It is unconstitutional to ban handguns...

[miketx]

We already have reasonable regulation....you can't use guns to commit crimes...if you do you can be arrested and jailed....

If you are a convicted felon caught with a gun you can be arrested and jailed...

We can already do both of those.....

Too bad the gov rarely prosecutes criminals trying to buy guns.

 

[2aguy]

Trump/Palin 2016.

I have a feeling it will be Trump/Cruz....

 

[2aguy]

Once a type of gun is banned the door is open to ban any or all types of guns. Unless the second amendment is repealed, it is unlikely that all guns are banned, but we could be very limited as to what guns we can have. We could possibly be limited to guns that are single shot.

They don't have to ban guns directly...that is why they are going after the Assault weapon ban...notice they are talking about weapons of war...and high capacity magazines.....

Weapons of war...semi auto pistols.....

high capacity magazines....limit them to 10 rounds and kiss your Glocks good bye.....

Then...if they get congress back...they repeal the Lawful Commerce in Arms act, and they destroy gun makers with law suits.....

The totalitarians know how to do this....

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

I congratulate you on avoiding the question in its entirety.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Then you need to contrast that with the recent SCOTUS decision to "let stand" a recent local assault weapons ban.

You know that in terms of precedent and the temperature of the court, cert denied means nothing.
No...wait...you probably do not. Never mind.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So far, not a single meaningful attempt to address the question asked in the OP.
Telling.

 

[jon_berzerk]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

Scalia is not around to fight for gun rights anymore, so it looks like Thomas will need to take up that torch -- which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights -- after all the post Civil War legislation and rulings which tried to deprive black men from keeping and bearing arms.

I too noticed the "popularity" criterion used by Scalia in his write-up of Heller.

However the other SCOTUS justices are NOT buying it apparently.

They recently "let stand" a decision by a lower court upholding an assault weapons ban.

So times are changing. Scalia has died. And we are running out of strict-constructionist justices on the SCOTUS. BHO and Billy C. did not appoint any, and GWB did not get to appoint enough.

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights

are you frikking crazy or what

the nra faught side by side with the blacks

to make sure they had gun rights to defend againt

the leftist KKKers

lefties today still want to make it harder if not impossible

for honest black folk to defend themselves with firearms

why is that

 

[Defiant1]

Banning any weapon is unconstitutional.
The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure "The People" have whatever means necessary to oppose a tyrannical government.

 

[martybegan]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

They don't need to totally ban them, just make it so difficult to get one legally that most people won't bother.

Again, NYC, 3-6 months and $1000, not a de jure ban, but an attempt at a de facto one.

 

[frigidweirdo]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

Scalia is not around to fight for gun rights anymore, so it looks like Thomas will need to take up that torch -- which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights -- after all the post Civil War legislation and rulings which tried to deprive black men from keeping and bearing arms.

I too noticed the "popularity" criterion used by Scalia in his write-up of Heller.

However the other SCOTUS justices are NOT buying it apparently.

They recently "let stand" a decision by a lower court upholding an assault weapons ban.

So times are changing. Scalia has died. And we are running out of strict-constructionist justices on the SCOTUS. BHO and Billy C. did not appoint any, and GWB did not get to appoint enough.

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

Thomas can vote for more black people to die, why does he care? He's soon up for parole of life.

 

[jillian]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

They don't need to totally ban them, just make it so difficult to get one legally that most people won't bother.

Again, NYC, 3-6 months and $1000, not a de jure ban, but an attempt at a de facto one.

nice that you can throw those words around. gee.... I wonder how my husband got licensed

 

[M14 Shooter]

They don't need to totally ban them, just make it so difficult to get one legally that most people won't bother.
Again, NYC, 3-6 months and $1000, not a de jure ban, but an attempt at a de facto one.

Yes... and ask anyone that proposes such a thing what their response is to apply the same "fee" to an abortion.
Say..$500 for the permit and a $1000 tax on the service.
Gun owners in NYC and the Norther Marianas, respectively, will tell you this is perfectly legal.

 

[Picaro]

It's 'unconstitutional' for the Federal Government to ban handguns or restrict who can own one. States have much more discretion than the Federal government does, and we have more than enough precedent both from the colonial laws and post-Constitution state governments doing that. The same for states establishment of religion for that matter.

Yes, this annoys both right and left wing cranks of all persuasions, but 'Original Intent' is not any wingnuts' friend. You are just going to have to start campaigns to toss out the 1st and 2nd Amendments, and then pass Amendments to take their place, or put another Lincoln in office of your particular ideological lunacy and just nullify the Constitution altogether. Get busy with that and quit being a bunch of lazy whiners.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's 'unconstitutional' for the Federal Government to ban handguns or restrict who...
can own one. States have much more discretion than the Federal government does...

States are bound by the 2nd every bit as much as the federal government, through the 14th Amendment.

 

[Picaro]

It's 'unconstitutional' for the Federal Government to ban handguns or restrict who...
can own one. States have much more discretion than the Federal government does...

States are bound by the 2nd every bit as much as the federal government, through the 14th Amendment.

In your mind, maybe.

 

[martybegan]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

They don't need to totally ban them, just make it so difficult to get one legally that most people won't bother.

Again, NYC, 3-6 months and $1000, not a de jure ban, but an attempt at a de facto one.

nice that you can throw those words around. gee.... I wonder how my husband got licensed

So basicially "we got ours, screw everyone else"?

Nice.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's 'unconstitutional' for the Federal Government to ban handguns or restrict who...
can own one. States have much more discretion than the Federal government does...

States are bound by the 2nd every bit as much as the federal government, through the 14th Amendment.

In your mind, maybe.

You aren't aware that the SCotUS incorporated the 2nd in 2010?
McDonald v Chicago
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[August West]

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

You need to be made to understand what "shall not be infringed" means, traitor.

Not being able to sale weapons out of vending machines is infringement isn`t it mike? Why isn`t the NRA (Nation`s Real Assholes) challenging this infringement? Crazy people and terror suspects have rights too you know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

You need to be made to understand what "shall not be infringed" means, traitor.

Not being able to sale weapons out of vending machines is infringement isn`t it mike? Why isn`t the NRA (Nation`s Real Assholes) challenging this infringement? Crazy people and terror suspects have rights too you know.

I'm sorry -- did you address the question in the OP?
I must have missed it.

 

[miketx]

Not being able to sale weapons out of vending machines is infringement isn`t it mike? Why isn`t the NRA (Nation`s Real Assholes) challenging this infringement? Crazy people and terror suspects have rights too you know.

You are a very poor liar.