7 ms·

The age restriction is illegal, just ruled on by CA Supreme Court. Social Media activity check is a violation of the 4th amendment. You can't tax or gate a ri

The age restriction is illegal, just ruled on by CA Supreme Court. Social Media activity check is a violation of the 4th amendment. You can't tax or gate a right by requiring someone to join a militia.

petschge 4y ago
Just a thought: If the constitution prevents things that would work to prevent this problem form reoccuring, maybe the constitution needs fixing. After all it is rather old and contains a whole bunch of other bugs as well.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  > contains a whole bunch of other bugs as well. You might get agreement on that point. You won't get agreement on what the bugs are, though, so fixing them by changing the Constitution is rather difficult.
- buscoquadnary 4y ago
  The constitution already has that in account however you need a constitutional amendment that would require 3/4 majority in both houses of Congress to approve that. However right now trust in the government is so low that even if the constitution was amended many gun owners would probably be unlikely to accept the result.
  - LodeOfCode 4y ago
    >require 3/4 majority in both houses of Congress 2/3rds of each house, 3/4ths of the states
KerrAvon 4y ago
The ruling you're talking about was not the CA supreme court, which would be unlikely to rule that way. It's a federal appeals court; it was a politically motivated 2-1 decision. https://news.yahoo.com/californias-under-21-gun-ban-231828089.html https://news.yahoo.com/californias-under-21-gun-ban-23182808... Checking your activity on social media during a firearms background check is not a violation of the 4th amendment. You can certainly enforce the second amendment militia requirement, although it will require a vast different SCOTUS than the one we have now.
- bifrost 4y ago
  You cannot gate a right with a requirement to be in a militia. Even if you could, you only need one person to be a militia. The government looking through your personal information requires due process, otherwise its a violation of the 4th amendment.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    Militia is a big part of the 2nd amendment. Why is that mentioned at all?
    - krapp 4y ago
      Unfortunately the current definition of "well regulated militia" per the Supreme Court doesn't require either regulation (in the sense of laws, or even discipline and training) or a militia.
      - atchoo 4y ago
        If that's allowed then let's just go the whole hog and consider "keep and bear arms" as null and void meaningless words too. Who knew the solution was so easy.
        krapp 4y ago
        Unfortunately, that phrase is apparently immutable.
    - tpmoney 4y ago
      It's an explantory/reasoning clause. I saw this somewhere and think it's a good example: If there were an amendment that said "A well educated electorate being necessary to the functioning of the democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you'd have a very hard time convincing me (or I think most people) that said amendment limits the right to keep and read books only to those that are either well educated already, or by only the electorate (and not say, children or felons). Likewise, if the first amendment said something along the lines of "A personal connection with his creator being necessary for a upstanding and moral citizen, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I think you'd also have a hard time arguing that athiests and agnostics don't have a right to free expression or to not have a religion forced upon them by the government.

petschge 4y ago

Just a thought: If the constitution prevents things that would work to prevent this problem form reoccuring, maybe the constitution needs fixing. After all it is rather old and contains a whole bunch of other bugs as well.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> contains a whole bunch of other bugs as well. You might get agreement on that point. You won't get agreement on what the bugs are, though, so fixing them by changing the Constitution is rather difficult.
buscoquadnary 4y ago
The constitution already has that in account however you need a constitutional amendment that would require 3/4 majority in both houses of Congress to approve that. However right now trust in the government is so low that even if the constitution was amended many gun owners would probably be unlikely to accept the result.
- LodeOfCode 4y ago
  >require 3/4 majority in both houses of Congress 2/3rds of each house, 3/4ths of the states

KerrAvon 4y ago

The ruling you're talking about was not the CA supreme court, which would be unlikely to rule that way. It's a federal appeals court; it was a politically motivated 2-1 decision. https://news.yahoo.com/californias-under-21-gun-ban-231828089.html https://news.yahoo.com/californias-under-21-gun-ban-23182808... Checking your activity on social media during a firearms background check is not a violation of the 4th amendment. You can certainly enforce the second amendment militia requirement, although it will require a vast different SCOTUS than the one we have now.

bifrost 4y ago
You cannot gate a right with a requirement to be in a militia. Even if you could, you only need one person to be a militia. The government looking through your personal information requires due process, otherwise its a violation of the 4th amendment.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Militia is a big part of the 2nd amendment. Why is that mentioned at all?
  - krapp 4y ago
    Unfortunately the current definition of "well regulated militia" per the Supreme Court doesn't require either regulation (in the sense of laws, or even discipline and training) or a militia.
    - atchoo 4y ago
      If that's allowed then let's just go the whole hog and consider "keep and bear arms" as null and void meaningless words too. Who knew the solution was so easy.
      - krapp 4y ago
        Unfortunately, that phrase is apparently immutable.
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    It's an explantory/reasoning clause. I saw this somewhere and think it's a good example: If there were an amendment that said "A well educated electorate being necessary to the functioning of the democracy, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed", you'd have a very hard time convincing me (or I think most people) that said amendment limits the right to keep and read books only to those that are either well educated already, or by only the electorate (and not say, children or felons). Likewise, if the first amendment said something along the lines of "A personal connection with his creator being necessary for a upstanding and moral citizen, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I think you'd also have a hard time arguing that athiests and agnostics don't have a right to free expression or to not have a religion forced upon them by the government.