Constitutional limits to gun control

[NYcarbineer]

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.



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.

One line stands out:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

One line stands out:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Correct.

And again, that the Supreme Court has not determined the constitutionality of a particular law or measure means that it is satisfied with the lower court’s ruling, or the case is not ripe for review, or there are no judicial conflicts, or a lower court erred in some procedural manner, or they simply don’t want to address the matter at all.

If Congress should ban what it determines to be an assault weapon, such a law would be Constitutional until a given court rules otherwise.

Those with standing who consider such a measure a violation of their civil liberties are free to file suit in Federal court to seek remedy.

 

[The Rabbi]

Heller held, in total:


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.

One line stands out:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Correct.

And again, that the Supreme Court has not determined the constitutionality of a particular law or measure means that it is satisfied with the lower court’s ruling, or the case is not ripe for review, or there are no judicial conflicts, or a lower court erred in some procedural manner, or they simply don’t want to address the matter at all.

If Congress should ban what it determines to be an assault weapon, such a law would be Constitutional until a given court rules otherwise.

Those with standing who consider such a measure a violation of their civil liberties are free to file suit in Federal court to seek remedy.

Right, it hasn't been addressed. The OP was dealing with the likelihood given the present constitutional landscape post Heller and McDonald.
So the statement that the court has upheld these measures is a lie. This has been proven ad nauseam in this thread alone.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

One line stands out:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Fact:
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.

 

[NoNukes]

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

But I did reply. Are you retarded?

Replying, and replying to what was said are two different things.

 

[eflatminor]

It comes after you fail to reply to what I say

But I did reply. Are you retarded?

Replying, and replying to what was said are two different things.

Yea, well, I suspect you just didn't like my reply...didn't fit your agenda. Sorry about that.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[.

If Congress should ban what it determines to be an assault weapon, such a law would be Constitutional until a given court rules otherwise.

.

Mind showing us where the constitution gives courts the authority to nullify laws? The way most people read the C, the states should have that power.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

[.

If Congress should ban what it determines to be an assault weapon, such a law would be Constitutional until a given court rules otherwise.

.

Mind showing us where the constitution gives courts the authority to nullify laws? The way most people read the C, the states should have that power.

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

 

[Spoonman]

[.

If Congress should ban what it determines to be an assault weapon, such a law would be Constitutional until a given court rules otherwise.

.

Mind showing us where the constitution gives courts the authority to nullify laws? The way most people read the C, the states should have that power.

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

mmmm, then why do states have the right to write their own gun control legislation?

 

[ZimothyTahn]

Mind showing us where the constitution gives courts the authority to nullify laws? The way most people read the C, the states should have that power.

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

mmmm, then why do states have the right to write their own gun control legislation?

exactly. why are they? the second amendment. when it speaks of a militia being necessary for protecting a free state. but then you don't want to admit that because you have to admit that the Heller verdict, wherein it claims that the second amendment is not limited to military/militia purposes, is incorrect.

you're just making an argument for federalized gun trafficking/commercialization laws. thanks for that, because i happen to agree.

 

[Spoonman]

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

mmmm, then why do states have the right to write their own gun control legislation?

exactly. why are they? the second amendment. when it speaks of a militia being necessary for protecting a free state. but then you don't want to admit that because you have to admit that the Heller verdict, wherein it claims that the second amendment is not limited to military/militia purposes, is incorrect.

you're just making an argument for federalized gun trafficking/commercialization laws. thanks for that, because i happen to agree.

well actually what you are saying is all of these limiting state laws are illegal because the exceed federal limitations. thanks for that because i agree with that

 

[martybegan]

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

mmmm, then why do states have the right to write their own gun control legislation?

exactly. why are they? the second amendment. when it speaks of a militia being necessary for protecting a free state. but then you don't want to admit that because you have to admit that the Heller verdict, wherein it claims that the second amendment is not limited to military/militia purposes, is incorrect.

you're just making an argument for federalized gun trafficking/commercialization laws. thanks for that, because i happen to agree.

The PEOPLE retain the right to arms. The STATE may call up the unorganized milita if it so chooses. Just because the States have not decided to do that is not the People's concern.

The People need to be prepared for being called up if and when the states decided to have need of them, and those people were and are expected to show up with the common and advanced long arms of the current day and age. That is a semi-automatic rifle.

Since it is up to the states to "regulate" thier milita, it is up to them to set up the rules for it. That in no way infringes on what the PEOPLE can own as personal long or side arms.

 

[ZimothyTahn]

mmmm, then why do states have the right to write their own gun control legislation?

exactly. why are they? the second amendment. when it speaks of a militia being necessary for protecting a free state. but then you don't want to admit that because you have to admit that the Heller verdict, wherein it claims that the second amendment is not limited to military/militia purposes, is incorrect.

you're just making an argument for federalized gun trafficking/commercialization laws. thanks for that, because i happen to agree.

The PEOPLE retain the right to arms. The STATE may call up the unorganized milita if it so chooses. Just because the States have not decided to do that is not the People's concern.

The People need to be prepared for being called up if and when the states decided to have need of them, and those people were and are expected to show up with the common and advanced long arms of the current day and age. That is a semi-automatic rifle.

Since it is up to the states to "regulate" thier milita, it is up to them to set up the rules for it. That in no way infringes on what the PEOPLE can own as personal long or side arms.

all of that would be epic true if it weren't for that pesky national guard we created. so yeah...no need for militias at all then, and we're left with hunters (legit), collectors (legit), responsible people who truly own sensible guns for defense (legit), and gun nuts that want to lube up their guns and put their penises into them (not legit, mouth-breathing, retarded).

 

[Spoonman]

exactly. why are they? the second amendment. when it speaks of a militia being necessary for protecting a free state. but then you don't want to admit that because you have to admit that the Heller verdict, wherein it claims that the second amendment is not limited to military/militia purposes, is incorrect.

you're just making an argument for federalized gun trafficking/commercialization laws. thanks for that, because i happen to agree.

The PEOPLE retain the right to arms. The STATE may call up the unorganized milita if it so chooses. Just because the States have not decided to do that is not the People's concern.

The People need to be prepared for being called up if and when the states decided to have need of them, and those people were and are expected to show up with the common and advanced long arms of the current day and age. That is a semi-automatic rifle.

Since it is up to the states to "regulate" thier milita, it is up to them to set up the rules for it. That in no way infringes on what the PEOPLE can own as personal long or side arms.

all of that would be epic true if it weren't for that pesky national guard we created. so yeah...no need for militias at all then, and we're left with hunters (legit), collectors (legit), responsible people who truly own sensible guns for defense (legit), and gun nuts that want to lube up their guns and put their penises into them (not legit, mouth-breathing, retarded).

of course the 2nd amendment says nothing about this only applies until we creat a national guard. who submitted the second amendment? James Madison, what did James Madison have to say about gun ownership by citizens?

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."

kind of puts what his real intent was into perspective

 

[GuyPinestra]

[.

If Congress should ban what it determines to be an assault weapon, such a law would be Constitutional until a given court rules otherwise.

.

Mind showing us where the constitution gives courts the authority to nullify laws? The way most people read the C, the states should have that power.

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

How many states have medical marijuana now? 18, and 2 of them have legalized recreational marijuana, as well.

You don't think the Federal marijuana law has been 'nullified' there?

Or is that different.... somehow.... because it's something you SUPPORT?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mind showing us where the constitution gives courts the authority to nullify laws? The way most people read the C, the states should have that power.

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

How many states have medical marijuana now? 18, and 2 of them have legalized recreational marijuana, as well.

You don't think the Federal marijuana law has been 'nullified' there?

Or is that different.... somehow.... because it's something you SUPPORT?

Of course not.

Whether the Federal government decides to enforce a given Federal law or not is up the Justice Department, not the states, who are compelled to allow Federal authorities administer the law in any jurisdiction.

 

[GuyPinestra]

then a lot of people have no fucking clue how the constitution or judicial review works. why on fucking EARTH would the states have the right to nullify federal law? you truly have no fucking clue about this kind of thing, do you? did you drop out of school in third grade or something?

How many states have medical marijuana now? 18, and 2 of them have legalized recreational marijuana, as well.

You don't think the Federal marijuana law has been 'nullified' there?

Or is that different.... somehow.... because it's something you SUPPORT?

Of course not.

Whether the Federal government decides to enforce a given Federal law or not is up the Justice Department, not the states, who are compelled to allow Federal authorities administer the law in any jurisdiction.

Shit Clayton, didn't you see the ' ' around the word nullify? Does that signify a LITERAL interpretation of the word to you? I know what the Federal government CAN do, and with the liberalization of marijuana laws I know what they HAVE DONE.

For the most part, absolutely nothing.

Which is NOT the attitude they will take on guns, because guns in the hands of private citizens is SCARY... We're just too hard to control....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

mmmm, then why do states have the right to write their own gun control legislation?

exactly. why are they? the second amendment. when it speaks of a militia being necessary for protecting a free state. but then you don't want to admit that because you have to admit that the Heller verdict, wherein it claims that the second amendment is not limited to military/militia purposes, is incorrect.

you're just making an argument for federalized gun trafficking/commercialization laws. thanks for that, because i happen to agree.

well actually what you are saying is all of these limiting state laws are illegal because the exceed federal limitations. thanks for that because i agree with that

This doesn’t make any sense.

State laws are Constitutional until such time as a court rules otherwise, it has nothing to do with Federal laws unless a state law is in conflict.

For example, Federal law doesn’t prohibit states from mandating registration. State laws requiring registration of firearms are Constitutional because the courts have consistently upheld these laws. See, e.g., Justice v. Cicero, 577 F.3d 768 (7th Cir. 2009).

 

[eflatminor]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

Correct, your right to a firearm shall not be infringed but if you hurt someone else or interfere with their rights, your rights may be limited after due process.

It does NOT mean your rights can be infringed when you don't hurt someone else. My owning a high capacity magazine hurts no one.

See how easy that was?