be unconstitutional, that is the absurdity. If you follow the reasoning of Robert and Mary, who clearly support this two step method, nobody has a right to any weapon because of the government's interest in "public safety". What these people have chosen to ignore is all the actions the government could do to decrease non gun related deaths and the fact that licensed gun carry people commit one sixth of the crimes that non licensed people do. What they really want is for their class, upper middle class, wealthy people, to feel safer. It's not enough that they are the most protected people in the country, it's not enough that they have everything they want or ever will want, it's not enough that every law passed advantages them, they want this too, that average Americans don't have the means to protect themselves. The average working slob, who can't depend on police protection, must give up our safety to make them feel safer. That is at the heart of this entire argument.
Wow. That's an ego to believe that a professor today understands 1600 era laws better than someone in the 1700s. If you are considering going to law school, I would urge you to watch this video and decide if you want to go to a school that hires professors who, in retrospect, got so much wrong about one of the biggest cases of his career.
Why do they think the court can consider whether a regulation is good policy or not? That isn’t their job. The only job they have is to see if the law is consistent with 2 A. The N Y law clearly infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.
Why is this guy that's arguing for guns everywhere all the time is arguing that mass murderers don't follow the law. Isn't that basing a law based on exception? Bad law
Why don’t they just go over the text of 2A? The state can’t infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms. Everything should be measured against that
As correctly noted within arguments, Rights are not "granted" "permitted" nor "allowed" by the government. Privileges are. I'll add that the most a Government may interfere with a right is to certify you are free of an impediment to it's exercise, (otherwise incorrectly called a "permit") "Sensitive places" are a construct, though possibly a necessary, and historically justified, one.
Background checks, which I assume is what you mean by "government certifying" we are legally able to own and carry a gun, is an unconstitutional restraint on the People to freely, lawfully exercise our inherent Right of self defense, against ANY aggressor. They assume you are guilty UNTIL YOU prove otherwise, versus the legal standard of a presumption of INNOCENCE, with the burden of proof on the "authorities" to prove your guilt.
I think that Bob Cottrol had the most insight into the actual topic. I'm big 2A, but I'm always glad to see actual discussion of both sides from a member other than just for or against
This is one of the best discussions of the issues regarding the controversy in this case and its potential implications. The panel brought thoughtful commentary on the legal issues, the moderator did a nice summation and direction, and the viewer was not subjected to party-line bullet points by one-sided panels, which is so often the case. I would not have minded a format twice as long if it were to contain even more insights.
It strikes me that the carry restriction argument has become an urban versus rural argument. In New York state, residents of rural counties have a much easier time in obtaining a carry permit than residents in the five boroughs of New York City. California is similar, residents in rural counties can obtain carry permits while residents of the large metro areas are denied. So the argument should include "If I am a citizen in good standing who happens to live the Bronx, why should I be denied a carry permit while my cousin in Old Forge has a permit ?" This is regulation by zip code. I don't see how it can withstand legal scrutiny.
A couple of my comments disappeared, are we limited to number of comments we can make on this channel? Or, is censorship the standing procedure of our times here in the free and brave America?
If a statute is not challenged, it doesn't necessarily mean that the statute itself is not Constitutional. Are the statutes in favor of the New York position ones that have been challenged on their Constitutionality?
It will be 6-3. Roberts will vote in favor of the petitioners simply because if he doesn’t Thomas gets to assign the majority opinion and will self assign. Roberts fears the strength, depth, and breath Thomas will write in that opinion and its implications on further litigation. The national security apparatus is a captured agency. Their captor’s agenda is accomplished much less friction free if the state prevails.
@@bigzclipz5104 6-3. If Roberts votes with the liberals Thomas will self-assign the opinion and we'll end up with strict scrutiny with almost all gun laws on the books will instantly becoming unconstitutional.
@@brianthompson9485 I would certainly hope so! Here's hoping for the SCOTUS to wake up and do their damn jobs, upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights!
We have to begin with agreement that the 2nd Amendment does not require an individual to show special need (documentation of threats against them) in our to carry a concealed weapon for self-defense. Once we cross that hurdle we can discuss restrictions on carry. However the restrictions on where you can carry can't be so broad that it nullifies the right to carry. If you say all of Manhattan is a sensitive place you have now eliminated the right to carry for the million or so people that live in Manhattan.
