Constitutional limits to gun control

[NoNukes]

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

More nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

He didnt concede. He told you to go do the work for yourself.

It is his claim, and therefore his responsibility to cite the text.
No such text exists, and he knows it; in refusing to cite the text, he concedes the point.

I cited the text. And you cut it from my post when you quoted it.

Nowhere in your text - or anywhere else in the case - does the SCotUS consider the constitutionality of the restrictions I mentioned, and nowhere does it rule that those restrictions are constitutional.

The text simply does not exist, neither in Heller nor in any other decision made by the SCotUS.

 

[PratchettFan]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Read it yourself. Look on pages 54-55.

It says virtually the opposite of your claim.

{We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home.It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home bedisassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,the inherent right of self-defense has been central to theSecond Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to aprohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.}

Banning an entire class of weapons, such as the AR-15, that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose is a clear violation of the 2nd, per the SCOTUS.

I have already told you where to look. It starts on page 54 of the decision that begins, "Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited." It's only two pages of text. It won't take you that long to read it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Read it yourself. Look on pages 54-55.

It says virtually the opposite of your claim.

{We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home.It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home bedisassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,the inherent right of self-defense has been central to theSecond Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to aprohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute.}

Banning an entire class of weapons, such as the AR-15, that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose is a clear violation of the 2nd, per the SCOTUS.

I have already told you where to look. It starts on page 54 of the decision that begins, "Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited." It's only two pages of text. It won't take you that long to read it.

Nowhere in that text - or anywhere else in the case - does the SCotUS consider the constitutionality of the restrictions I mentioned, and nowhere does it rule that those restrictions are constitutional -- the text simply does not exist, neither in Heller nor in any other decision made by the SCotUS.

You can continue to say that it does, but to do so is to lie.

 

[eflatminor]

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

More nonsense.

That's about the quality of retort we've come to expect...devoid of logic, reason or evidence...just another ad hominem in a sea of emotionally based arguments.

 

[PratchettFan]

Nothing here, or anywhere else in Heller, considers and then rules on:
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks

Disagree? Cite the text.

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

If that makes you feel good, believe it. I see no point in arguing with someone who either won't read the decision or simply won't believe what he reads. That's your fantasy land, not mine.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I have already told you where to look. It starts on page 54 of the decision that begins, "Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited."

Irrelevant to your claim, or to the challenge. You cannot show a ruling on "Assault Weapons" and I just demonstrated that the text of Heller is the opposite of your claim, that banning an entire class of weapons normally used for lawful purpose was ruled to violate the 2nd.

You lost, the only question is if you'll be graceful in your loss.

It's only two pages of text. It won't take you that long to read it.

Try again.

 

[g5000]

Actually not a single one has.

You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.

Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a key part of the Brady gun-control law, saying the federal government cannot compel local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.

In a 5-4 ruling that marked a huge victory for states' rights, the court appeared to leave intact a required waiting period of up to five days before someone can buy a handgun. There would be no requirement for the government to check a prospective purchaser's background during that period but local police could do it voluntarily.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

If that makes you feel good, believe it. I see no point in arguing with someone who either won't read the decision or simply won't believe what he reads. That's your fantasy land, not mine.

Your claim is a lie. You know it.

 

[g5000]

Printz vs. U.S. and Mack vs. U.S.

Federally mandated background checks are unconstitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nowhere in that text - or anywhere else in the case - does the SCotUS consider the constitutionality of the restrictions I mentioned, and nowhere does it rule that those restrictions are constitutional -- the text simply does not exist, neither in Heller nor in any other decision made by the SCotUS.

You can continue to say that it does, but to do so is to lie.

In fact, they specifically note that banning an entire class of weapons that are normally used for legal purpose, i.e. "assault rifles" is a violation of the 2nd.

Pratchett proved himself wrong.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.

Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a key part of the Brady gun-control law, saying the federal government cannot compel local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.

In a 5-4 ruling that marked a huge victory for states' rights, the court appeared to leave intact a required waiting period of up to five days before someone can buy a handgun. There would be no requirement for the government to check a prospective purchaser's background during that period but local police could do it voluntarily.

This refers to the Brady Act's requirement that compelled state officals to enforce federal law. This is a 10th amendment issue.

 

[g5000]

Local background checks are not unconstitutional, and since the federal government established a federal database of background checks and the overwhelming majority of local laws perform background checks, the issue has been mooted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nowhere in that text - or anywhere else in the case - does the SCotUS consider the constitutionality of the restrictions I mentioned, and nowhere does it rule that those restrictions are constitutional -- the text simply does not exist, neither in Heller nor in any other decision made by the SCotUS.

You can continue to say that it does, but to do so is to lie.

In fact, they specifically note that banning an entire class of weapons that are normally used for legal purpose, i.e. "assault rifles" is a violation of the 2nd.

Pratchett proved himself wrong.

He knows he lied. So does everyone else. Nothing he can do can change that.

 

[g5000]

Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a key part of the Brady gun-control law, saying the federal government cannot compel local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.

In a 5-4 ruling that marked a huge victory for states' rights, the court appeared to leave intact a required waiting period of up to five days before someone can buy a handgun. There would be no requirement for the government to check a prospective purchaser's background during that period but local police could do it voluntarily.

This refers to the Brady Act's requirement that compelled state officals to enforce federal law. This is a 10th amendment issue.

If the federal government mandates states to enforce an automatic weapons ban, you don't think this decision will matter?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

This refers to the Brady Act's requirement that compelled state officals to enforce federal law. This is a 10th amendment issue.

If the federal government mandates states to enforce an automatic weapons ban, you don't think this decision will matter?

BATFE will enforce that.

 

[g5000]

I have already told you where to look. It starts on page 54 of the decision that begins, "Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited."

Irrelevant to your claim, or to the challenge. You cannot show a ruling on "Assault Weapons" and I just demonstrated that the text of Heller is the opposite of your claim, that banning an entire class of weapons normally used for lawful purpose was ruled to violate the 2nd.

You lost, the only question is if you'll be graceful in your loss.

It's only two pages of text. It won't take you that long to read it.

Try again.

The real significance of Heller vs DC is that the Supreme Court established the right to bear arms is an individual right and not the collective right gun control freaks claim it is.

 

[NoNukes]

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

More nonsense.

That's about the quality of retort we've come to expect...devoid of logic, reason or evidence...just another ad hominem in a sea of emotionally based arguments.

It comes after you fail to reply to what I say, so what is the use? This is what I expect from an individual as paranoid and weak as you though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I have already told you where to look. It starts on page 54 of the decision that begins, "Like most rights, the rights secured by the second amendment is not unlimited."

Irrelevant to your claim, or to the challenge. You cannot show a ruling on "Assault Weapons" and I just demonstrated that the text of Heller is the opposite of your claim, that banning an entire class of weapons normally used for lawful purpose was ruled to violate the 2nd.

You lost, the only question is if you'll be graceful in your loss.

It's only two pages of text. It won't take you that long to read it.

Try again.

The real significance of Heller vs DC is that the Supreme Court established the right to bear arms is an individual right and not the collective right gun control freaks claim it is.

Heller held, in total:

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.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) 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. Pp. 47–54.

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.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

No mention of 'assault weapons'
No mention of hi-cap magazined.
No mention of universal backfround checks.

To claim that Heller considered these things and then ruled these things constitutional is false; to so claim knowing that the claim is false, is a lie.

 

[g5000]

Nowhere in that text - or anywhere else in the case - does the SCotUS consider the constitutionality of the restrictions I mentioned, and nowhere does it rule that those restrictions are constitutional -- the text simply does not exist, neither in Heller nor in any other decision made by the SCotUS.

You can continue to say that it does, but to do so is to lie.

In fact, they specifically note that banning an entire class of weapons that are normally used for legal purpose, i.e. "assault rifles" is a violation of the 2nd.

Pratchett proved himself wrong.

They do not specifically mention assault rifles in Heller. They do, in fact, say the Second Amendment does not protect weapons which are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens.

From page 53 of Heller:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

Therefore, a ban on certain weapons is constitutional.

That class of weapons which are typically possessed by citizens are protected (page 57):

The handgun ban amounts to aprohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.