Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

[PeteF 1,044]

Vlad,

 

You might want to reread MacDonald.

Like you said, they affirmed the people have the right to have a firearm.

If they had stopped there, I would agree with you.

But they had to continue on with the government has the

power to decide, where, by whom, what type and in what manner

Said firearms can be possesed. In other words they made shit up.

There is no need to "interpret" the second ammendment.

There are abundant other writings by the authors and signers of the

constitution that make it very clear what they meant when they wrote it.

 

But no a bunch of political hacks 230 years later know better than the writers.

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

So as I said they pointed out a line existed. They didn't actually add any limits not in Heller, I just skimmed McDonald at 5:30 in the morning, if I missed something tell me the page number.

 

 

As for Kelo, I don't like it but "public good" appears in the Fifth as many times as hunting appears in the Second. "public use" does, and that is different. I'll argue that here the constitution itself is incomplete, there is a lot of stuff jammed into the fifth almost as if to save paper or something.

 

Kelo did have one good thing come out of it, a lot of states banned the practice that Kelo covered. The SC is not there to save us from ourselves.

 

And yes they do make mistakes too. If you want to avoid that, stop sending idiots to the legislature.

[diamondd817 828]

I agree with Vlad. I'm hoping this gets up to the SC soon. Can you imagine if they rule "Your AWB is unconstitutional" and then suddenly EVERY AWB throughout the US is invalidated? The deathcry of the Brady campaign and the rest of those assholes will be saccharine to my ears.

 

Well here is a professional analysis of the AWB and Mag Capacity Constitutionality:

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/48184-awb-magazine-capacity-limits-post-hellermcdonald/page__fromsearch__1

[voyager9 3,441]

That was a really good article/letter. There were parts I didn't understand though.

 

How does a handgun ban not pass Intermediate Scrutiny? The letter doesn't really say, it just goes on to say that since it doesn't then a rifle ban doesn't either.

 

 

[deerpark 83]

...he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he's softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns.

 

"Liberal", "conservative", should have nothing to do with it. They all swear an oath to the same Constitution.

 

But they'll argue its about "interpretation". Bullcrap. Only when they want to intrude on or dismantle more of our rights.

 

Take Larry McDonald for instance. Democrat, but honored his oath to the Constitution.

[Dan 177]

The fight in my mind was never about the R2KBA, it has always been about where the line is drawn in the sand. Where the line sits regarding the types of arms and where/when a citizen can possess those arms. Arms need regulations regardless of rights, no doubt about that. The main problem now is lawmakers are overstepping their powers by trying to enact such extreme regulations that they are now in the infringement territory.

 

There is a point when the regulations become so absurd that they begin to neutralize or greatly inhibit that Right. This is the line that SCOTUS needs to rule on.

[Pythagoras 2]

Regarding restrictions and "where to draw the line" -- no line allowed. If you let someone draw a line, you implicitly allow people to think the line can be moved. There is no line: "shall not be infringed" is pretty freaking clear.

 

Before you call me an extremist, read this: The Second Amendment applies specifically to firearms. I have not read case law that suggests it should apply to rocket launchers, bazookas, artillery, or nukes. To the best of my knowledge (and I may be wrong), the Second Amendment did not refer to cannons in the year of ratification, and therefore doesn't apply to modern artillery equivalents.

 

As regards to FIREARMS, the 2A is unlimited: semiauto, fullauto, bayonet or no, 15 round mag or 500 round belt.

[ryan_j 0]

Regarding restrictions and "where to draw the line" -- no line allowed. If you let someone draw a line, you implicitly allow people to think the line can be moved. There is no line: "shall not be infringed" is pretty freaking clear.

 

Before you call me an extremist, read this: The Second Amendment applies specifically to firearms. I have not read case law that suggests it should apply to rocket launchers, bazookas, artillery, or nukes. To the best of my knowledge (and I may be wrong), the Second Amendment did not refer to cannons in the year of ratification, and therefore doesn't apply to modern artillery equivalents.

 

As regards to FIREARMS, the 2A is unlimited: semiauto, fullauto, bayonet or no, 15 round mag or 500 round belt.

 

Absolutely this.

 

Piers Morgan has been saying that the 2A was intended to apply to muskets, and not AR15s or machine guns. My liberal friends have taken this up and pushed it saying that we should ban everything except muskets.

 

My pro-2A friends and many others in the pro-2A community have correctly said that an AR15 is a "modern musket."

 

Fact is that if you give the Government consent to regulate limits on arms they are going to give us as little as possible, enough to keep us sufficiently quiet.

 

The 1st amendment was ratified when printing presses were the free press and christianity was the freedom of religion. Today we have radio, TV and the internet, and we have other religions and atheism all wanting the protections of the 1st amendment. And they do get them so why the hell not us with the 2nd?

[CMJeepster 2,781]

 

The 1st amendment was ratified when printing presses were the free press and christianity was the freedom of religion. Today we have radio, TV and the internet, and we have other religions and atheism all wanting the protections of the 1st amendment. And they do get them so why the hell not us with the 2nd?

 

[Anselmo 87]

You can argue back and forth but reality is reality. The 2a is very poorly written. It was just recently decided in SCOTUS that the 2a applied to states and not just the federal gov't.

 

The SCOTUS judges are really no different from pro 2A and anti 2A hacks.. They have their political positions and then they go and develop a fancy legal opinion to support it.

 

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

 

Justice Stevens

[PeteF 1,044]

Regarding restrictions and "where to draw the line" -- no line allowed. If you let someone draw a line, you implicitly allow people to think the line can be moved. There is no line: "shall not be infringed" is pretty freaking clear.

 

Before you call me an extremist, read this: The Second Amendment applies specifically to firearms. I have not read case law that suggests it should apply to rocket launchers, bazookas, artillery, or nukes. To the best of my knowledge (and I may be wrong), the Second Amendment did not refer to cannons in the year of ratification, and therefore doesn't apply to modern artillery equivalents.

 

As regards to FIREARMS, the 2A is unlimited: semiauto, fullauto, bayonet or no, 15 round mag or 500 round belt.

 

What does the US government call it when F16's and tanks are given to another country? An ARMS deal.

 

What is the rules on trading weapons and other weapons related items to foreign countries? International Traffic in ARMS Regulations (ITAR).

 

Where does it say firearms? It says ARMS. As in clubs, knives, guns, cannon etc. Where do you think those cannon (the atomic bomb of the time) came from? They came from peoples houses or where groups of citizens (you know that pesky militia) had gathered together to purchase / train with them.

 

Case law is just that someones interpretation of what was meant. I'd rather get what was meant from the people who wrote it than someone who is guessing what the writers meant.

 

I find it pretty hypocritical that the definition of ARMS for a law abiding US citizen GROSSLY more restrictive than for a foreign terrorist government.

[Vlad G 345]

Regarding restrictions and "where to draw the line" -- no line allowed. If you let someone draw a line, you implicitly allow people to think the line can be moved. There is no line: "shall not be infringed" is pretty freaking clear.

 

So you can scream "Fire" in a crowded theater?

[222 3]

You can argue back and forth but reality is reality. The 2a is very poorly written. It was just recently decided in SCOTUS that the 2a applied to states and not just the federal gov't.

 

The SCOTUS judges are really no different from pro 2A and anti 2A hacks.. They have their political positions and then they go and develop a fancy legal opinion to support it.

 

 

I agree.

 

If a State argues that it wants its militia to have full auto, then the State's would have standing as free State.

 

But for an individual, the right is not relative to militia. The right is relative to protection, not insurrection.

 

The dichotomy is appreciated by the Stevens and Scalias: to advance our own liberty under the legal framework, we need to appreciate the same.

[ruger9 0]

If anyone is interested in a little SCOTUS "studying", check out Men in Black (book) by Mark Levin. Levin has been a constitutional attorney for decades, and he shows you how the court has been making laws from the bench and incorrectly interpreting the constitution for a very long time now.

[222 3]

If anyone is interested in a little SCOTUS "studying", check out Men in Black (book) by Mark Levin. Levin has been a constitutional attorney for decades, and he shows you how the court has been making laws from the bench and incorrectly interpreting the constitution for a very long time now.

 

True dat.

 

We are decades behind other civil liberty movements.

 

We have to both legislate and litigate: NRA has not done enough of the later.

[PeteF 1,044]

So you can scream "Fire" in a crowded theater?

 

Actually yes you can. Please tell me is your mouth taped shut? Did you somehow loss the ability to speak? Yell fire in a theater that is on fire will probably get you an award not arrested. The action of yelling fire causing someone harm is where it is illegal.

 

Just like it should be with a gun. You have it, no problem. You USE it in a manner that causes harm to another (waving it around with out cause, shooting without cause etc) then the person doing said ACTION should be put away.

[Pythagoras 2]

 

 

Actually yes you can. Please tell me is your mouth taped shut? Did you somehow loss the ability to speak? Yell fire in a theater that is on fire will probably get you an award not arrested. The action of yelling fire causing someone harm is where it is illegal.

 

Just like it should be with a gun. You have it, no problem. You USE it in a manner that causes harm to another (waving it around with out cause, shooting without cause etc) then the person doing said ACTION should be put away.

 

This. Thank you, PeteF.

[Pythagoras 2]

 

 

What does the US government call it when F16's and tanks are given to another country? An ARMS deal.

 

What is the rules on trading weapons and other weapons related items to foreign countries? International Traffic in ARMS Regulations (ITAR).

 

Where does it say firearms? It says ARMS. As in clubs, knives, guns, cannon etc. Where do you think those cannon (the atomic bomb of the time) came from? They came from peoples houses or where groups of citizens (you know that pesky militia) had gathered together to purchase / train with them.

 

Case law is just that someones interpretation of what was meant. I'd rather get what was meant from the people who wrote it than someone who is guessing what the writers meant.

 

I find it pretty hypocritical that the definition of ARMS for a law abiding US citizen GROSSLY more restrictive than for a foreign terrorist government.

 

There is no doubt what people mean by "arms" now. I don't dispute your point one bit.

 

Re: militia members providing their own cannon, if that's the truth then okay. I freely admit that I don't know the full extent. My point was that the 2A definitely DOES protect firearms absolutely, as all modern firearms are the modernday musket. I agree the 2A "should" apply to other things like hand grenades for instance, based on the notion that private citizens should be as well-equipped as the typical infantryman.

 

If it also applies to howitzers, great, but that's not my MAIN priority. When I make my first million I'll buy one. But I care a lot more about owning a full blown Colt M4 than I do about owning a howitzer.

 

I also think it's a hell of a lot easier to sell the public on the idea of "all firearms" than "all military technology" - so again, priorities.

[Anselmo 87]

A howitzer is not a bearable firearm.

[PeteF 1,044]

A howitzer is not a bearable firearm.

 

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.

 

Missed that whole KEEP part.

[JustJoe 0]

Actually yes you can. Please tell me is your mouth taped shut? Did you somehow loss the ability to speak? Yell fire in a theater that is on fire will probably get you an award not arrested. The action of yelling fire causing someone harm is where it is illegal.

 

Just like it should be with a gun. You have it, no problem. You USE it in a manner that causes harm to another (waving it around with out cause, shooting without cause etc) then the person doing said ACTION should be put away.

 

 

He'll come back with:"Do you have the right to have nukes, too" Just wait.

 

And to the " let's find the middle ground, let's compromise" crowd. I don't need to remind anybody here that we already live under the 2nd most restricive state. The other side offered even more restrictions. Our side asked for nothing. Where's the middle ground? Don't you think that we have given up enough yet? What is other side willing to give up? Who is inflexible in their positions? Us or them?

 

I'll compromise, sure, as soon as I see something on the table put foward by the other side that is not a restriction. I'm not asking for CCW, or even to ease up the current restricions at this point. I'm just asking to leave things as they are. Is that asking for too much? Especially that we all know that what is being proposed will do nothing to stop the gun crime.

 

 

This is my first rodeo, and boy it has been an eye opener.

[fapipa 3]

 

So you can scream "Fire" in a crowded theater?

 

I don't think that is a very good analogy. Screaming fire is more like brandishing a firearm, as opposed to "keeping" or "bearing" one.

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

Ok, clearly you don't understand my point, so lets try differently.

 

Should you be able to walk with a grenade launcher in a nuclear silo? The grenade launcher is clearly man portable so that doesn't even enter here.

[H.M. Murdock 0]

So you can scream "Fire" in a crowded theater?

 

Having the facilities and intent to do so is legal up until the point you cause harm by actually doing so

[voyager9 3,441]

 

Having the facilities and intent to do so is legal up until the point you cause harm by actually doing so

 

Right. I think it is called "presumptive guilt". The AWB presumes that by owning a firearm I will do something bad with it so they must be made illegal. The equivalent situation on the 1a side would be if everyone was gagged when entering a theater. Or people were not allowed to learn the word "fire". A better analogy would be the banning the possession and sale of specific books (ala Anarchist Cookbook).

[fapipa 3]

Ok, clearly you don't understand my point, so lets try differently.

 

Should you be able to walk with a grenade launcher in a nuclear silo? The grenade launcher is clearly man portable so that doesn't even enter here.

 

I think I understand what you are saying, and agree with it for the most part. Just wanted to point out that the frequently used analogy between owning weapons and yelling fire is not a very good one.

 

That said, I don't think they would let me walk into a nuclear silo, regardless of what I own or carry.

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

Regardless is they let you, do you think you have a right to.

 

Same thing with yelling fire, you CAN do it, the same way one could have an illegal rocket launcher (without using it), the point of it is that your right has limitation.

 

For the "shall not be infringed" people ... let me try YET another way via property rights. I'm sure you think you can do whatever you want on your property. Does that mean that I'm your neighbor I can light up M80's at 2 in the morning every night?

 

If you are so set in your ways that do not want to accept that there always limits on freedoms how about this. We all agree that the current limits are to much for me and you, neither of us thinks are good. I believe there is a line, and you think there is no line, fine. I'm pretty sure to get to your utopia at some point we have to get to my line first. So pretty please, with sugar on top, lets work on getting to that line first because right now your approach sucks and makes us enemies. When we get to my line, I'll help you on your fight to get beyond it, but this is a friking war, you don't set your goals to getting to the enemy capital and ignore the fights in between. So how about instead of yelling towards the enemy capital we focus on the next fight for this hill in front of us. Then we can worry about the river after it, and then the mountain behind that. If we get to the capital, awesome. If we don't we made it further then we are now.

 

Focusing on how you get to win the enemy capital while the enemy is marching towards yours is pointless. Right now they are marching towards us, you your are giving speeches in town square about how many riches we will plunder from the enemy.

 

You can dream of your utopia, but now and then check with reality please.

[Pythagoras 2]

 

 

how about this. We all agree that the current limits are to much for me and you, neither of us thinks are good. I believe there is a line, and you think there is no line, fine. I'm pretty sure to get to your utopia at some point we have to get to my line first. So pretty please, with sugar on top, lets work on getting to that line first because right now your approach sucks and makes us enemies. When we get to my line, I'll help you on your fight to get beyond it, but this is a friking war, you don't set your goals to getting to the enemy capital and ignore the fights in between. So how about instead of yelling towards the enemy capital we focus on the next fight for this hill in front of us. Then we can worry about the river after it, and then the mountain behind that. If we get to the capital, awesome. If we don't we made it further then we are now.

 

This. We all agree on wanting more freedoms, and right now pushing the line in our favor is more effective than trying to erase it completely. We can't allow ourselves to be divided.

 

"If we do not stand together, we shall most assuredly hang separately"

[JustJoe 0]

 

 

If you are so set in your ways that do not want to accept that there always limits on freedoms how about this. We all agree that the current limits are to much for me and you, neither of us thinks are good. I believe there is a line, and you think there is no line, fine.

 

Would you agree that the laws on the books right now should be limits that we're willing to compromise? Or do you think we should compromise further?

[Vlad G 345]

Huh? The laws on the books now are bad. We are already way past the line that makes sense to me personally, which is we need to fight to push it back.