Second Amendment Legal Resources.
 

Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

I hope this is useful for people. The Law Library of Congress has a lot of good resources for legal research.

You might want to pass it on to the great authority on Constitutional law himself.....Obummer. The one that had to ask his A.G. how to get away with violating the 2nd Amendment.

I guess you agree with your republican cronies that it is okay for a person on the terrorist no fly list to be able to buy a gun.

There is no "terrorist no fly list." It's just a NO FLY list and it covers a lot of people that have done nothing wrong. We have a back ground check. Exactly how many of the past mass murders, or any murders would have been stopped by this idea? Doing something that is totally irrelevant is only a pretense by the establishment to fool the ignorant into a false sense of security, when the fact is that they know of no way to change anything. If laws are not enforced and intelligence sources have their hands tied behind their back, then nothing is accomplished. Are you stupid enough to believe that this idea would in any way be beneficial?

You seem to be an expert on guns, laws, and intelligence. How would you stop gun violence, or is it every man for themselves?

Good question! Let me see if I can answer it to your standards.

First off, I wouldn't make redundant, posturing laws and regulations, just to look like I had done something "progressive."

Second, I would push more gun handling safety education.
Third, I would encourage all states to have concealed carry laws, not just 40 or so that we have now.
Fourth, I would make an additional penalty for any crimes perpetrated that included the use of a gun, even if it is just brandished during the commission of a crime.
Fifth, I would discourage gun free zones.
Sixth, I would come down hard on gun violation punishments, using punishment as a deterrent.
Seventh, I would make it perfectly clear that over half the gun deaths are caused by suicide, not criminal intent.

That would be a start, but I would be open to other positive means of addressing the issue.

I would also make it perfectly clear that anyone that is scared of guns, cowards, or adverse to the loud noise they make, have the option of NOT purchasing a gun.

Would that stop ALL gun violence? No, but unless you can figure out how to eliminate all means of projectile propulsion, you will never get rid of objects being thrust at others. And that will never, ever happen. And even then, you will not eliminate evil intent or violence in the world.

So, instead of looking for a way of surrendering to bullying entities in the world, the pacifists need to quit attempting to hinder those that have a propensity to protect others.

And to add to the punishment as a deterrent, I would use execution of murderers as a means.

Finally, a well thought out answer. I don't believe that execution has ever been a deterrent to murder, but that has nothing to do with gun laws.

Execution is the absolute deterrent to murder, rape, etc. They won't be doing any of that again. Make it nasty and public and it might make a few stop and think before deciding to act violently. Nothing works 100%, but if it works for a few, then it can't hurt.

Kind of like you want to emulate Iran, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea? Great company you want to keep.

I totally understand that the 2nd amendment provide every the right to bear arms. But that is all it says, it doesn't say we don't have to go through a background check for example. So explain why a background check violates the 2nd amendment, seriously I would like to understand it. Please consider this request is an attempt for an open conversion on this subject.

It is hard to understand we can be required to have a driver's license to drive a car and have to purchase insurance for that car.

I should disclose that a gun owner threatened me with a concealed weapon on a public street a few years ago. He did spend the weekend in jail and after several court dates postponed hoping I would not be able to attend, I traveled for work every week, he did take a plea deal.

Did you misunderstand my one line statement? I was being a bit satiric when I suggested that someone should send information on the 2nd Amendment to Obama. After all he is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution, and yet he said he had to confer with the A.G. to get help with it. He's the one that was bragging about being a Constitutional authority it.

Do I have a problem with background checks for the purchase of a gun? Well, we already have a Federal requirement for a background check, so that's a moot point. Not that it will change anything related to the mass murders, terrorist attacks, robberies, drug shootings, etc. And not that it will eliminate half the shooting deaths which are due to suicide. But, if the gov wants to waste resources on a mostly impotent practice, who am I to criticize.

Understand that background checks will most likely NOT uncover any mental problems. It usually finds out if a person has a felony conviction. You do realize that a thorough background investigation like the one they do for a Federal clearance for classified information costs thousands of dollars, depending on how detailed they want to get with it.

Perhaps you don't understand that the two states that I have obtained a concealed carry permit, required classes, fingerprints, photos and background check before issuance.

As far as being confronted by a person with a concealed weapon, I have no idea what you went through. I don't believe that a background check will always discover a person that had anger issues. Just like a drivers test won't find a person that has a tendency of driving while drunk.

The gov believes that regulating, restricting and throwing money at the issue is going to fix everything. In my opinion, ONLY strict penalties, ENFORCED is going to slow down, but not stop crime. There will ALWAYS be crime and ALWAYS be violence. We have less violence in the Villages than most other places because we have more mature (older) people, that have a tendency to respect the law more than the younger generation. And since most seniors are financially secure here, there is really no need for crimes of avarice.

I wouldn't say that maintaining law and order makes us similar to those radical countries, but being liberals and coddling criminals makes us weak. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals have no problem killing innocent babies, but scream hysterically when it comes to punishing the evil criminals. I still haven't found a liberal that can logically explain that.

Which countries besides the United States, North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran execute people? Great company you want to be in.

Keep the convicted murderers in prison doing hard time. No coddling.

Problem with the background checks we already do is that they are only as good as the information in the system. The system currently provides information on some felons.

In 2010 over 80,000 felonies were committed by prohibited people trying to obtain a gun. 44...yes 44 were actually prosecuted.

There are more than enough laws and regulations on the books. How about we try something called prosecution! More laws and regs will mean NOTHING without the follow up procedures that are supposed to occur. It is quite simple really.

Gun violence is down almost 50% over the last couple decades (Source FBI data) And decreased 6% in 2014 According to the FBI UCR. And then let us look at the raw numbers....300,000,000(approx) guns legally owned by Americans and lets divide that by an average annual murder number Approx 10,000=0.00003333%

Many more people are killed with household objects each year than "assault" weapons.

Just more pontificating from a man who has done nothing for this country...but he did just release a few more terrorists from Guantanimo!

Prosecution emphasis to the letter of the law would mean increased incarceration of minorities......and the current race based mindset in the WH led by Obama and the media can not handle the reality.