The founding fathers never intended to have inalienable rights to guns in America

1. In 1776, when the Articles of Confederation were written, there was nothing anywhere that protected any right of the people to guns in America.

2. The Articles of Confederation were an unmitigated disaster. Shays' Rebellion was one of the first signs of problems within guns if guns weren't tightly confined to a central authority.

3. In 1787, the founding fathers started work on the US constitution which was ultimately ratified in 1789. No gun rights in it whatsoever.

4. In June 1789, James Madison proposed nine amendments to the US constitution, as part of an anti-federalist approach to limit the power of the central government. Among the proposed Madison amendment, you had this sentence "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person." to be included into the main body of the US Constitution.

4. In August 1789, the House approved a modified "militia/arms" text as follows: "Fifth Article:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

5. That was shortened by the Senate in September 1789 "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." This text was ratified in 1791.

(to be continued)

Attached: 00-Cover-558x372.jpg (558x372, 59K)

Attached: 1506716880647.jpg (1179x825, 286K)

OP, shut the fuck up and stop posting.

Attached: 1522115356900.png (632x437, 66K)

It was George Mason who was in charge of the Bill of Rights for the Anti-Federalists who were responsible for the Amendments not James Madison.
And George Mason made it clear what militia meant
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason

fpbp

6. From 1791 onwards, the US federal government was thus bound by the 2nd amendent. It could not infringe on the states' right to have a well regulated militia (which was necessary for the security of all states) or federally infringe on the right of the people to own and carry weapons. So far so good.

7. For a long time, gun rights weren't an issue. Rifles and pistols were tools. Kids in the 1920s during the Great depression were sent into the countryside to hunt rabbits and other small prey to support their families. Rifles were carried to school, so that the kids could hunt in the afternoon. Pistols were carried around openly long into the 20th century for self-defense.

8. The first major issue of gun control legislation happened in the months and years post 1865 in the Southern states. Black soldiers settled in the Southern states, now free citizens of the United States, and kept their guns. States and cities etc. often moved to ban or regulated guns, trying to take away the guns (and various other rights) away from blacks. As a result, Congress acted and amended the US Constitution once more - with the 14th amendment, which includes the following two sentences: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

9. States and cities generally did not really regulated guns much until well into the second half of the 20th century, so whether the 14th amendment made the 2nd amendment applicable to the states was never really adjudicated... until 2008.

10. But hold on, what about the federal government and the 2nd amendment?

(to be continued)

>"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason

This is correct, and I am not arguing that "the right of the people" doesn't mean the whole people. There is a question of whether "non-citizens" are part of the "people", but generally there is no debate whether the people is a sub-set of the US Citizens... it is not. the "people" are all US citizens in a certain state.

HOWEVER, the 2nd amendment in itself never said anything about state laws. A state in 1791 could ban private gun ownership, as the 2nd amendment only applied to the US federal government, not the states.

Didn't read, because it's factually false.

The founding fathers omitted the Bill of Rights because they believed the Constitution didn't explicitly limit those rights, but that they were automatically IMPLIED. Thsy literally believed the rights were so fuxking important that they were assumed to be true. They included them later to pacify people who were scared that not explicitly stating them wasn't enough protection from simply not limiting them.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

This doesn't change the meaning at all
It was George Mason, not James Madison.
And the rest of what you wrote in your second post doesn't change George Mason's and the Anti-Federalists position.

shall not be infringed

In a sense you are correct. The right was meant to be preserved for whites only

11. So when did the 2nd amendment actually started to get featured as a relevant part of the US constitution? As said before, it was sort of an issue that black soldiers were disarmed in Souther states... but most people really didn't care about that and the 14th amendment reigned in any Southern state excesses for a long time. But then the federal government started to goofball massively in the post-ww1 era, including amending the US constitution to outlaw liquor. Technical advances in gun construction and availability of high firing rate guns (Thompson submachine guns) coupled with a surge in crime due to outlawing liquor as well as a massive influx of immigrants to the USA and from the rural parts of the USA to cities... led to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 (1933 and 1934 was a time in which pretty much everything got regulated from securities trading, stocks, cars, rifles, fraud, housing etc. - the biggest socialist regulatory move in the history of America).

12. The NFA outlawed guns which were a problem in criminal circles, including sawed off shotguns that could be hidden under coats.

13. And it was in this climate of prohibition era and great depression era massive socialist legislation, that the Supreme Court had to make a decision in Miller. And it held famously in 1939 that a gun is only protected under the 2nd amendment if it "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." BAM! 150 years of American identity and gun culture... and then this. The SCOTUS said that the militia part of the 2nd amendment actually has a bearing on the right of the people to guns part. Just wow!

(to be continued)

I'm curious. What makes a deushbag care so much about US constitutional history?

Secondly, do you think a state can ban freedom of speech?

14. Miller opened a big can of worms for the 2nd amendment. It meant that since 1939, the SCOTUS held that through the militia argument, there could be limitations on carrying and bearing arms by the people. The federal government could limit gun rights in America and it did... were there protests in the street? Not really, the "shall not be infringed" people didn't exist yet.

15. So the NFA was followed by the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) in the wake of the assassination of JFK, regulating the interstate commerce of firearms and took away the rights to buy and own firearms from "prohibited persons" in particular released criminals.

16. But not even the GCA could foreshaddow what the Brady Act of 1994 did - establishing a nationwide registry and background check system. And to this date, the Brady Act remains constituttional and in effect - being deemed not an infringement.

17. But Congress went even further... brining the "shall not be infringed" movement of the 1990s and 2000s to the foreground. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 1994 banned the manufacturing of certain semi-autos... and it was never challenged in the SCOTUS, even though it existed for 10 years until 2004.

(to be continued)

>What makes a deushbag care so much about US constitutional history?
I am a US lawyer.

>Secondly, do you think a state can ban freedom of speech?
No, because of the 14th amendment. But states could ban freedom of speech before the 14th amendment and did so in 1865.

it's just a kike

>I am a US lawyer.
hopefully you and your entire family gets murdered brutally one day. worthless blood sucking kike rat

>I am a US lawyer.
so you're a BAR traitor of the people. fuck off.

18. Let's recap. We finally arrived in the 20th century. We now know the 2nd amendment was originally drafted as a way to protect the states and the states' people from infringements of the US government on the militia and gun ownership. We know that for 150 years private gun ownership was pretty unproblematic (with the exception of blacks being oppressed by the Southern states post-civil war). We know that the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, but we don't really know whether states were thus also bound by the 2nd amendment. We know that the federal government started gun legislation in the 1930s as a consequence of technical advances in gun technology and a rise in gun crime. We know that in the 1960s, 1980s and 1990s, layers of federal gun legislation were pilled on each other, all pretty much in line with the SCOTUS' Miller decision of 1939 which allowed the federal government to legislate what types of guns were covered by the 2nd and the general principle of regulating interstate commerce. How then did we come to today's 21st century gun discussions? Well... now states and local authorities came to the forefront, for instance Chicago's handgun ban.

19. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the SCOTUS held in a tight 5-4 decision that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. WOW! Wham. 140 years after the 14th amendment went into effect, the SCOTUS said "uh, by the way, 'liberty' in the 14th amendment includes the right of the people to carry and bear arms from the 2nd". And so Chicago's handgun ban law was struck down. As fast and easy as that!

20. But not enough with applying the 14th to the 2nd, the SCOTUS even before McDonalds in 2008 looked at a very different case in Heller.

(to be continued)

21. Heller... a case for the ages. Again a tight 5-4 decision and probably one of the most controversial interpretations of parts of the US constitution in the history of America. The SCOTUS said A. that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment (well, ok, that sort of was clear), B. that "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection (ok, sort of clear, no?), C. that, in line with the Miller decision, only guns are protected that have a relationship to the militia, i.e. only guns "in common use at the time" are protected by the 2nd (well, we knew that since Miller), and D. struck down the portion of the District of Columbia Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" (wow! wham! why is that such a wham - yes, because it actually shows that the SCOTUS looks at limitations and asks "are these an actual infringement?").

22. So where are we today? The "shall not be infringed" people ignore the whole history of the 2nd and 14th amendment, ignore Miller, Heller and McDonalds... and the gun control people? They ignore it too, they just argue with emotion. What's left for the American constitution and Congress then. What does the 2nd amendment protect and what infringements are disallowed and what is not seen as an infringement? Guess what, nobody knows in the gray areas. But we can make a pretty exhaustive list of what is and what isn't an infringement. Cool, no?

(to be continued)

uninvited squatters of america, um, so, are you going home now?

dont you just hate it when people never know when to leave?

you can stop blathering on, you've already admitted you're a BAR association scumbag. the constitution was written with common law in mind, but we no longer use common law. we use contracts/admiralty law, UCC. there's been no common law or constitution since erie v tompkins 1938, but you're not allowed to admit that.

If you think that people had to be in militias to own guns then I suggest you find me a single precedent case of anyone being put through trial for owning a firearm without being in one.

I'll wait, otherwise we can consider this thread finished.

Attached: Dame_(Alice)_Ellen_Terry_('Choosing')_by_George_Frederic_Watts.jpg (2400x3226, 1.69M)

Attached: 1521864842384.png (1000x1080, 161K)

>blablablabla
see
I'm gonna go take a ride in my fully armed battle tank now, since I already know this thread and your whole argument is finished.

>German advocates that Americans should give up their guns so they can be ultra cucked and afraid to defend themselves against Muslims just like Germans are
why don't you fuck off faggot? why do you care so much about another country's laws?

Op you are a god damn idiot
None of this is how "rights" work
Rights are not some magical laws that the government can give or take away at whim
It's not like we didn't have them before they were bestowed upon us
The bill of rights is not what gives us our rights
It's simply a promise to us and a reminder to the government not to try and take them away
The first ten amendments and then the 14th were further clarifications of the rights that should have been evident in the first place
Seriously fuck off
I hope you were lying about being an american and a lawyer
Die in a fire traitor

Attached: Major_problem.jpg (480x660, 56K)

>the states could ignore the bill of rights

Well I guess it's too bad for them that that went out the window around the time of the civil war then

>If you think that people had to be in militias to own guns then I suggest you find me a single precedent case of anyone being put through trial for owning a firearm without being in one.

I never said you have to be in a militia to own guns. Actually, SCOTUS held in 2008 in Heller that the right of the people to carry and bear guns is not depending on the membership in a militia.

What I said is something completely different: A. until the 14th amendment in 1868, the states were free to make laws outlawing private gun ownership
B. in Miller (1939) the SCOTUS correctly said the relationship between the militia part of the 2nd and the rights of the people part of the 2nd meant that the TYPE of guns allowed under the 2nd are those in common use at the time (i.e. only a gun is covered that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." )
C. in Heller (2008), the SCOTUS rightly made clear that the "people" in the 2nd amendment are the same people as in the 1st amendment. It is only unclear whether non-citizens are part of the people (currently, as to guns, only permanent residents in the US have 2nd amendment rights, not tourists or other temporary visa holders)

>I am a US lawyer

A jew that wants to ban gubs hiding in germany. Never had that happen before.

I am not sure you know what common law really means. I assure you, the US system is very much a common law system. You don't even want to ever find yourself in a fucked up civil law system as in continental Europe... it is a nightmare with bureaucratic judges and bureaucratic, unreasonable courts insisting the government make laws to regulate every piece of junk.

You just refuted your own thesis, faggot.

Every citizen is a member of the militia.

The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>German advocates that Americans should give up their guns

Wud? I am advocating the exact opposite. I am advocating that gun rights people start reading the constitution and the history of the 2nd amendment interpretations and gun control legislations to make reasonable arguments what an infringement is. For instance, banning semi-auto "assault" rifles for civilian use under McDonalds and Heller is clearly an infringement of the 2nd amendment, no question in my mind. However, e.g. establishing a mental health registry which is checked before a gun purchase is in my view legal and not an infringement of the 2nd amendment (as held by Miller, Heller and other cases) - and if someone says it is an infringement, then they should tell me why the Brady Act has been upheld since the 1980s.

>Every citizen is a member of the militia.
Correct.
>The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Correct.

What's your point?

I don't get what's so confusing about this whole issue. Were there ANY regulations on weapons when the Constitution was first written? No, so there shouldn't be any now either.

>the states were free to make laws outlawing private gun ownership
No, they were free to outlaw possession of them within certain limits. Some cities would require you to turn them in to the Sheriff as you enter them, but outside those limits all your freedoms are unopposed and completely available.
>It is only unclear whether non-citizens are part of the people
In a sense they are, since the Bill of Rights aren't laws, they are a philosophy of human rights that is universal. When our government officials today tell us that people in other countries aren't entitled to free speech they are essentially wiping their ass with the Constitution. Those are rights which we respect of all people around the world, though obviously, the irony in the contradiction of slavery had far from gone over the heads of the people who wrote them. It would have also contradicted this philosophy to go house-to-house and ship the niggers back to Africa where as citizens of their own nation we would still respect and not violate the constitutional philosophy laid out for us.

>stablishing a mental health registry which is checked before a gun purchase is in my view legal and not an infringement of the 2nd amendment
The Federal government having the power to declare certain people it doesn't like aren't entitled to constitutional liberties based on centrally operated "registries" is a violation of the 10th Amendment.

One amendment the federal government violates all the fucking time without reprisal.

>No, they were free to outlaw possession of them within certain limits. Some cities would require you to turn them in to the Sheriff as you enter them, but outside those limits all your freedoms are unopposed and completely available.

Sorry, but no. Until the ratification of the 14th amendment in 1868, the states were free to regulate guns in whatever way they pleased - within the limits of their own state constitution. That is not even in question. You are correct that in reality, what happened is that local cities etc. said you need to hand in your revolver to the Sheriff and that was it. But legally, the states were not bound by the 2nd amendment, how could they? The 2nd doesn't include the states - and the US constitution always explicity includes the states whereever the states have any obligations.

>In a sense they are, since the Bill of Rights aren't laws, they are a philosophy of human rights that is universal.
Under US law, you cannot purchase a firearm legally if you are non-temporary visa holder, for instance an H1b visa holder.

...temporary visa holder...

>The Federal government having the power to declare certain people it doesn't like aren't entitled to constitutional liberties based on centrally operated "registries" is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
And yet the Brady Act does exactly that and it has not been held a violation of the 10th. Explain that.

Section 922(g) of the Brady Bill prohibits certain persons from shipping or transporting any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce, or receiving any firearm which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, or possessing any firearm in or affecting commerce. These prohibitions apply to any person who:

Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
Is a fugitive from justice;
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance;
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution;
Is an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States;
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship;
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or;
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

You should also keep in mind that in the USA SCOTUS and 9th circuit courts, especially nowadays have activist judges, who interpret the law any way they please instead purposefully ignoring what the text actually says. It is possible we will create a situation where the SCOTUS will have to go back and reverse precedents.

But regarding gun laws, I can't really think of any pro-gun people (public or that I know personally, I live in the USA for reference) that ignore the history of the 2nd and 14th amendment, for one, our NRA was pretty active in all of this as was the Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who's interpretation of the constitution is what most pro-gun people in this country believe and what is currently the law.

It was well understood at the time that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights could not be violated with or without the Bill of Rights. In fact, some people opposed the ratification of the Bill of Rights on the grounds that enumerating specific rights might mislead some people into believing that the government could pick and choose what things were rights.

>Under US law, you cannot purchase a firearm legally if you are non-temporary visa holder, for instance an H1b visa holder.
Has nothing to do with what I said.
Believing people have an innate right to own guns in their country is not the same as having the right to buy them in my country.
>the states were not bound by the 2nd amendment
Because the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS CONCERNED IN THIS, where state laws conflicted with federal laws - the Federal law takes precedence.

If you're confused on this, read the Federalist Papers.

>Because the ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS CONCERNED IN THIS, where state laws conflicted with federal laws - the Federal law takes precedence.

My point is that state laws that prohibited private ownership of guns pre 14th amendment were not in conflict with the US constitution. This is not even up to debate. Look it up.

>Believing people have an innate right to own guns in their country is not the same as having the right to buy them in my country.
Ok then, I misinterpreted your point. I thought your point was that the "people" in the 2nd amendment included non-US citizens which were resident in the US. I said this is still a contentious point. For instance, the US Brady Act bans gun ownership of US citizens who relinquished their US citizenship - which probably would be unconstitutional if you included permanent resident non-citizens as part of the "people", as the Brady Act does not distinguish why people gave up US citizenship.

>It was well understood at the time that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights could not be violated with or without the Bill of Rights.
I like a source for that. I never even heard this argument. If you read the speeches and discussion records in 1789 and before, it was pretty clear that while some of the Bill of Rights covered rights were protected by English common law (which was still in use in the US back then), several, including the right to bear and carry arms, as a protection against central federal government infringements was not.

>Explain that
Except it is.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Nice one, dude.

>It is possible we will create a situation where the SCOTUS will have to go back and reverse precedents.

I don't think the SCOTUS will reverse Miller, Heller or McDonalds. They hate giving up on precedents, they like to refine them, never overturn them.

Having said that, the following points will not be overturned by the SCOTUS in the next decades (at least in my view):

A. the 2nd amendment "right of the people" encompasses all citizens, i.e. not just militia members

B. the 2nd amendment type of guns only refers to guns in common use which are thus relevant for a functioning militia - which in turn means dangerous and uncommon guns are not covered by the 2nd (the handheld nukes interpretation)

C. States and local authorities are bound by the 2nd since 1868 as a result of the 14th amendment

D. Handguns are in common use and thus arms under the 2nd

E. It is not an infringement to prohibit certain types of people from owning a gun if there is a good reason to ban gun ownership for this (small) subset of people (e.g. criminals, terrorists, mentally defective, controlled substance users, traitors, fugitives from the law)

F. gun free zones are not an infringement as long as the general right to bear and carry guns is not unreasonably restricted (i.e. you cannot make the zone around a school 10 miles wide, but you can make it 50 yards wide).

>certain interim provisions
>Printz v. United States

What is the 10th amendment? Please look it up, this was a clear 10th amendment case and it did not even look at the 2nd.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

>This is not even up to debate.
What isn't up for debate is the fact that not only did no states ever ban gun ownership within the entirety of their state lines, but that citizens of the United States are each and all entitled to the fundamental common law rights and immunities provided by the constitution.

States are quite literally bound to the one another through the constitution.

Bud, I just explained to you clearly in plain language that you were wrong precisely in the case you had presented to me. The Fed violates the 10th amendment all the time and you happened to pick a case that they admitted thats what happened.

>In its 1997 decision in the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Brady Act that compelled state and local law enforcement officials to perform the background checks was unconstitutional on 10th amendment grounds. The Court determined that this provision violated both the concept of federalism and that of the unitary executive. However, the overall Brady statute was upheld and state and local law enforcement officials remained free to conduct background checks if they so chose.
Nice try though, tiger.

The Brady Act still exists. Only interim provisions were struck down. That is what I said.

>The Brady Act still exists.
Only if a state chooses to enact it.
They could print up a thousand copies of it and have everybody in their state shit all over it as far as the constitution and the federal government is concerned.

So your argument isn't just irrelevant, its nonsensical.

Oh for sure, at least for now, I don't think any of those will be overturned either.

The only reason I bring up reversing precedents is because I can see a future scenario where the established precedents are considered a hurdle by activist judges, so for example, the sort of judges that would have been appointed if Hillary would have won and they decided that they want to nullify the 2nd amendment as currently interpreted.

And yeah, I know of nobody that wants to reverse Miller, Heller and McDonalds among pro-gun people (at least currently), if anything the NRA helped get those rulings because they act as a safeguard. But if activist judges are to contradict them, they will have to reverse those precedents, since the harder route would be to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and that is far more unlikely to happen.

>Only if a state chooses to enact it.
>They could print up a thousand copies of it and have everybody in their state shit all over it as far as the constitution and the federal government is concerned.


But guess what, if the states enact it, it isn't violating the 2nd, even though the states are bound to the rights of the people under the 2nd through the 14th (as held in Heller).

So my point stands, the Brady Act limits the right of the people to carry and bear arms and that this is not an infringement of the 2nd - even though it specifically takes away gun rights from a whole bunch of people, including for instance people who are "subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner"... that is pretty darn intrusive, don't you think?

>But guess what, if the states enact it, it isn't violating the 2nd, even though the states are bound to the rights of the people under the 2nd through the 14th (as held in Heller).
There's a difference between a felon and the incalculable determination of mental health by a board of review. If you think that the one is as absolute as the other you're just retarded.

>But if activist judges are to contradict them, they will have to reverse those precedents, since the harder route would be to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and that is far more unlikely to happen.

Name an activist justice on the SCOTUS. They just do not exist. The appointment process gets rid of the activists as the president tries to only nominate a person which is not completely on his side, but more centrist, otherwise the Senate will shoot the person down... and many activist judges don't even want to be grilled in the Senate because there is no way to defend their activism, so they would just be humiliated and then rejected.

I have faith in the SCOTUS. It's not a perfect institution (actually it has a fucked up tendency to be extremely vague on purpose as a way to compromise among justices), but it has been shown to be freaking consistent in upholding the constitution.

>There's a difference between a felon and the incalculable determination of mental health by a board of review. If you think that the one is as absolute as the other you're just retarded.

I agree with you that there is a difference. Very much so actually, a criminal has been found guilty by a court of law, a mentally defective has not.

Still, the current US law goes very much further than just taking away guns from people who have violated US laws - it currently bans mentally defective people from buying guns through the Brady Act... and even keeps guns from non-citizens or from people who harrassed their finance or girlfriend under certain circumstances.

I do not know how far restrictions of certain subsets of people can be constitutionally upheld. What I know is that the Brady Act has done so and has not yet been held (partially) unconstitutional. And in my personal view, a registry of people treated for mental health problems used to deny the purchase of firearms can be held constitutional, as long as affected people have the right to appeal their personal ban to a court and that court can make a judgment if the relevant person has to be held dangerous in the same vein as an ex-felon.

Had to step away from my computer, I'd add, it is within a state or municipalities right to attempt restrictions on such scrupulous grounds, but to think that it should be universally adopted or should be conducted by a central authority like the federal government rather than a board of peers is unconstitutional.

Oh, that is easy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And as evidence I would use the incident where she expressed a biased opinion against the president elect. And if I were to be pressed further, I think all her voting and reasoning is clearly biased.

I even suspect the rest of them, only because I suspect anyone who goes with the living constitution mentality.

But for the most part we have a good system in the United States, so as you said. They at least have to act like they aren't biased, and most activist judges won't make it in thanks to the senate voting.