Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

[JustJoe 0]

So, what compromise are you talking about? And what is your realistic " line in the sand", say, between the pile of crap we got now and a suit nuke for everybody?

 

 

[Vlad G 345]

So, what compromise are you talking about? And what is your realistic " line in the sand", say, between the pile of crap we got now and a suit nuke for everybody?

 

I'm not talking about any compromise, I'm talking about knowing what to ask for. My line in the sand is somewhere between fully auto weapons and grenade launchers (for lack of a better term). I do think full auto weapons,silencers, mags of whatever size you want carry are just fine. If you want a vehicle mounted full auto grenade launcher I think I may require some permitting.

 

I guess for me it is down to the regular infantryman equipment, not specialized military equipment. Not everyone gets issued a Stinger or a howitzer.

[Pythagoras 2]

I'm not talking about any compromise, I'm talking about knowing what to ask for. My line in the sand is somewhere between fully auto weapons and grenade launchers (for lack of a better term). I do think full auto weapons,silencers, mags of whatever size you want carry are just fine. If you want a vehicle mounted full auto grenade launcher I think I may require some permitting.

 

I guess for me it is down to the regular infantryman equipment, not specialized military equipment. Not everyone gets issued a Stinger or a howitzer.

 

+1, Vlad.

 

To me, the idea of the Second Amendment has always been that private citizens can take up their own arms, if/when need be from their own residence without much notice. Each man/woman is responsible for bringing their own equipment, hence the 2A specifically protects a standard infantry loadout.

[fapipa 3]

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

 

I don't think there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to walk into nuclear silos.

 

I know that there is a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.

 

I understand that those with access to nuclear silos can be restricted from exercising some of their rights, including 2A , while there.

 

As for the specific example of grenade launchers, as of today I don't really have an opinion on that.

[Vlad G 345]

I understand that those with access to nuclear silos can be restricted from exercising some of their rights, including 2A , while there.

 

Oh good so we agree, there limits on rights, infringements if you will. I'll also argue that we can infringe in on the gun rights of say imprisoned murderers, as you probably don't want an armed prison population. This is my entire point, there are limits. We can argue about what those limits are, but walking around screaming "shall not be infringed" is a losing move that will get us labeled as kooks because there are most certainly some limits somewhere.

 

I will tell you how I draw my line in the sand, and it has to do with the potential damage from accidental use or lack of security. Going back to the grenade launcher, if you have an AD with a rifle in your house you might hit a neighbor but generally speaking the chances of that are pretty low unless you live in a very tightly packed housing project but if you have an AD with a grenade launcher ... well we are in a different world. If your house catches fire and your stash of 5.56 cooks off, mostly it will be harmless but if your stash of 40mm grenades cooks off, we have a bigger problem.

 

Of course, you can came back and tell me that you live on a 1000 acre ranch between mountains in Idaho, so you endanger no one else, and I'm ok with that, and I think this is where the SCOTUS decision wording comes in when the refer to State enforced limits. Maybe Idaho can go an say you can own a grenade launcher as long as you only use in appropriate places and we get define appropriate and your 1000 acre ranch is fine. No problem from my side, but if you want to own in suburban NJ, well your neighbors might have a problem with it.

[wooly bugger 1]

Obamacare

I'll take Obamacare and more in exchange for a solid SC ruling that protects our rights.

Obamacare will be "repealed and replaced" as soon as the public, having passed it, "finds out what's in it."

 

A SC guarantee is much harder to overturn. I don't think the SC is amused by the "try and try again" strategy.

[wooly bugger 1]

Tremendous losses.

 

- Right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Duh, it's in the Bill of Rights.

 

- Subject to restrictions, such as types of guns, where you can have them, licensing, restrictions on carrying guns, government buildings obviously - may not have been a ruling in the case, but those words are the rule of law in the US according to our legislators and clearly the shape of things to come.

 

I disagree. There were plenty of credible jurists who argued (incredibly) that it's a "collective right," whatever that means. The "common use" clause is ignored by liberals, but if taken literally, invalidates every AWB already. My biggest disappointment was that it specifically stated that the ruling doesn't cover CCW.

[Vlad G 345]

The CCW question was not asked in those cases. The SC tends to answer the questions it is asked.

[wooly bugger 1]

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.

 

Where does it say "firearms?" It says arms. I agree with you on the second statement about unlimited protection to any kind of firearm."

 

Rather than the common use clause, I would have preferred an interpretation that, since it refers to a militia, anything that an infantryman carries should be allowed. Thus, full auto yes. Nukes no.

[Vlad G 345]

I'm actually curious how the SC would rule in full auto, specially how they would try to reconcile Heller and Miller. But again, the question was not asked.

[voyager9 3,441]

 

Where does it say "firearms?" It says arms.

 

Technically it just says bear arm..and only the fringy right one.

 

 

I'll see myself out...

[KpdPipes 388]

I'm actually curious how the SC would rule in full auto, specially how they would try to reconcile Heller and Miller. But again, the question was not asked.

 

It was actually referenced during Heller, IIRC it was Roberts that said the decision would "Not have been Favorable" if Gura had tried to bring NFA into it...and Gura took a LOT of Criticism for not doing so..even though if he had he actually would have been screwing over his client.

[222 3]

 

 

Where does it say "firearms?" It says arms. I agree with you on the second statement about unlimited protection to any kind of firearm."

 

Rather than the common use clause, I would have preferred an interpretation that, since it refers to a militia, anything that an infantryman carries should be allowed. Thus, full auto yes. Nukes no.

 

Common use in Miller referred to military use, but also scoped the right as in context of militia not individuals. Heller syllabus 1(f).

 

Common use in Heller referred to civilian use such as self defense, but scoped the right as individual not linked to militia. Heller page 52.

 

There is no reconciling Heller and Miller: there is no conflict.

[222 3]

 

 

I disagree. There were plenty of credible jurists who argued (incredibly) that it's a "collective right," whatever that means. The "common use" clause is ignored by liberals, but if taken literally, invalidates every AWB already. My biggest disappointment was that it specifically stated that the ruling doesn't cover CCW.

 

Before Heller, referencing Second Amendment as an individual right hadn't occurred since Presser of 1886.

 

Heller gave substance by attaching handguns as quintessential.

 

We must expand this with more case law into long guns.

 

Then we expand it into semiauto long guns.

 

Then we expand it into 'Assault Weapons' by showing cosmetic differences do not differentiate long guns, and restrictions based upon capricious characteristics must fall, under either strict or intermediate scrutiny.

 

You need to build up to it: if you jump directly to AWB, you end up with a loss like Heller 2. We need to fight smartly to win, not set ourselves up for losses like Heller 2.

 

http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDwQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cadc.uscourts.gov%2Finternet%2Fopinions.nsf%2FDECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9%2F%24file%2F10-7036-1333156.pdf&ei=QHMgUY6vN4WvigKanID4Aw&usg=AFQjCNGZumy3HUrxmFlphjGEX1YShTe4_w

[Soju 153]

My my, this thread makes my head hurt.

 

First, the Bill of Rights is a list of rights...you know, since it says that in it. Twice almost. Ever get a grocery list from your spouse, and then not get some of the things on it because you interpreted it differently?

 

Second, both Heller and McDonald were only positive in the sense they weren't completely negative. Other then that, the decisions were a joke. I'm a bit surprised the 'common use' portion wasn't brought up yet (or maybe it was, I may have missed it). But to summarize, they basically said, hey, any past or current infringements and violations are okay, we just can't add any more. Do something wrong and illegal long enough and it becomes legal by virtue of frequency. Yeah, that isn't a hack job ruling...

 

Third, whether or not you or someone "sees the need" for something is not conditional of whether or not that is a right or not. I don't see the need for a lot of things, but why should that be reason enough to prevent those things from happening when they aren't hurting anyone? True colors tend to come out when this is discussed on things people aren't particularly fond of. As it clear, Vlad for example, doesn't believe in the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Fourth, what role does the US Constitution play in regards to our government? Does it regulate? Impose restrictions or regulations? Give power? Take away power?

[Vlad G 345]

 

Common use in Miller referred to military use, but also scoped the right as in context of militia not individuals. Heller syllabus 1(f).

 

Common use in Heller referred to civilian use such as self defense, but scoped the right as individual not linked to militia. Heller page 52.

 

There is no reconciling Heller and Miller: there is no conflict.

 

Well the issue the way I see it is that Heller spoke of common use, which could be it downside. Let's say tomorrow someone invents a phaser and the army switches. Now, it isn't in common use by the population so in theory it can be banned under Heller. But if it is suitable for military use the how does that work with Miller?

[222 3]

 

 

Well the issue the way I see it is that Heller spoke of common use, which could be it downside. Let's say tomorrow someone invents a phaser and the army switches. Now, it isn't in common use by the population so in theory it can be banned under Heller. But if it is suitable for military use the how does that work with Miller?

 

I think only way we are going to overturn Miller and NFA is with standing as a State. Like when NRA sued the Brady Bill interim provisions in Printz, it was as sheriffs, not average Joe. Same way if State of Texas sues, "Our militia will carry full auto, Federal government cant stop us" then NFA can fall.

 

If someone invents a phaser someday is one reason we must make this fight about people, not tools. The technology we argue about is 50 and 100 years old: we are overdue to invent better ways to kill each other.

 

And the way to do it will be through the Heller precedent: if phaser become the weapon of choice for criminals, it should also become the quintessential self defense weapon of choice.

[Vlad G 345]

Im not sure you want to overthrow Miller, that is the one that might say you can have fully auto weapons

[ryan_j 0]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/12/high-court-weighs-taking-up-new-case-on-gun-rights/

 

Judges are meeting today. It's coming.

[voyager9 3,441]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/12/high-court-weighs-taking-up-new-case-on-gun-rights/ Judges are meeting today. It's coming.

 

The article states they are meeting today to discuss whether to hear the case.. and may decide by Monday whether to add it to the Fall session. I don't know we can safely say 'It's coming' since they could easily decide not to hear the case given the current political climate and that there is no established split of the lower court. The article implies the lower court ruling in IL is still in flux so it hasn't completely established a split with the other courts.

[springfieldxds 0]

I'm praying they take the case

[1LtCAP 4,264]

has anyone noticed this video linked from that page?

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2293945945001/new-york-tells-legal-gun-owner-to-hand-over-weapons/?intcmp=obnetwork

[wooly bugger 1]

Please, please, please take it on. We need this and arbitrary bans based on cosmetic features resolved while we still have a 5-4 majority. If O gets a chance to nominate even one justice, we may be in for a long drought. Sotomayor and Kagan are radicals who aren't going anywhere soon.

 

I don't see what the "current political climate" has anything to do with it. The Supreme Court is explicitly supposed to act as a buffer against tyranny of the irrational majority. If anything, I suspect John Roberts may relish poking a finger in O's eye after O's shameful baiting of him during the State of the Union.

 

If they need a split in the lower courts, I suspect they'll get it in Illinois. Whatever they end up coming up with in June is sure to test the limits of the ruling and will lead to more controversy. I do wonder if the recent rash of blatantly unconstitutional state laws may actually expedite Supreme Court review of gun control, as friendly voices on the court feel the urgency to squash what they hopefully see as a contagious virus.

[ryan_j 0]

has anyone noticed this video linked from that page?

 

http://video.foxnews...ntcmp=obnetwork

 

You mean the recommended videos? Yeah, naturally since the subject is guns/gun control that will be one of the related videos. It's dynamically generated.