Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[BlindBoo]

Right. You did.
You said:
In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.
So... which USSC rulings did Heller overturn, and how did Heller overturn them?

Heller was the precedent setting ruling.

"When the Constitution was first ratified, most of its provisions specified the extent and limits of federal government authority. Even the familiar protections enumerated in the Bill of Rights—such as the First Amendment's freedom of speech and religion clauses—initially affected only the powers of the federal government, not the state governments.10 In 1868, however, the 14th Amendment was ratified, explicitly forbidding states to “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”11 As a result, the Supreme Court began to decide that most of the Bill of Rights guarantees were included in—or “incorporated” into—the more general language of the 14th Amendment as a limit on state (not just federal) powers. But the court has never accepted the argument that the entire Bill of Rights was incorporated en masse, preferring a case-by-case (right-by-right) approach.12

Until the McDonald decision, the Second Amendment remained one of the very few parts of the Bill of Rights not so “incorporated.” In fact, in a pair of 19th-century cases—United States v Cruikshank (1876)13 and Presser v Illinois (1886)14—the court found that the Second Amendment limited only the federal government. Numerous state laws affecting gun ownership have been upheld on this basis."

 

[M14 Shooter]

. In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.

False.

United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)
Heller v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7041 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

You didn't know DC appealed the DC Appeals court ruing - which uipheld the individual right - to the USSC, which then generated DC the Heller decision?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Heller was the precedent setting ruling.

So... you cannot support you claim that every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled [contrary to Heller]
Thank you

 

[BlindBoo]

False.

United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001)
Heller v. District of Columbia, No. 04-7041 (D.C. Cir. 2007)

You didn't know DC appealed the DC Appeals court ruing - which uipheld the individual right - to the USSC, which then generated DC the Heller decision?

The case involved a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms....not a states law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The case involved a federal statute that prohibited the transportation of firearms....not a states law.

Look at you, trying to move the load posts.

You said:
In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
"Any law"
Both of these appeals court ruling did exactly that.

You should probably quite while you're behind.

 

[BlindBoo]

Look at you, trying to move the load posts.

You said:
In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
"Any law"
Both of these appeals court ruling did exactly that.

You should probably quite while you're behind.

"Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with Judge Cummings’ interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment. But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question, concluding that the Second Amendment right could be subject to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions that are reasonable."

 

[Road Runner]

Nothing in the Constitution is absolute.

True,.. but it's just like marvin martian already said,.. that only happens when democrats are in charge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with Judge Cummings’ interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment. But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question, concluding that the Second Amendment right could be subject to “limited, narrowly tailored specific exceptions that are reasonable."

Fact remains:
An appeals court, prior to Heller, ruled the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms not subject to membership in the militia; the fact a statute was not overturned by the decision is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Thus, your criticims of Heller have no basis in reality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Biden:

"There’s no violation of the Second Amendment right," Biden said in New York City while discussing background checks and other ways to address gun crime. "We talk like. There’s no amendment that’s absolute. When the amendment was passed it didn’t say anybody can own a gun, any kind of gun, and any kind of weapon. You couldn’t buy a cannon when this amendment was passed so there’s no reason why you should be able to buy certain assault weapons. But that’s another issue."

In 1791, anyone could buy any weapon, if they had the money.
Someone might not sell a cannon to a 10 yr old, but there were no laws against it.
Want to buy 10 cannons for your ship? Show me the money.
Further, no one was charged with illegal possession of a firearm. Why? There were no laws to that effect.

And lets address the obvious: the fact the protections of 2nd is not absolute in no way means you can restrict the right to keep and bear arms any way you like --- like all other fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitution, a restriction must be demonstrably necessary, and demonstrable effective -- else, it infringes on said right.

 

[BlindBoo]

Fact remains:
An appeals court, prior to Heller, ruled the 2nd amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms not subject to membership in the militia; the fact a statute was not overturned by the decision is meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Thus, your criticims of Heller have no basis in reality.

What I posted was what Chief Justice Warren Burger said about it and how the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008. Before that, gun regulations and laws by the States were not overturned by the SC.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I posted was what Chief Justice Warren Burger said about it...

Berger didn't say this - you did:
In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.
You still haven't cited a USSC decision overturned by Heller - because there are none. Your statement is false.

Berger didn't say this - you did:
In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
I proved you wrong.

Thus, your criticisms of Heller have no basis in reality.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.

Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..


Have you guys caught on yet or do you want to continue to show your ignorance?

Another incoherent post

 

[BlindBoo]

Berger didn't say this - you did:
In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.
You still haven't cited a USSC decision overturned by Heller - because there are none. Your statement is false.

Berger didn't say this - you did:
In fact, until Heller no federal appellate court had ever invalidated any law as a violation of the Second Amendment.
I proved you wrong.

Thus, your criticisms of Heller have no basis in reality.

Except the part that said "But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question". That means it was not invalidated.

In the states I grew up in we always had the right to own and purchase weapons. Parents could buy their kids weapons too. But there were states that had restrictions on weapons and the courts allow those laws. It is not a criticism of the expansion of federal power over the states in Heller. It is what it is. History.

 

[Abatis]

NFA of 1934 completely bans certain firearms.

Does it? NFA-34 required registration and a tax paid for transfer.

You could argue the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did, by utilizing Title II of the GCA-68 and closing the registration window for NFA / Title II arms . . .

In 1934, Congress knew it could not outright ban military useful arms; it evolved past that recognition of limited powers.

That's clearly against the Second Amendment.

Absolutely correct. If the Supreme Court's "Miller rule" is controlling and applied to gun laws by the courts, the constitutional hurdle for gun control is very, very high.

In 1942, the 1st Circuit, in analyzing Miller recognized what applying the "Miller rule" would mean:

​

" . . . if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. . . . [A]ccording to it [the Miller rule] Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, . . . "​

​

Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)​

Of course Scalia in Heller elevated Miller's "in common use" dicta to a full partner in the Court's protection tests, adding it to the Court's type criteria (garnered from Aymette); if the arm is of a type that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and/or of a type "that its use could contribute to the common defense", the power claimed by a government to restrict the possession and use by private citizens of that type of arm, must be repelled (or invalidated if already in force).

They banned black Americans from owning guns for decades in a clear violation of the Second Amendment.

Who is "they"? Were "they" federal legislators? Were there any federal laws enacted that expressly prohibited Blacks from owning guns?

Certainly there were state laws that did, but by being state laws there was no violation of any right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Except the part that said "But the court nevertheless upheld the federal law in question". That means it was not invalidated.

I cited two cases. You missed the 2nd one?
It was the DC circuit court that overturned DC's ban on handguns, subsequently upheld in DC v Heller.

Your criticisms of Heller have no basis in reality.

 

[Abatis]

True, just because you have the right to have a firearm doesn't mean you can murder people.

Just like with the right to religion, just because you have that right doesn't mean you can have human sacrifices for your religion..


Have you guys caught on yet or do you want to continue to show your ignorance?

Your comparison fails. The legitimate prohibition of human sacrifice during a religious ceremony does not infringe on any right encompassed in the wider practice of religion. The prohibition is extremely narrow, applied to a specific act by a specific person. It does not forbid anything but the act of ceremoniously inflicting death.

Taken to the logical end that gun control operates in, you would demand forbidding immersive baptism because it could result in the drowning of a person if they are held under water by the celebrant.

Gun control does not follow your exemplar; it forbids all manner of actions and possession of items that have no direct relationship to "murder" and it is applied to all people in a jurisdiction without any individuality.

 

[Abatis]

A fraud on the American public." That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun.

The only thing that is a fraud is citing Burger as an authority on the 2nd Amendment.

While on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger never wrote a word about the Second Amendment. After he left the Court he became a paid puppet for Handgun Control Inc. (what the Brady Campaign was called in the early 90's).

A more in depth examination of Burger's 2nd Amendment views is his commentary in the January 14, 1990 issue of Parade Magazine. Placed next to the later PBS comments, the Parade article has such incredible contradictions of constitutional understanding it can only be read as evidence of Burger's willingness to sell anti-gun statements hostile to his own beliefs to the highest bidder.

In Parade, Burger states that there is an unquestioned right for Americans to defend their homes with firearms; that such a right, "need not be challenged". He continues that, "the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game," in the same fashion that no one could, "challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing . . . ."

Burger goes on to tell us what types of guns are protected by the Constitution; "To 'keep and bear arms' for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; 'Saturday night specials' and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles."

So, Burger does admit that the express constitutional mention of [the right of the people to] "keep and bear arms" guarantees private citizens (not connected to any militia nor acting under militia orders) a constitutional right to own guns for home defense and a right to own hunting guns.

OK

Burger goes further and recognizes three exemplary rights -- hunting, fishing, and buying cars -- that are so firmly guaranteed by the Constitution that they are beyond question while knowing that no Supreme Court case has ever held any of these activities to be Constitutionally protected.

What can we draw from Warren's wandering analysis?

Machine guns (an presumably cheap?? handguns) can be regulated in a fashion like motor vehicles but guns suitable for defense of the home and guns suitable for hunting should be as immune from governmental oversight as fishing equipment since the right to own such things is unquestionable and not subject to challenge (including any militia based attack on the right).

Sounds like in 1990 he's advocating the NRA's position that a unassailable constitutional right to own guns for various legal purposes without any militia conditioning exists . . .

And then he is paid by handgun Control Incorporated to say such a position is a "fraud" less than a year later????

.

 

[Otis Mayfield]

Does it? NFA-34 required registration and a tax paid for transfer.

You could argue the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 did, by utilizing Title II of the GCA-68 and closing the registration window for NFA / Title II arms . . .

In 1934, Congress knew it could not outright ban military useful arms; it evolved past that recognition of limited powers.



Absolutely correct. If the Supreme Court's "Miller rule" is controlling and applied to gun laws by the courts, the constitutional hurdle for gun control is very, very high.

In 1942, the 1st Circuit, in analyzing Miller recognized what applying the "Miller rule" would mean:

​

" . . . if the rule of the Miller case is general and complete, the result would follow that, under present day conditions, the federal government would be empowered only to regulate the possession or use of weapons such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus. But to hold that the Second Amendment limits the federal government to regulations concerning only weapons which can be classed as antiques or curiosities,-- almost any other might bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia unit of the present day,-- is in effect to hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute. . . . [A]ccording to it [the Miller rule] Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, . . . "​

​

Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942)​

Of course Scalia in Heller elevated Miller's "in common use" dicta to a full partner in the Court's protection tests, adding it to the Court's type criteria (garnered from Aymette); if the arm is of a type that is "any part of the ordinary military equipment" and/or of a type "that its use could contribute to the common defense", the power claimed by a government to restrict the possession and use by private citizens of that type of arm, must be repelled (or invalidated if already in force).



Who is "they"? Were "they" federal legislators? Were there any federal laws enacted that expressly prohibited Blacks from owning guns?

Certainly there were state laws that did, but by being state laws there was no violation of any right secured by the 2nd Amendment.

.

You can't own modern fully auto weapons. I think the cutoff year is 1984 and newer are illegal.

 

[BlindBoo]

I cited two cases. You missed the 2nd one?
It was the DC circuit court that overturned DC's ban on handguns, subsequently upheld in DC v Heller.

Your criticisms of Heller have no basis in reality.

Your second case was the Heller case that was appealed to the SC that allow them to set the new precedent separating the individuals right to own weapons from required militia service.

 

[marvin martian]

I have never insisted that people get their shots or lose a job much less inoculations for kids to attend schools. Can you provide proof of me ever doing as such? If not then you have just proven what a liar you are.

It doesn't matter. You're supporting the regime that's demanding it. You're a collaborator.