Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Regulating guns is a slippery slope. The ability to make laws was not meant as a catch all and certainly wasnt intended to restrict firearms and thereby infringing on our Second Amendment rights.
"get that crap off the lawn"...Oklahoma Supreme Court says...
- Thread starter The Other Side
- Start date
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
I don't believe their should be absolutely no restrictions but very few. In my opinion convicted felons and other habitual criminals shouldn't be permitted to carry but be able to protect their homes. But the NFA and the entity that enforces it is a farce. The Second Amendment is very clear. The laws proceeding the amendment (and were used as a model for it) and the reasons for them obviously were meant to give the average Joe the ability to arm themselves. The restrictions then we're mainly on who and not what.The benefit of the right to bear arms was even more obvious when it was time to fight the British and whoever else need be. The idea that the right to bear arms only existed in order to serve in a militia is flawed for many reasons and they go back all the way to pre colonial times.
You keep saying the second amendment is very clear, but you still cant demonstrate it other than just "saying" it.
How CLEAR is it? I gave you this example, and please tell me how you can believe the comparision is different?
example:
"Overpaid Union thug, a member of the teamsters, working for United Parcel Service, shall not be prohibited from driving a package car".
Second amendment:
"A Well Regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How is the example about YOU, then qualified about YOU, separated by commas, but in the second amendment, you want to take the third fragment out and give it legs all by itself, but giving it the last fragment by connection?
How is this clear??
TOS.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
Catatonic
Nine Lives
All this conjecture is useless just like the Abortion issue.
The Supremes have ruled on this and private citizens have the right to own guns regardless of what the anti-gun zealots think and desire.
NO, the supremes ruled that in DC, a federal enclave, handguns could be kept in the home for self protection, but left the regulation of guns up to the states.
The ruling in Heller, did not affect the states.
DC isnt a state.
The supremes did not rule that you could carry a weapon out in public or have rifles and shotguns. Only handguns in the home.
TOS.
From Heller v DC..
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
The Supreme Court held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The most important part of the Heller Ruling:
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56
That is your.opinion and I respect it as that.
Dissenting opinions
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.
The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[52
In a dissenting opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that the court's judgment was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" which overturned longstanding precedent, and that the court had "bestowed a dramatic upheaval in the law".[51] Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.[51]
The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional. The dissent concludes, "The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice."
Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer.
Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
The Breyer dissent looks to early municipal fire-safety laws that forbade the storage of gunpowder (and in Boston the carrying of loaded arms into certain buildings), and on nuisance laws providing fines or loss of firearm for imprudent usage, as demonstrating the Second Amendment has been understood to have no impact on the regulation of civilian firearms. The dissent argues the public safety necessity of gun-control laws, quoting that "guns were responsible for 69 deaths in this country each day.'"
With these two supports, the Breyer dissent goes on to conclude, "there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." It proposes that firearms laws be reviewed by balancing the interests (i.e., "'interest-balancing' approach") of Second Amendment protections against the government's compelling interest of preventing crime.
The Breyer dissent also objected to the "common use" distinction used by the majority to distinguish handguns from machineguns: "But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machine-gun...There is no basis for believing that the Framers intended such circular reasoning."[52
Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
Yep.....you were severely abused as an infant.
I, and millions of others, will continue to KEEP and BEAR arms in our homes, in our vehicles, and on our persons per The Second Amendment and there is no amount of liberal mind handicap induced Tomfoolery that can end that.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Which are just whiney and irrelevant.
The Supremes ruled otherwise.
Scalia is not the only Supreme who can whine bombastically.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
But will you love and cherish those guns as you fondle and caress them with misty eyes? The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere, and BHO isn't going to take your guns. Would you marry your guns if you had the chance? You might have to select just one, or are you a polygamous type who loves more than just one gun?
I'm betting you'd marry your Glock.
What the Supreme did not rule was a Second Amendment that was absolute and could only be addressed through amendment and tepeal.
MrFedEx
Engorged Member
You speak treasonous words Commie.
Thank you for acknowledging you cannot explain the difference . Of course, we all know you can, but CANT, because it would destroy your argument, so its better to turn the conversation about me and attack me instead of explaining what I asked you.
Yes, you can own guns, without a background check, a full mental evaluation and licensing of all your weapons. You are free to kill yourself, your family, your neighbors or coworkers when you ultimately lose your mind.
Nobody can stop that.
Everyday, 53 gun owners kill themselves with guns every year. That means that some of you on this board will ultimately turn your beloved object of death into a final solution at some point in your lives.
Good luck figuring out which ones its going to be.
TOS.
Catatonic
Nine Lives
Everything can "be addressed through amendment and tepeal".
Even the abortion question.
But is that the only way?
