Best quotes from the Heller case that make Gun Grabbers go total Levithan on you

[jon_berzerk]

Then you should know the OP needs to be reminded that context is important:

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.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Context that you apparently miss if you think that passage (I note it is from the syllabus not the opinion) says that Heller endorses or makes any definitive statement regarding the actual constitutionality of gun control laws (beyond the DC statutes at issue).




Thanks for the laugh . . .



Actually, if one were truly following the protection criteria established by SCOTUS, the legal determination of "dangerous" can not be applied to machine guns simply because of their rate of fire.

The multi-pronged test for 2nd Amendment protection demands an examination of the "type" of arm at issue, to determine if it is of the type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens.

Scalia recognizes that facially, applying this criteria to machine guns, "would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939".

At best Henry's "dangerous" finding is spurious and suspect and the finding of "unusual" even more so but admittedly understandable without further exposition from SCOTUS on the actual constitutionality of the machine gun restrictions of NFA-34 and the closure of the registry by act of Congress in 1986 (FOPA).

To simply hold that machine guns are "unusual" because a law restricting their "common use" has been in force for some time, without a definitive examination of that law's constitutionality, is not a definitive, final statement.

laws requiring the safe storage of handguns and prohibiting the sale of unsafe ammunition ( Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco (N.D. Cal.)), and laws that require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to be denied a permit if they fail to meet a suitable person requirement (Hightower v. City of Boston (1st Cir.)).

Moreover, Federal and state courts have upheld as constitutional laws requiring permits and licenses to own a handgun, fees for these licenses, and applicants to be state residents. Also upheld are laws disallowing possession of a firearm to those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, possessing firearms in places of worship, public housing dwellings, college campuses and campus events.

And as usual, the real effect of Heller is unacknowledged (either out of ignorance or purposeful).

Heller was a substantial (but very limited) holding that brought 2nd Amendment jurisprudence back into the fold of prior SCOTUS decisions. In 1942 the lower federal courts went off the rails and introduced the "militia right" and "state's right" (and thus the generalized "collective right") interpretations of the 2nd Amendment into 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, the Heller decision only set that straight.

Those lower court decisions, U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and, Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942), birthed those theories in the federal court system and those "precedents" (which actually dismissed and ignored SCOTUS) had been used for 70 some odd years to uphold / affirm hundreds of federal, state and local gun laws contested on 2nd Amendment grounds.

Some existing laws, (like the, "prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill"), can be supported / affirmed / upheld without any referral to, or reliance on, Tot's or Cases' holding that the 2nd does not secure an individual right. There are though, hundreds if not thousands of gun laws which have been upheld / affirmed using ONLY those now invalid interpretations for support!

This has rendered many, many, many federal, state and local gun laws infirm and subject to easy attack.

So, read that paragraph you quoted and take from it what you will, but filter it through the opinion's footnote 26 which explains that: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

If Scalia is recognizing this limited list of regulatory measures as absolutely unassailable and permanent fixtures of law that render any claim of 2nd Amendment protection impotent, (as you seem to purport), why would he characterize them as only "presumptively lawful"?

Understand that those first couple examples of law probably enjoy the greatest claim of constitutional legitimacy out of say the thousands that constitute the diverse body of, "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

For now these mid-Twentith Century laws are all presumed to be lawful because none have been held to any scrutiny under a holding that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . . " When that happens and is applied to a lower federal decision like Hickman v Block, watch out.

Don't kid yourself, Scalia fully understands the infirmity that Heller is creating in a wide swath of existing federal, state and local gun law and it would serve you better if you didn't lie to yourself about it.

Understand too that as Scalia was writing those words he knew that Gura (lawyer for Dick Heller) would file McDonald in the 7th Circuit the day after Heller is published.

The OP is more interested in exhibiting his ignorance of the law than a serious discussion as to the meaning of Heller and the Second Amendment.

Be careful when you point and accuse, you might be looking in a mirror.

Scalia is not removed from the idea

that one could keep a rocket launcher in the closet

 

[Bfgrn]

No, "common sense" tells you that if 50 years of gun control doesn't work then why do you want to continue and expand it? "Common sense" tells you that with over 100M guns in the U.S. it is impossible to control any of them. "Common sense" tells you that criminals do not obey gun laws, or any other, therefore they fall on the law abiding--the very people who ought to own guns.
These are "common sense" statements and facts. Why do you deny them? Are you insane?

How to spot psychosis: "criminals do not obey gun laws, so, gun control doesn't work"

So if we follow your psychotic line of thinking, then there should be NO laws on ANYTHING.

What Is Psychosis? What Causes Psychosis?

Psychosis is a generic psychiatric term for an abnormal sign or symptom that affects the mind, causing people to change the way they think, feel, perceive things, and behave. When a person suffers from psychosis they are not able to tell the difference between reality and what is in their imagination - a loss of contact with reality.

You seem to be describing yourself. Unable to engage in rational discussion. Repeating the same thing over and over. Perhaps you need to be checked out?
As for your argument, the reason we outlaw murder, rape, etc is not necessarily to prevent them (although that's part of it) but to punish the perpetrator. Gun control is built on the wrong idea that we can prevent crime by restricting the tools. That is simply incorrect, as I've pointed out.

Gun laws, like criminal background checks are to prevent felons and people who cannot own a gun legally from just walking into a gun store and buying a gun.

And, as citizens, we can't stop a criminal from buying an illegal firearm from the trunk of another criminal in some dark alley.

But, that's where the criminal should be forced to buy a gun. In a totally illegal setting, with all the inherent dangers that come with it. BUT, our current laws sanction criminals being able to walk into a gun show, receive expert advice, discounts, then buy whatever weapon(s) they desire without a background check or having to pay black market prices or risk the dangers of buying a weapon from another criminal in a dark alley.

 

[Abatis]

Heller is a 5-4 "Opinion".

Which means half the court didn't agree with this bizare intrpretation.

What "bizarre interpretation" would that be?

That the discussion of the protection sphere of the 2nd Amendment is no longer a question of whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right”; that it surely protects a right that is separately possessed and can be enforced by individuals?

 

[Bfgrn]

Heller is a 5-4 "Opinion".

Which means half the court didn't agree with this bizare intrpretation.

What "bizarre interpretation" would that be?

That the discussion of the protection sphere of the 2nd Amendment is no longer a question of whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right”; that it surely protects a right that is separately possessed and can be enforced by individuals?

Liberals have no problem with the Heller ruling in regards to the right of every citizen to protect himself, his family and his property.

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. Pp. 2–53.

The people who have a problem with Heller are paranoid gun clingers who refuse to accept:

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.

 

[Abatis]

Liberals have no problem with the Heller ruling in regards to the right of every citizen to protect himself, his family and his property.

As long as they do it with objects no more lethal than a spork . . .

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.

Why then do so many liberals still argue the militia conditioned / state's right interpretation with the resultant support for the unfettered enactment of various federal, state ad local restrictions on gun possession and use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense?

The people who have a problem with Heller are paranoid gun clingers who refuse to accept:

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.

Do you really read that as being a statement by SCOTUS that those listed restrictions are absolutely unassailable and permanent fixtures of law that render any claim of 2nd Amendment protection impotent?

Is there a reason why your side only quotes the syllabus as opposed to the opinion of the Court for these sentiments?

Is it to avoid what would be the obvious omission of footnote 26?




And I must ask, do you fundamentally disagree with JoeB131 that the Heller decision on the constitutionality of the DC statutes is the result of a "bizarre interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment?

.

 

[daveman]

There is PLENTY of evidence on this board since the Newtown tragedy.

I will be happy to debate you, if you are truly interested in discussing common sense gun laws that need to be passed.

We have more laws than we need now SFBs! You and the truth are far apart.

How to spot psychosis: When common sense becomes "We have more laws than we need now"

 

[daveman]

Again: you have no facts whatsoever, so you instead appeal to emotion and engage in personal attacks.

I accept your concession.

The only concession is on your part.

Care to debate the gun show loophole? No, FIRST...will you even acknowledge it exists?

It doesn't exist, actually.

Despite what some media commentators have claimed, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. If a dealer sells a gun from a storefront, from a room in his home or from a table at a gun show, the rules are exactly the same: he can get authorization from the FBI for the sale only after the FBI runs its “instant” background check (which often takes days to complete). As a result, firearms are the most severely regulated consumer product in the United States — the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

Conversely, people who are not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who sell firearms from time to time (such as a man who sells a hunting rifle to his brother-in-law), are not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers or to call the FBI before completing the sale.

Similarly, if a gun collector dies and his widow wants to sell the guns, she does not need a federal firearms license because she is just selling off inherited property and is not “engaged in the business.” And if the widow doesn’t want to sell her deceased husband’s guns by taking out a classified ad in the newspaper, it is lawful for her to rent a table at a gun show and sell the entire collection.

If you walk along the aisles at any gun show, you will find that the overwhelming majority of guns offered for sale are from federally licensed dealers. Guns sold by private individuals (such as gun collectors getting rid of a gun or two over the the weekend) are the distinct minority.

Yet HCI claims that “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.” That statistic is true only if one counts vendors who aren’t selling guns (e.g., vendors who are selling books, clothing or accessories) as “unlicensed dealers.”

Denver congresswoman Diana DeGette says that 70 percent of guns used in crimes come from gun shows. The true figure is rather different, according to the National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. According to an NIJ study released in December 1997 (“Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities,” a report that covers much more than homicide), only 2 percent of criminal guns come from gun shows.

That finding is consistent with a mid-1980s study for the NIJ, which investigated the gun purchase and use habits of convicted felons in 12 state prisons. The study (later published as the book Armed and Considered Dangerous) found that gun shows were such a minor source of criminal gun acquisition that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

At the most recent meeting of the American Society of Criminology, a study of youthful offenders in Michigan found that only 3 percent of the youths in the study had acquired their last handgun from a gun show. (Of course some criminal gun acquisition at gun shows is perpetrated by “straw purchasers” who are legal gun buyers acting as surrogates for the individual who wants the gun. Straw purchases have been federal felonies since 1968.)​

If you want to do something about gun violence, you're wasting your time going after gun shows.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course liberals have a problem with the 2A. There have been calls outright to revoke it.

 

[Bfgrn]

As you can see, common sense laws, reasonable restraints on guns and ammo are just completely beyond reason to fear filled paranoid, black helicopter types. These radicals can only see the 2nd amendment as an absolute.

If we follow their psychosis everyone could own a nuclear device.

 

[The Rabbi]

As you can see, common sense laws, reasonable restraints on guns and ammo are just completely beyond reason to fear filled paranoid, black helicopter types. These radicals can only see the 2nd amendment as an absolute.

If we follow their psychosis everyone could own a nuclear device.

I've already laid out for you why they are not "common sense" or "reasonable." There is nothing reasonable about repeating the same mistake over and over and hoping for a better outcome.

Insanity is the denial of reality. You are insane.

 

[Abatis]

These radicals can only see the 2nd amendment as an absolute.

The 2nd Amendment is absolute.

It does absolutely nothing but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers never granted to it. There is no equivocation or vacillation possible from that principle (while remaining constitutional).

That the left is has zero understanding of the fundamental constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights means that the above statement is incomprehensible gibberish to them.

If we follow their psychosis everyone could own a nuclear device.

We the People can not claim as a right an interest that we have surrendered through the Constitution, in this case, Art I, § 8, cl's. 11, 12, 13 & 14 warmaking powers, support and providing for the armed forces, i.e., the acquisition, maintenance and use of the weapons of open / indiscriminate warfare).

Of course, on the other hand, the government can not claim as a power something We the People have never conferred to government, in this case, the right of the private citizen to keep and bear his personal arms for lawful purposes.

I would like an answer to my question from post 45; do you fundamentally disagree with JoeB131 that the Heller decision on the constitutionality of the DC statutes is the result of a "bizarre interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

=

Why don't you discuss the quotes mentioned?

The ones that you've mentioned aren't contested by any sane person.

True and FALSE.

#1 is NOT being contested by liberals, Obama and Democrats.

#2 IS being contested by psychotic, fear infested people like YOU.

I just said, that I do not contest the points you made, why would you blatantly lie and say that I do?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Heller is a 5-4 "Opinion".

Which means half the court didn't agree with this bizare intrpretation.

And Scalia can't live forever.

...

A broken clock is right twice a day. Usually they rule in favor of Libtards, and then you shove their 5-4 decision down our throat as gospel.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Now look how Bfgrn has yet to consider any of the quotes in the OP.

He has transformed into an ultra-Leviathan.

Why give Bfgrn the respect of a debate, if he can't give me the respect of acknowledging the OP? I don't negotiate with beasts.

 

[Bfgrn]

These radicals can only see the 2nd amendment as an absolute.

The 2nd Amendment is absolute.

It does absolutely nothing but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers never granted to it. There is no equivocation or vacillation possible from that principle (while remaining constitutional).

That the left is has zero understanding of the fundamental constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights means that the above statement is incomprehensible gibberish to them.

If we follow their psychosis everyone could own a nuclear device.

We the People can not claim as a right an interest that we have surrendered through the Constitution, in this case, Art I, § 8, cl's. 11, 12, 13 & 14 warmaking powers, support and providing for the armed forces, i.e., the acquisition, maintenance and use of the weapons of open / indiscriminate warfare).

Of course, on the other hand, the government can not claim as a power something We the People have never conferred to government, in this case, the right of the private citizen to keep and bear his personal arms for lawful purposes.

I would like an answer to my question from post 45; do you fundamentally disagree with JoeB131 that the Heller decision on the constitutionality of the DC statutes is the result of a "bizarre interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment?

What we have here is the manifestation of mental illness. It is called conservatism.

I SUPPORT the right of every LAW ABIDING citizen to keep and bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But the 2nd amendment is NOT an absolute.

Heller: 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.

I DON'T support allowing laws that have holes that are being exploited by unscrupulous gun dealers not being changed. The government's FIRST duty is to protect it's citizens from all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC. A felon being able to buy any weapon he chooses in the safety of a gun show is NOT protecting the citizenry.

These are such common sense measures that one can only conclude that I am dealing with mentally ill human beings or people with the mind of a small child.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Heller is a 5-4 "Opinion".

Which means half the court didn't agree with this bizare intrpretation.

And Scalia can't live forever.

So was Obamacare and DOMA, as well as Prop 8. Yet you hail these "opinions" as resounding edicts from the Supreme Court.

Just as Scalia can't live forever, I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have an even harder time doing so.

Sucks for you, Joe.

 

[Bfgrn]

Heller is a 5-4 "Opinion".

Which means half the court didn't agree with this bizare intrpretation.

And Scalia can't live forever.

So was Obamacare and DOMA, as well as Prop 8. Yet you hail these "opinions" as resounding edicts from the Supreme Court.

Just as Scalia can't live forever, I think Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have an even harder time doing so.

Sucks for you, Joe.

What makes you believe the 45th President, Hillary Clinton will replace Bader Ginsburg with a conservative?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Bfgrn has evolved into the Zerg Overmind, the King of Leviathans.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn has evolved into the Zerg Overmind, the King of Leviathans.

Says the moron who doesn't even know the Federalist Papers were an argument FOR, not against granting power to the Federal government.

And you are among the gaggle of anti-federalists morons who now hide behind the same Constitution the anti-federalists derided.

That is what people who have deep psychosis do. No reality, just black helicopters and paranoia.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Bfgrn has evolved into the Zerg Overmind, the King of Leviathans.

Says the moron who doesn't even know the Federalist Papers were an argument FOR, not against granting power to the Federal government.

And you are among the gaggle of anti-federalists morons who now hide behind the same Constitution the anti-federalists derided.

That is what people who have deep psychosis do. No reality, just black helicopters and paranoia.

Screenshotted this for all eternity

Bfgrn has evolved into Azathoth