Supreme Court scrutinizes state, local gun control

Source: Associated Press

Supreme Court scrutinizes state, local gun control
By MARK SHERMAN
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Gun control advocates are wishing and hoping they can win by losing when the Supreme Court rules on state and local regulation of firearms. The justices will be deciding whether the right to possess guns guaranteed by the Second Amendment - like much of the rest of the Bill of Rights - applies to states as well as the federal government. It's widely believed they will say it does.

But even if the court strikes down handgun bans in Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park, Ill., that are at issue in the argument to be heard Tuesday, it could signal that less severe rules or limits on guns are permissible.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is urging the court not to do anything that would prevent state and local governments "from enacting the reasonable laws they desire and need to protect their families and communities from gun violence."

By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns. Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-02-27-08-51-44

that every child must be given a loaded weapon upon birth.

Or maybe they will just declare that Corporations are our one true God.

Who knows what will come out of this unelected branch. They keep topping themselves.

:think:

Good! because, as we've all been told...

It's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people. So if a gun is a person, then we can all agree that, as Eddie Izzard says, "the gun helps".

Makes sense to me... :-(

only on this issue is it OK to idolize a republican here on DU.

But I am a supporter of the Brady Bill, and what happened to James Brady is the reason it exists. BTW, I'm a former NRA member and shot competitively in my youth, but oppose guns being in the wrong hands, especially in those of someone who doesn't know how to use them, or anyone who uses a gun to shoot another human being, even a Republican president. :-(

with the Brady Bill/NICS, and believe it is a good system despite occasional failures. If that is where the Bradys quit, I would be fine with them....it isn't, they are the absolute most dishonest political action group I can think of. The Brady org is ran by republicans and caters to mostly Dems. I am not at all sure that the Bradys are not intentionally pulling on Dems knowing that gun control in general has/would cost Dems elections, which I believe it has....perhaps more than any other issue in the last 50 years. Brady.org has out lived their usefulness by about 15 years IMHO.

But I do understand what you mean about the political liabilities faced by pro gun control candidates. Many gun owners are one issue voters. I worked on the campaign for Scott Murphy, the congressman who replaced Kirsten Gillibrand when she was appointed senator. Since she's a gun owner, she received an A rating from the NRA, and he pledged to continue her policies. That's all that many of the people I spoke to needed to hear...

And thanks for the information about Brady.org. I don't know why I never considered this, but I'm going to be looking at them a lot more closely from now on. :hi:

:hi:

Guns are great and all but I dont get the obsession with wanting to carry them everywhere you go. Have them for home defense, to hunt with if that's what you like to do(I don't), or just to shoot at a range. But you dont need one on you all the time. If you do then you need to re-evaluate the places you go.

will be on hand to explain to us why that's right and proper and anyone who objects to that decision is an ignoramus and a fool.

...and such decisions somehow don't spring from the obvious ideology of the court majority...

it has done, but worshipped by the gun crazies --!!

You would think that when the Gang of 5 are supporting an issue it would wake

you up to how wrong it is!!

n/t

To get people past the laziness and cowardice of blaming inanimate objects for the actions of human beings.

How about the laziness, disingenuousness and absurdity of ignoring that sans inanimate objects people are not as dangerous or capable of killing..... with little effort.....from a distance.

How about the myopic and obtuse notion that being able to buy a weapon for killing in a tent in Bumfuck Alabama with no real checks is just hunky dory?

They're not dangerous unless used. And that still means you blame the person, not the object.

Ahh, the gun-show canard. Proving your ignorance.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's safer to blame tools.

I get it, you're too scared to look at society's real problems.

an opportunity here?

Let's stop trying to ban the bomb and just ban its USE!!

And same with guns -- let everyone have a gun -- just ban it's USE!!

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Look at this map and decide how "disdained" people who defend our rights are.

BTW, please define "gun nut"

How much damage have they done to the nation in brutalizing it since

the move to the right?

A "gun nut" is someone who believes he has an unlimited right to a gun --

is highly emotionally involved with his gun -- and wants no regulation of

the gun nor his "right" to it -- Basically a Fundamentalist with a gun.


Meanwhile, notice the opening clause . . . "A well-regulated Militia" --

not only would the "gun nut" like to completely ignore the opening clause . . .

they don't seem to notice that it recommends "REGULATION" . . . !!!

Why?

And why do you persist in misinterpreting the meaning of "well-regulated" in an 18th Century context?

post -- give a link to it --

Evidently you work under the delusion that your comments are facts which

others should not ignore!!

:rofl:

Meanwhile we can all determine for ourselves what "well regulated" in those times

might have meant and what it means today -- and what it should mean today because

we don't still live in those times.


The "right" to a state militia is established in that clause -- the "right" to consider

countrymen as soldiers is established in that clause -- and the need and necessity

for it to be "well regulated" is established in that clause.

Like a clock you supervise and keep properly regulated --

The Founders were against a standing army -- this simply made citizens "soldier ready" --

if needed.

How quickly you forget and go back to your old broken-record arguments.

States have powers. People have rights.

The "right" to a state militia is established in that clause -- the "right" to consider

Nonsense. The right is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The reason that right was considered important enough to enumerate in the BoR was that having an armed populace that is proficient in the use of weapons makes forming a well-regulated militia a lot easier than doing so would be in a society where people were deprived of the right to keep and bear arms.

Every one had a gun at that time --

The idea was to further the notion of a militia -- countrymen ready to do battle if needed.

Opening clause

militia

arms

people


And it specifically refers to "the people" -- which is a collective term ... not individual.

Well regulated -- supervised and regulated!

Do you realize that the SC refers to "states rights" . . . ???!!!

Not that I'm aware of.

Let's see some proof.

And it specifically refers to "the people" -- which is a collective term ... not individual.

Typical leftist authoritarian revisionism.

It means individuals in every other place it's used in the Bill of Rights - Each and every person, not a group of people.

use by the SC -- it's a general rallying cry of the right wing!

Where have you been?

And do you recall a cartoon around 2000 where Scalia is an "abortionist"

re "STATES RIGHTS" -- that was widely circulated.

i.e., overriding of Florida State Supreme Court's mandate for a vote recount --


Typical DLC comment . . . ?

I really didn't know we have this level of childishness on the DU board!!

"The people" refers to the need for a militia -- which is stipulated in the opening clause.

As many other former US SC Justices have pointed out --

Bye --

Do states have the right to ban firearms "in common usage"?

Meanwhile, there will always be a right to confiscate guns --

you're kidding yourself if you don't think so and Katrina is the

perfect example of that ... confiscation by BOTH government and private forces --

.. there were state and federal legislation passed just to avoid such a thing happening again.

eta: do you know where laws allowing the confiscation of guns during declared emergencies came from? The race riots of the 60's- these laws were targeted at blacks. You sure you want to stand by them?

TIA

Scalia affirms state rights under Constitution

By Peter DeMarco, Globe Correspondent | February 11, 2004

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/02/11/scalia_affirms_state_rights_under_constitution/

Justice Scalia didn't use the term "state rights" or "states' rights". That was a reporter's interpretation. You haven't even cited a writing of the court, just someone's ham-handed paraphrasing of something Scalia said in a speech, and you had to go back more than six years to find that.

Scalia was clearly talking about what powers he believes the states have. Things they "can permit" or prohibit. Those are powers.

States don't have rights. Only people have rights.

States' rights in U.S. politics refers to the political powers that U.S. states possess in relation to the federal government, as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

So I'd quit the fanatacism if I were you . .

and the puerile behavior.



And here's the Encyclopedia for another refernece --

states' rights: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full ...
states' rights also States' rights pl.n. All rights not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor denied by it to the states

also States' rights (stāts)
pl.n.
1.All rights not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor denied by it to the states.
2.The political position advocating strict interpretation of the Constitution with regard to the limitation of federal powers and the extension of the autonomy of the individual state to the greatest possible degree.

http://www.answers.com/topic/states-rights



You might also recall the 1948 States Rights Party -- Strom Thurmond?

States' rights in U.S. politics refers to the political powers that U.S. states possess in relation to the federal government, as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights

So I'd quit the fanatacism if I were you . .

and the puerile behavior.



And here's the Encyclopedia for another refernece --

states' rights: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full ...
states' rights also States' rights pl.n. All rights not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor denied by it to the states

also States' rights (stāts)
pl.n.
1.All rights not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution nor denied by it to the states.
2.The political position advocating strict interpretation of the Constitution with regard to the limitation of federal powers and the extension of the autonomy of the individual state to the greatest possible degree.

http://www.answers.com/topic/states-rights



You might also recall the 1948 States Rights Party -- Strom Thurmond?

That's priceless.

And I've never seen a more obsession and fanatical and silly discussion . . .

childish . . . but so important to you all --

And, that's pretty much the way you all approach the gun control issue . . and

2nd amendment --

obsessively and fanatically -- and foolishly --

Weapons only breed more violence --

And the atomic weapon is the epitome of that reality -- we are less safe because

of these weapons.

States' rights is in common usage -- always has been --

even by members of the court --

It's nonsense to even question it -- as I've pointed out in my post.

Are you saying the dictionary and Encyclopedia are wrong?

Should be easy for you to do!

nice emotional taglines

See that's whats so great about courts; those little emotional pleas that work in the halls of the legislature don't work in the court room. Courts are for facts and logical reasoning (with a bit of a human touch) in regards to a situation.

:eyes:

outcome of SCOTUS cases these days.

These are nine very intelligent people, yet 5 all almost invariably see the facts and logic as all other Republicans do and the other 4 all almost invariably see the facts and logic as all other Democrats do? What are the odds?

w/o free speech

w/o protection against unreasonable searches

Yet, rights of speech and privacy are not unlimited.

furthermore, privacy rights protect violent criminals from being detected/apprehended/prosecuted frequently.

the fact that we need probable cause (and nexus in my state) to search a home means necessarily that even violent suspected criminals will often evade capture and/or preventive actions by law enforcement

there is a price to pay for freedoms.

that's why despots quelch speech and privacy rights. they recognize the danger.

Are you claiming that my words can cause someone to die instantanously. If not, your analogy between the First Amendment and the Second Amendment fails. Besides, as I also said, none of our Constitutional freedoms are absolute, including the First Amendment.

I understand very well that freedom comes at a price. So does living in an organized society.

a human.

from alphabet soup that spell "peanut" do not cause folks to die of a peanut allergy. Merely speaking words is different from the actions that may (or may not) follow the spoken word. Ordering people to fell trees does not, in and of itself cause the trees to fall. Following the orders and the machetes cause the trees to fall. Hence, it may make sense to regulate actions (including following illegal orders) and machetes more than we regulate mere speech.

What part of this concept is so hard to understand?

to the largest destruction of human life in recent history. Media was used influence people to stand behind massive atrocities at both the national and local level. ww2 the killings in bosnia were media events.

edit:spelling

There is a a difference between what happens the instant you speak words, simply because you spoke them, and what MAY or may not happen at some point after you speak because your words may inspire action. There is a difference between speaking words and taking the actions the words describe, just as thre is a difference between using a menu and eating a menu. You insist on conflating the two, but they are not one and the same.

Again, no one drops dead the instant I say "drop dead," simply bc I said it. They do, however drop dead if I shoot their brains out.

No tree falls simply because I say "Deforest." Not until (a) someone decides to follow that order and (b) takes action. And, it is only the action that fells the tree, not my order.

I never once said or implied words cannot influence people to act, even to kill. I simply said words do not kill the instant they are spoken, simply because they are spoken. Again, for some reason, you continue to conflate speech, without more, being instantaneously lethal, with what kinds of actions speech MAY inspire (or not).

And with that, I give up, partly because I think you understand that very well. And partly bc if you really don't understand it very well by now, continuing in this vein is useless anyway.

But, five year olds get it.

but the words in the book mein kamph(sp) caused a bit of killing, so did a good old US favorite, Uncle Tom's Cabin. Words used properly are far more dangerous than your average gun.

Words do not kill when "fired," meaning the mere speaking of the words is not lethal, in and of itself. There is a difference between what words actually do and what words MAY ultimaately cause someone to do. (You don't eat a menu, either.) I don't know why this confusing anyone here because five year olds get it. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."

Please see also Reply 269.

In #238, you said..



So which is it? Are free speech and privacy rights? Or because they're regulated, are they privileges?

*snort*

Can a government constitutionally outlaw speech? No. So speech is a Constitutional right.

As far as regulation, I've posted ocnservatively on this thread that no right is absolute.



I suggest you stop posting things like "snort" and "no hope for you" until you read things a bit better, including the stuff that is at the links you yourself provide and the posts to which you purport to reply.

Just a suggestion.

..like constitutionally illegal, I'll keep calling you on it.

What is this 'constitutionally illegal' of which you speak?

Voting is not allowed for felons in many jurisdictions.. is voting a right?

However, if I had used it, it would be fairly close to the term "Cconstitutionally invalid," or "Constitutionally prohibited" and a number of similar terms the SCOTUS has used over and over for decades.

there are quite a few SS officers that fit this bill.

not kill when fired off. I can "fire off" "Drop dead," but no one will die immediately, no matter how much I may mean what I say. Someone has to take action. If I fire a gun, however, and I intend death, someone may well die, without further action on anyone's part.

I am pretty sure you and everyone else who read my post knew exactly what I meant and knew that I was being quite literal about words not killing "when fired."

Also makes it easier and faster and more frequent that they knock off themselves

and others!

By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns. Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.

bud light kills many people. Bud light was the reason people drive drunk behind the wheel and kill the little children. Bud light kills tens of thousands of people who use it to get all fucked up and drive.

Oh yea, 100k plus a year on emergency med fuckups.

Give up. This is a dead issue.

Is anyone here advocating a total ban on all guns everywhere in the U.S.?

leave firearm regulation alone. In fact support laws the make people who legally own firearms happy. Things like a national standard for CCW are great moves. That way if my job moves me to NYC or SOCAL I dont have to pay a lawyer to go make contributions (bribes) so I can get a permit that is free in RTP.

The days of fooling the ignorant into believing that some cosmetic firearm ban or one a month bullshit correlates are over. You might as well try to pass a law banning african americans from public schools.

Find a new issue this one is DONE. Like the music of mc hammer and vanilla ice, this type of legislation is passed.

As far as Democrats being in the minority, meh. We are never going to become the political party of the NRA anyway.

I'll tell you what my own position on this issue is.

I don't know enough about gun laws to say a lot about them one way or another. Those who oppose all or most gun control laws say we have enough on the books already and those are not enforced. I tend to believe both parts of that statement. (And I have not read anything that indicates we DO need them.)


But I also think a lot of other things said on threads like this are very bad arguments and/or very bad analogies. So, I tend to mistrust a lot of the posts, even though I agree (but only as a gut reaction) that we probably don't need more gun laws.

As far as a national law, I think there are differences between Montana and Manhattan that may well warrant different laws. There are not nationwide uniform laws about speech (parade permits, for instance), either. Or alcohol. Or emergency rooms. States and localties get to regulate all those things. So far, I have not heard one good argument for which gun rights should be more privileged than, for example, speech rights.

As far as the time for this legislation having passed-- The thread is about whether the second amendment of the Constitution applies to the states. Not sure which legislation you mean.

As far as your employeer moving you--that's between you and your employer.

As far as hiring a lawyer, why would you have to do that, as opposed to just calling the right state or local agency and asking questions?

by using a lawyer you can speed the path of cash from you to a sheriff's re-election campaign. The lawyer does the hard part of establishing a deal, and avoids the legal pitfalls that can come from purchasing influence. See unless you are able to pull that off, you will not get that permit. You can't walk in off the street and get it. That cash (say 15,000) will get you a "may issue" permit, where your simple application will not. Same piece of paper, just one has a 15,000 kicker behind it. In manhattan I have to pay that, and will use relo money to do it. Just like if you had to pay a fee to, say, be black and live in midtown. Some people could pay that fee, others could not. It is all based on money now.

I spend plenty of time outside the US doing business and I hate to see these processes in place in the US.

There are plenty of regulations around guns in the US. There is no reason to rank rights, they are important. Pretty sure the constitution applies. You are free to push to amend it, but that traditionally does not work well.

is news to me, but I will take you at your word. However, a lawyer may still be unnecessary as the Congressional ethics committee apparently thinks a campaign contribution followed by a favor to a contributor in the form of an earmark neither breaks any law nor even violates any ethical prohibition. So, based on that, maybe a middle man is not necessary.

However, if, by any chance, you are violating the law,I hope you get caught and convicted, along with any officials who participate . (Nothing personal. The rule of law just means a lot to me. I am also upset by Obama's refusal to prosecute Bushco, also nothing personal.

the system in NYC and most of california is rigged this way because of the way the permit structure is set to "may issue". That "may" generally means no, but cash seems to fix that. I play this game all over the world with my job and dance the fine line between bribe and legally using money to get a favorable outcome. It is pretty shameful to have to use it in NYC to get a permit. Basically if you are not paid or connected you cant get the permit.

See in NYC even though I have no criminal record. Have done two SSBI within the last 15 years one active clearance (though no longer employed by that company) I can not get the permit in NYC. However you can subtract all the background checking and just add some cash and get the permit.

The lawyer who is bound by atty client privilege is charged with securing the permit. He gets to figure out how to get that done legally, not me. Not my fucking problem.

Probably unethical for the LEO or bureaucratic fucknut on the other end, not illegal (at least not by me) but sure is a lot of effort to get a permit that is like a drivers lisc in most other states.

The law is written to deny access to those without privilege.

There is no pulling anyone over at a "stop" to inspect for a weapon and a permit --

There is such a thing as a "stop" to inspect whether the driver has been drinking --

And there are no age limitations -- kids have guns now -- all encouraged by the

GOP/NRA --

Get 'em while they're young!

lets sue glock because some crackhead bastard shot someone with a stolen gun. Lets sue heinz 57 because dahmer dipped his victims in it.

What kids have guns, wtf are you talking about?

BATF inspects FFL's based on sales and requires exact record keeping.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about, or just winging it?

and, I think one of the posters here was commenting on training school kids

in firearms? As part of a school program!!

But . . . you're saying that kids get ahold of parents' guns???

States will let children hunt with an adult present and let teenagers of various ages hunt without an adult after they have completed a hunters safety course. Where I grew up it was 16 to be able to hunt by yourself. There was a shooting team at the junior high and high school I attended.

On the other hand, the rangers were fond of walking up to people's tents, demanding they take their empties to the recycling now, and then arresting the hapless park employee for drunk in public. And on special occaisions kicking the shit out of them. Fuckers.


18 Suicides Reported In National Parks This Year - cbs4denver.com
Millions of people come to national parks each year to enjoy the splendors of wildlife and natural beauty, but a tiny fraction arrive with a grim agenda.
cbs4denver.com/.../suicide.national.parks.2.757212.html - 102k - Cached

http://cbs4denver.com/watercooler/suicide.national.parks.2.757212.html



By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns. Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.

Evidently most national parks do permit liquor --

a few don't --

And those stats look bullshit-familiar.

And you know the stats are bullshit how exactly?

By some estimates, about 90 million people in the U.S. own a total of some 200 million guns. Roughly 30,000 people in the United States died each year from guns; more than half of them are suicides. An additional 70,000 are wounded.

But, I have no doubts that it's probably true --

I looked quickly and couldn't find the original poster -- there might have been a link?

(Ah, yes, it is in the OP) ---

On the other hand, we do know that the gun woundings which we all pay for cost about

$40,000 per wounding X 70,000 !!!

Wow --

And, presumably the GOP/NRA accept no responsibility for helping to pay off that expense!!

.. pay for accidents caused by drunk drivers?

and very very few guns in civilian hands

they manage

interestingly, japanese americans tend to use guns in their suicides

why?

because they are available

in neither case did guns CAUSE suicides

the same goes for homicides.

your position is that the only variable between people of all nationalities in the U.S. and people of all nationalities in Japan is the number of guns in civilian hands.

And, with all due respect, you have no clue why Japanese Americans "tend" to use guns in their suicides.

All your post proves is a tendency to leap to conclusions on the basis of no evidence.

the idea that proliferation of guns is neither sufficient nor necessary for a high suicide rate.

furthermore, the fact that japanese carry their propensity for suicide across national boundaries supports the concept that culture is the culprit, not guns availability.

in fact, michael moore makes this point about culture in bowling...

But your post proves nothing about whether greater availability of guns increases deaths or injuries, intentional and accidental.

And, with all due respect to you and Michael Moore, culture is not the only factor in suicides, but that is beside the point.

BTW, your post did not prove even the very narrow point you claim it proved.

guns are used to commit suicide --

If anything easier were available that would be used -- drugs, for instance.

If you want to commit suicide you pretty much have only violent options ---

sword, guns, rope -- jumping from a window.

Presumably, guns are nearly the best and fastest way --

We don't know, however, that guns don't cause some "homicides" --

In fact, I think we understand quite well that having a gun can

make it more likely -- and that if a gun is handy, it will be used --

Oh yeah. I guess it is.

I've got to think about something other than overpopulation I guess.

advocates.

replied to it

If the insult applied only to posts in the gungeon, it should have been thusly qualified, and probably should have been posted only in the gungeon.

A Parable.

Buddhist monks were taught not to touch a female. An older monk and a younger monk were walking, when they came upon a woman who was standing in front of a messy puddle, hesitating to cross it. The older monk picked up the woman, crossed the puddle and put her down on the other side.

The next day, the younger monk, unable to contain himself any longer, asked the older monk in exasperation, "How could you have picked up that woman?"

The older monk replied, "I put her down yesterday, why are are you still carrying her?

lets see what happens when they mess with Hizzoner the Emperor of Chicago

So whatever favors the rights of gun manufacturers will come out on top.

It's quaint that anyone believes that they will consider individuals over corporations.

but in DC vs. Heller, ALL 9 justices ruled that the 2nd amendment referred to an individual right -- they only disagreed on the scope of that right. Regardless of where you stand on gun control, outlawing a whole class of firearms and then saying that it is a "reasonable" restriction is total bs and ought to be struck down. Which it will be.

It's just another class of firearm.

own that legally. You just have to do the proper paperwork. The age of gun control being used to fool the people impacted by crime into the idea that the government is helping them by banning a cosmetic feature is gone.

Time to move on, this issue is done.

You just proved my point!

Damn panty liberuls...

They're out in force today.

Like the "ignore the "militia" part" is out in force....as usual.

My late husband went to gunsmith school, we took our son to hunter safety class...I am pro gun rights, but it galls me to have the whole 'well regulated militias' disregarded entirely. The Democratic Party of Otero County (New Mexico) has had a rifle raffle for years as a fundraiser...and awareness raiser, because so many of our Democrats are hunters.

However, I think there are many guns and many places that are inappropriate and I think a community should be able to decide they want no firearms.

Mosques? "Left wing" newspapers? What other civil rights can communities opt out of?

Our rights don't end at the bill of rights, nor does the bill of rights proscribe rights, merely the level and extent of protection that the government must not step over.

Otherwise, the ninth and tenth amendments would make no damn sense whatsoever.

Obviously, the words about a militia were intended mean something, too.

FYI: If government can Constitutionally make something illegal, it's not a right. It's only a privilege you have unless and until government feels like regulating it.

If you cannot enforce something in court, it's not a right.

When the SCOTUS first decided there was some kind of right to abortion, it did not make that decision independently of the Constitution, even though the Constitution did not mention abortion. Rather, it extrapolated a right to abortion from the "emanations" and "penumbras" of various express provisons of the Constitution.

It's the reason why the right is protected. If I say "I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the grocery store"- do you think that I'm only going to purchase soda? Or that grocery stores only sell soda?

For an analogous usage of this "{reason},{statement}" construct, see Rhode Island's constitution Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments...". That doesn't limit the extent of expression, merely explains why protecting free speech is important.

Similarly, the Second Amendment's opening clause does not limit the operative clause to certain purposes, just explains one purpose that makes the operative clause needed.



LOL!

Is the first amendment a right then? After all, you have to get a permit to associate for a political demonstration. And you can't broadcast over radio without a license (over a certain wattage).

Is voting a right? You do have to meet certain criteria set by the government before you are allowed to cast a ballot.

All rights are regulated, there are no unrestricted rights that I'm aware of. Otherwise all laws regarding libel, slander, etc would be held to be unconstitutional.

that activity is not a right.

What part of that do you not understand?

Your statement makes no sense. Congress can't make something illegal that is a right. Your first clause and second clause can never happen (or may happen, but would be overturned on appeal.)

What part of this whole thread don't you understand? This is the question before the court, whether Chicago can constitutionally make handgun ownership illegal.

Once we have incorporation, and a level of scrutiny, then we can decide what level of abridgment is constitutional.

I'll leave it at that because further discussion between us is unlikely to be productive.

You really believe that the 2nd is the only part of the BOR that does not delineate an individual right? Really - governments have rights just like people?

also delineates the reason the right is granted. If we are talking about owning guns for reasons having nothing to do with a militia, the ability to regulate increases.

As far as treating the Second Amendment differently from other amendments in the bill of rights, hello. It's worded differently. Besides, the SCOTUS has repeatedly held that not a single one of our rights is absolute. It always comes down to deciding if the interest of government in regulating is legitimate. (E.g., forbidding loud noises is legitimate. Forbidding only loud speeches, maybe not so legit.) And, if the interest of government in regulating is found to be legit, it comes down to weighing the interest of government in the regulation in question against the liberty interest.

I think it's easy to see that government, whose overarching function is to protect the health and safety of its citizens, has more of a legitimate interest in regulating guns than it has in regulating criticism of government. But, p.s., government regulates speech, too. Always has.

.. of course we can't get there until the second amendment is incorporated.

First it has to apply to states and localities (the central question to be answered in McDonald).

Then we have to have a level of scrutiny set (maybe McDonald, maybe future cases.)

Only then can you start to weigh government interest against infringement.

See Cantwell v. Connecticut - "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."

or Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections- "a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth."

or Talley v. California - "We have recently had occasion to hold in two cases that there are times and circumstances when States may not compel members of groups engaged in the dissemination of ideas to be publicly identified. Bates v. Little Rock, 361 U.S. 516; N. A. A. C. P. v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 462. The reason for those holdings was that identification and fear of reprisal might deter perfectly peaceful discussions of public matters of importance. This broad Los Angeles ordinance is subject to the same infirmity. We hold that it, like the Griffin, Georgia, ordinance, is void on its face."

Each of these demonstrate the 'balancing' you speak of, and the level of scrutiny decides the scales.

While not likely, the most restrictive (to government) is Strict Scrutiny- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

But, if you enjoy copying and pasting, go for it.

and even some things about how the newspaper operates and what it contains.

It cannot regulate solely on the basis of whether the newspaper leans left or right, though.

that is the issue - there is a Constitutional limit to how far regulation can go. That's where DC and Chicago went wrong.

A ban on all handguns may be indeed be unconstitutional. I don't know that at this stage. I have to see what the Supreme Court says and the reasons it gives.

However, banning all speech is to the First Amendment as banning all arms is to the Second Amendment.

Banning all speech is NOT the counterpart to banning all handguns, but allowing every other kind of weapon.

Maybe banning handguns is more like banning speech that incites to violence, or dangerous speech, like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or hate speech. I don't know. But I do know that banning all handguns in crowded cities where they have been a real problem historically, but allowing rifles, knives and scads of other kinds of "arms" is not the counterpart of banning ALL speech.

(I am speaking here only as to the flaw of the analogy. Per the earlier part of this post, I am not saying the ban is either constitutional or unconstitutional.)

they wanted to ban the most popular weapons for self defense. Yes, I think banning an entire class of guns is un-Constitutional. And fortunately the Supreme Court agrees with me.

In Heller, the Supreme Court has already answered your question - a ban on all handguns is un-Constitutional.

not read the Heller opinion itself yet.

I suspect you and I would have different opinions about the facts, though. We always do.

struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Requiring that firearms be disassembled at all times is effectively banning them.

language you quoted from wiki, though, only in your statement. But I will take your word that the opinion says "at all times" and the owner was never allowed to re-assemble the gun or release the trigger lock, even when, say, hunting deer or shooting at a rifle range. I will take your word for that--at least, until I have a chance to read the actual court opinion.

Reply 279 went way over the top for no apparent reason, why, then, yes, I am an anti-vaxxer. And very grateful to be one!

If that cleared something up for you, cool.

I suggest you actually read the bill of rights, including the preamble which is contained within it:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution


http://billofrights.org/

To recognize that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by government, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state...does not ignore the "militia" part, it puts it in proper and correct context.


Putting it into proper and correct context does not amount to "ignoring" it.

Here is what became law re: arms:

"Amendment II
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

It tells us that the people have a right to bear arms. It also tells us why they have that right.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html


Here's the text.. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

That has to be one of the most outrageous claims I've ever seen.

about the Bill of Rights did not have a preamble.

It says the preamble never made it into the Constitution.

Therefore, the preamble never became part of the the law of this land. (Part of a Congressional resolution to amend the Constitution is not the law of the land unless and until it becomes part of the Constitution.)


Read the text of the resolution itself at the link you provided. It was never proposed that the preamble become part of the Constitution.

If that's the most outrageous claim you've ever read, you'll have to take it up with the Congress, as constituted in 1789 and the states that ratified the Bill of Rights. But, I feel obliged to tell you that the statute of limitations has probably run.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

"The capitalization and punctuation in this version is from the enrolled original of the Joint Resolution of Congress proposing the Bill of Rights, which is on permanent display in the Rotunda of the National Archives Building, Washington, D.C."

You said- "There is no preamble to the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. IOW, the preamble never became law."

If you don't understand the difference between the text that congress passes and law, there's no hope for you.

Our rights aren't limited by the bill of rights. If it did, the ninth and tenth amendments wouldn't make sense. You seem to be suggesting that our rights are 'granted' by the bill of rights, and only to the limits that the bill of rights circumscribes. You couldn't be further from the truth.

US v Cruikshank:

"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

"The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz....."


In other words, Congress never proposed that the preamble become part of the Constitution. As to the difference between a Congressional resolution and what becomes part of the Constitution, my prior post was correct. If you doubt that, read the Constituion itself, as to how the Constitution can be amended. Hint: It is not by what Congess passes alone.

"If you don't understand the difference between the text that congress passes and law, there's no hope for you."

I understand the difference between a law of Congress that does not require ratification by the states and a resolution of Congress regarding a Constitutional Amendment. Do you? BTW, when did the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, passed by Congress long ago, become the law of the land? Hint: it never did.


"You seem to be suggesting that our rights are 'granted' by the bill of rights, and only to the limits that the bill of rights circumscribes. You couldn't be further from the truth."

I stand by what my post said. As for your interpretation of my post, you're on your own.

There is a distinction there that I think you're missing.

However, the preamble does give context to the intent of the bill of rights. And that context flies in the face of your implication that rights are somehow penned in by the bill of rights.

Supreme court precedent for the same interpretation exists. I quoted one of them. Care to respond?

resolution of Congress. That does not have the force of law. You cannot enforce it. You cannot violate it. The states did not ratify it. It is not law.

"Care to respond?"



I've responded twice, once to say what I had to say about rights, and once to say that I stood by my original response about rights. I'll say it again, though, I stand by my original response.

Find me a case in which the SCCOTUS invalidates a state or federal law without citing an express provision of the Constitution, then we can discuss that. Otherwise, google "dicta."

The interpretation that our rights aren't "granted" or circumscribed by the bill of rights. (Which is why you've got a hard on to dismiss the preamble as meaningless- it's a smack in the face of the 'government as source of all rights' schtick.)

comes from dicta? Hell, getting back to the topic of this thread, do you know how much Fourteenth amendment interpretation has been based on footnotes?

eta: I completely forgot how the dicta in Miller set the 'collective' interpretation in motion.

http://www.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawliberty/pdfarchive/vol3no1/ECM_PRO_060964

originally said as dicta. Then it becomes law, but not before. The Cruickshank case you cited was decided in 1876, so we've been waiting quite a long time for dicta from that case to become law. If and when it ever happens, it will be worth discussing and not until then.

Do tell us. How much of 14th Amendment has been based on footnotes from other cases? (BTW, how much law about anything, including the 14th amendment comes from footnotes is not the topic of thread. The topic of the thread is whether or not the 14 amendment makes the Second Amendment applicable to the States. Its a yes or no question. I have not seen much of what you;ve been posting address it.)

Of course Miller was 1939. (My findlaw search finds ~35 cases citing Miller, many of which cite dicta on a cursory review- Parker, Haney, Hancock, Nordyke.)

The discussion was whether a single sentence of dicta from an 1876 case (Cruickshank) that you cited won your argument about Constitutional rights vs. other rights for you. It didn't. And that doesn't change, no matter how many questions you ask about Miller, a completely different case, or how many times the SCOTUS cited Miller.

Btw, the SCOTUS's citing does not mean the court is citing every sentence from Miller, including the dicta. It is citing Miller for its holding, not its dicta, unless it specified that it is citing Miller for its dicta, by following the cite with the word "dicta" or the word "dictum" in parentheses.

Or, if the Court quotes a specific sentence from Miller, it is citing Miller for that sentence and no other. So coming up with a raw number for how many times Miller was cited proves nothing about anything, even if the Court cited Miller for its dicta. That certainly does not prove that dicta from Cruickshank. that you quoted was dispositive of your argument.

If you really want to understand Constitutional law, try taking a course or actually reading some Supreme Court opinions start to finish--the more the better, but more than just a few. Getting info from gun related sources or google or wiki just doesn't do the job. If you don't really want to understand it, that's fine, too.

I just re-read the briefings in Miller.. funny passage from the government side- “The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”

Since then, you have not posted one thing that disproves it. Nor can you.

If a court will not enforce something that you consider a right, be it a right you think you have under the law or under a contract or a so-called natural right, then you don't have that "right." It's only a right if a court will enforce it.

How do you encompass the idea of an unenumerated right?

Do you assert that they don't exist until legislation protects them?

exist unless legislation protects it--unless you consider the Constitution legislation.

When Roe v. Wade found a right to abortion, many, if not all, states had legislation that made abortion illegal. The Court declared those laws all unconstitutional, at least as to the first trimester. (The second and third trimesters got different rules, and succeeding cases expanded Roe for decades, but the right is now contracting.)

Does a 12 year old girl have a right to get an abortion in her home state today without parental consent if her home state requires consent?

We can argue about whether she SHOULD have the right. But, as far as I know, she does not currently have the right.

I do disagree with the SCOTUS sometimes, especially now that the decisions are almost invariably along party lines. But my personal opinion that someone SHOULD have a particular right does not equate to someone actually having a right.

Now, if you want to call that a right she has that no one will enforce, that is up to you, but I think that's silly. I won't debate it, though. Then again, I never had much patience for the "Does a tree falling make a sound if no one is around to hear it" discussion, either.

That is a very odd way of looking at things.

Especially the part about the falling tree.

If that does not clarify my meaning for you, perhaps you can be more specific about what you mean by "refused to protect people in regards to Bush." Without more specificty, I have no idea what you are talking about and therefore cannot reply.

However, I can assure you, the belief that you really don't have a right unless a court will enforce it is not an odd way of looking at things. Believers in the philosophy of "Natural rights" may look at things differently, but my view is that held by many lawyers.

Note, the Declaration of Independence never became the law of the land. If you read the entire document, you see it was mostly a justification to Americans and other nations of the unprecedented act of colonies declaring themselves a nation, independent of their sovereign.

The Constitution did become the law of the land. The Constitution makes no mention of God (except in giving the date, but that is a long story that literally starts before Julius Caesar) or a Creator or of Creator-given rights or inalienable rights.

you claim to be "re-reading," the briefs in the case.)

And as another poster said to you, the preamble gives it gives CONTEXT, to how the amendments are to be read. As restrictions on the power of government, specifically.

Theres no disputing that. Oh, I don't deny that it can be ignored, as many seem to try to do just that, but theres no disputing what the preamble says.

The preamble is essentially an instruction how to read the the document, and states its purpose.

To ignore it, is to piss on the graves of the framers, and indeed our nation and the principles it was founded on as well.

Drama much? For some reason, hyperbole seems to abound on certain types of threads.

The preamble cites a historical fact. The states/colonies, having just overthrown a king, were understandably very leery of the federal government. The original Constitution said nothing about the rights of states or of individuals, the Framers seeing the Constitution as simply granting power to the Federal government. The Constitution was adopted by the states as is, but with the understanding that the bill of rights be circulated for ratification in short order. And the federal government kept its word.

I don't dispute those historical facts. They are very well documented, and would be very well documented, even if the preamble never existed. However, the poster seemed to be implying that that the preamble had some particular legal significance beyond reciting very well known historical facts. That is what I was disputing.

Bear in mind, the power of the colonies, then the states, to regulate came to the Governor's of the colonies from the power of the king--and the king's power was quite broad. The original colonies had adopted the laws of England (as in existence at the time of Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII, as their own, obviously substituting the power of the state over the individual for the combined power of the King and Parliament over the individual. But the colonies/states ceded some of that power to the federal government.

So, the ninth and tenth amendment do not necessarily contemplate tons of rights of individuals to be free of both state and federal regulation. That was deemed to be between the individual and his state. Rather, the ninth and tenth amendments articulate a federalism issue---the relation between the federal government vs. a state government.

The concept that any part of the federal Constitution limited the state's power over an individual did not come about until the SCOTUS started applying parts of the Bill of Rights to the States via the 14 Amendment. The relative rights of individuals vis a vis their states was not originally contemplated by the ninth and tenth amendments.
And all these historical facts are also well known.

Rather the "because" in the preamble makes even clearer

that a "well regulated militia" is intended to be something that the

government would regulate and supervise -- as a unit.

There is no individual right here --

and beyond that a state would still have a right to REGULATE arms among the public

for the safety of all citizens.

We gave up concepts of Wild West America a long time ago --

"Rather the "because" in the preamble makes even clearer that a "well regulated militia" is intended to be something that the government would regulate and supervise -- as a unit."

Go ahead. Regulate the "militia" to your hearts content. It may be necesary to the security of a free state. But don't be infringing on a right belonging to the people, to keep and bear arms.

"There is no individual right here -- and beyond that a state would still have a right to REGULATE arms among the public for the safety of all citizens."

Theres an old saying...goes something like this:

The ignorant honest person, when presented with the truth, either ceases to be ignorant... or ceases to be honest.

Now I'll present you some truth:

Recognizing the dangers of mob rule, our Bill of Rights defined some of the areas where the individual would be immune to the will of the collective. What this means is, no matter how many of us disagree with you, we cannot lawfully use force to shut you up, to suppress your political views, or to make you worship in the way we see fit. We cannot break into your house and search your property without probable cause and a legal warrant. We can't torture you into confessing to a crime. Barring behaviors on ones part to disqualify ones self, we cannot strip people of their right to keep and bear arms.


"We gave up concepts of Wild West America a long time ago"

Who "we" white man?

From Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, a member of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction
that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment:

Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of
the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may
be—for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature—to
these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments
of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right
appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be
exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to
be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue
of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be
informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury
of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and
unusual punishments.


Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by
the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first
eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of
decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges,
rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as
a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/conlaw/senatorhoward...

Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan, circa 1866. That spells is out pretty unequivocally:

"the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments
of the Constitution ; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right
appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms ;"

But I guess you know better than the senator, and indeed the framers themselves, right?


And now were back to that old saying:

The ignorant honest person, when presented with the truth, either ceases to be ignorant... or ceases to be honest.

Which will you cease to be?

Its tantamount to claiming that only part of the document was passed into law...

Reality is, the document was signed.

The document is law. Not just parts of it.

to be supervised, to be "regulated."

Citizens were expected to be the soldiers, the fighting forces at that time --

There was no draft -- there was no Blackwater --


because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

If you're interpreting the Second Amendment, the issue would be,

What did "militia" mean to most people (or by statute) when the Second Amendment was being considered, writen and ratified? And, if folk then were around today, what would they likely think the Second Amendment should cover today? Conversely, what would they think states should be able to regulate today?

That would be the Scalia "originalist" approach anyway. Except, of course, after giving it lip service, Scalia then goes on to decide whatever the PNCC handbook says he should decide.

Think of it this way: Congress could not, by defining "speech" or "the press" in a statute, alter freedom of speech or freedowm of the press, as those terms are used in the Constitution.

"If you're interpreting the Second Amendment, the issue would be, What did "militia" mean to most people (or by statute) when the Second Amendment was being considered, writen and ratified? And, if folk then were around today, what would they likely think the Second Amendment should cover today? Conversely, what would they think states should be able to regulate today?"





The second amendment stands as a restriction on the power of government. Just as the first amendment does. Just like the 4th and 5th do. Nothing more, nothing less.

As such, the word "militia" is 100% irrelevant to its purpose and meaning, beyond it being a word used in a phrase that tells why a right belonging to the people shall not be infringed by government.

The constitution authorizes, and the bill of rights proscribes. Both aimed at government.


Any other view ignores the plain truth of the matter.

It said the word "militia" meant what a modern statute said it meant. I replied that, as to the Constitution, the word
"militia" meant what people at around 1789 thought it meant, not what Congress today says "militia" means. What you are finding in that to contradict in that--let alone to imply I ignored the alleged "plain truth" -- is beyond me.

You should read some of his letters about the subject.

And that's exactly what the founders intended that absent a standing army which

they objected to and absent a draft -- absent Blackwater mercenaries -- the people

were the soldiers.

Did they have a vision of a National Guard at that time being hauled off to Vietnam

or Iraq? Of course not!

Looks pretty cool. :)

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf

Get your local LEO to sign off, get fingerprinted, wait 3-6 months, pay your $200 fee, and get the tax stamp. Take that back to the dealer, and it's yours.

(Of course, this assumes you don't live in a state that doesn't allow them.)

Not so sure about your interpretation of the National Firearms Act, either, but, since the poster never said anything about the law, that's irrelevant.

"This issue is done?" In what respect, Charlie?

I can top that.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/archive/a/a1/20061028063654!Nuclear_artillery.jpg

time, but I'll be back! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAAA!

:)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The National Firearms Act (NFA).

...It's either all the way and nothing in between...

You don't seem to be familiar with the NFA or our other gun laws. We do have some strong restrictions on what kinds of firearms individuals can have without going through extra hoops, and states can ban certain types of firearms (those regulated under the NFA) outright. Look it up.

ETA I think state and local restrictions are pointless because we have open borders.

No, someone from NH drives into Massachusetts with weapon A in his or her vehicle and gets stopped (for whatever reason) and then searched. Badda boom.

Or, someone in Massachusetts uses weapon A to rob a bank. Now you have at least two things with which to charge the person.

Or, a store in Massachusetts offers weapon A for sale and that ccomes to the attention of law enforcement.

And so on.

No, you are not stopped at the border and relieved of weapon A, or refused admission to Massachusetts, but that does not mean the ban is pointless.

The value of a state-level gun ban in PREVENTING violent misuse of firearms is negligible.

See slackmaster's reply to you, which I agree with BTW.

The only people demanding nukes are some of the nuttier libertarians - and some of the more, shall we say "overwrought"
gun control supporters using a strawman argument.

Try some diphenhydramine to control the sneezing, eh?

and attempted condescensions, such as "ignorant" ""overwrought"" "You need to take a class..." etc.

See which side of the gun control debate engaged in them more on this thread. Then tell me which side of the debate seems more "overwrought." (Or more gratuitously snotty.)

(Please don't count my posts to Paulsby, though. My shortness with him has nothing to do with the gun control debate. It's a collective product of many threads on any subjects.)

Not crimes with guns, mind you, just guns.

Overwrought, indeed

What firearms are banned on a federal level?

You can indeed own thermonuclear weapons if you have the proper permits. And no, I'm not being facetious.

But I was trying to get the other poster to address that.

Possession of nuclear weapons by anyone not in Possession of them on July 7, 1970 or enabling their manufacture by anyone not on that exclusive list (US, UK, France, China, USSR/Russia) is a direct violation of the NUclear non-proliferation Treaty, which the US is party to. Since treaties, once ratified by the Senate, supercede US law, the US government cannot permit you or allow you to violate that Treaty.

In addition, under federal law, all fissible material in the US is the property of the government. Power Plants, research facilities, medical facilities and the like lease the material from the Department of Energy. So you cannot actually own U-235 or Plutonium. Nor, under NPT, could you legally build the enrichment facilities to produce your own (even if you had a few tens of billions to spend on it)

All of which means: no. You cannot legally own a nuclear weapon in the United States.

even though some posters are posting as though it is.

a bigger backyard.