reagan appointee quotes scalia in upholding gun ban

[NotfooledbyW]

baileyn45, post: 19670923

My point is that if you think banning AR 15's is going to make a difference in this country, you are a fool. From your own post, "police displayed the semi-automatic AK-47 rifle and its 30-round magazine." Any idea what it takes to turn that AK fully auto? Minutes at most. Of course criminals wouldn't do that. It's a good thing it wasn't an AR 15.

You make the best case for constitutionally banning semi-automatic assault rifles and you make it well. "Any idea what it takes to turn that AK fully auto? Minutes at most."

Since legal firearms can so easily be converted into illegal firearms and used for mass murder and assault against law enforcement the logical response from society must be to ban them as well.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[2aguy]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

And that ban is not an infringement on your right to bear arms.

Tell me right wing genius: why are machine guns banned?

A) Because they are called assault rifles
B) Because they don't look like hunting rifles
C) Because liberals don't want to play with them
D) Because rapid fire and high magazine capability technology has been developed for inflicting massive casualties on humans during combat in wars. They were not designed for everyday civilian use in peace time.

If you dont know the answer or if you know it well you have no business calling anyone ignorant.

They aren't banned, dumb ass.....and "machine guns" are crew served weapons...which are not "bearable arms" under the understanding of the 2nd Amendment...what you mean to say, dumb ass, is fully automatic or select fire weapons...

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war, dumb as, and it has never been used by the military...

 

[2aguy]

‘Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.""’ ibid

And this is consistent with “states’ rights” dogma propagated by conservatives.

The ruling is also consistent with that of other District courts and two Federal courts of appeal.

The constitutionality of assault weapon bans is not yet ripe for judicial review; indeed, the Supreme Court continues to refuse to hear such cases.

You are such an anti gun hack.....Heller and Caetano state that these weapons are protected as they are in Common use...they are the most popular civilian rifles in the United States...

Funny how all of your so called interpretations go to banning weapons.....

Those district courts and courts of appeal are ignoring the Supreme Court rulings in Heller and the follow up Caetano......but you want to ignore those as you pretend to know what you are talking about...

 

[2aguy]

Conservatives whine incessantly about how the states should be allowed to compel a woman to give birth against her will through force of law or deny gay Americans access to marriage in accordance with the ‘will of the people’ of the states.

The Massachusetts measure is no different: a Constitutional firearm regulatory measure which comports with Second Amendment case law reflecting the will of the people of the state of Massachusetts – and conservatives disrespect and oppose that will; they can’t have it both ways.

Indeed, unlike conservatives seeking to violate a woman’s right to privacy or deny gay Americans their right to equal protection of the law, a state’s assault weapon ban has never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

No....this ruling doesn't comport with either Heller, or Caetano.....these judges are intentionally ignoring Supreme Court rulings....as Justice Thomas keeps pointing out....

 

[August West]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

Quite clear indeed. Where does your militia train and who is your commander?

 

[2aguy]

TNHarley, post: 19668055

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

The Second Amendment is not clear at all except the right to bear arms is mentioned in connection with a well regulated militia.

The judge is correct that an AR15, manufactured 227 years after that ink was put to paper and which is not necessary to maintain a well regulated militia, can be constitutionally banned.

Dumb shit.......you don't know what you are talking about.....try reading D.C. v. Heller they explain it so that even someone as stupid as you can understand that the Right to Bear Arms is an individual Right, not connected to militia service.......

From Heller, you dumb ass....read and learn something...

Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

------

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

------

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing 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, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation.

 

[2aguy]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

And there we have it,

"An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s".

If the courts deem it, a frying pan is an assault weapon.

The AR 15 is being singled out merely for it's looks. I've watched 2 men, one with an AR 15 with a 30 round clip, another with a 9mm with 3 clips. the rate of discharge between the two is under 5 sec. Talk about not solving a problem and making idiots feel better. False sense of security.

states' rights, babe

don't like it?

don't live there

Yes...when people like you kept blacks from going to public schools and kept them from voting through Poll Taxes and Literacy tests you also used the States Rights argument.....it is funny how you morons cling to States Rights whenever it means DENYING Rights to citizens.....

 

[2aguy]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

Quite clear indeed. Where does your militia train and who is your commander?

You are a dumb ass......

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

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

------

1. Operative Clause.

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.”

The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”).

All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

 

[2aguy]

blackhawk, post: 19670417

But never mind all that lets just keep pretending that banning the AR-15 will solve everything

No one is saying it will solve everything.

But if they were banned since 1994 there's a good chance fewer would die if someone like the Parkland shooter didn't have the easy NRA path to buy one.

Dumb shit......actual research into the "Assault" weapon ban shows it did nothing to stop crime or mass shootings.....

The worst school shooting, Virginia Tech was done with 2 pistols, and murdered 32 people...

You don't know what you are talking about, and you are exactly the anti gun extremist with no knowledge of anything involving guns that we need to fight...

 

[2aguy]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

And there we have it,

"An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s".

If the courts deem it, a frying pan is an assault weapon.

The AR 15 is being singled out merely for it's looks. I've watched 2 men, one with an AR 15 with a 30 round clip, another with a 9mm with 3 clips. the rate of discharge between the two is under 5 sec. Talk about not solving a problem and making idiots feel better. False sense of security.

states' rights, babe

don't like it?

don't live there

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons have been outlawed since 1933.

The ignorance exists only on the right.

An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s.

An assault weapon is not solely a select fire rifle or carbine chambered in an intermediate round; they are also a weapon subject to regulation as a matter of the law.

Conservatives need to stop with this tedious, inane sophistry.

And there we have it,

"An assault weapon is whatever a lawmaking body determines it to be, including semiautomatic AR 15s".

If the courts deem it, a frying pan is an assault weapon.

The AR 15 is being singled out merely for it's looks. I've watched 2 men, one with an AR 15 with a 30 round clip, another with a 9mm with 3 clips. the rate of discharge between the two is under 5 sec. Talk about not solving a problem and making idiots feel better. False sense of security.

states' rights, babe

don't like it?

don't live there

I have no problem with states rights, I do have a problem with morons pretending to solve a problem with the most politically popular option they can find. This idiot has accomplished nothing, other than make stupid people feel better.
Perhaps next he could outlaw AK 47s and Uzis, you know the guns that are already illegal and are faced by law enforcement everyday. Pretty words, disarm the law abiding, pretend to have accomplished something. Brilliant.

This totally misses the point.

The thread is about a district court ruling that possession of an AR 15, or other similar firearms, is not entitled to Constitutional protections, consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The efficacy of the law is not at issue, nor is the motive to enact the measure.

consistent with Second Amendment case law.

And the rulings from the Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts shows that they are not consistent with 2nd Amendment case law but are, in fact, ignoring the rulings from the Supreme Court to make up their decisions solely to ban these weapons based on their personal whims.....

Since you keep repeating the false claim that these rulings are supported by case law, when they aren't, you are a lying hack.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It isn't a victory, the judge lied since Scalia wrote in Heller, and Alito in Caetano that these weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment...this judge lied...

This is what Scalia wrote;

{{“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

If society Constitutionally decides that an AR15 is a dangerous and unusual weapon it may be banned according to Scalia.

 

[August West]

blackhawk, post: 19670417

But never mind all that lets just keep pretending that banning the AR-15 will solve everything

No one is saying it will solve everything.

But if they were banned since 1994 there's a good chance fewer would die if someone like the Parkland shooter didn't have the easy NRA path to buy one.

Dumb shit......actual research into the "Assault" weapon ban shows it did nothing to stop crime or mass shootings.....

The worst school shooting, Virginia Tech was done with 2 pistols, and murdered 32 people...

You don't know what you are talking about, and you are exactly the anti gun extremist with no knowledge of anything involving guns that we need to fight...

Actual research into the assault weapons ban? I`m glad you asked.
Mass shootings before, during and after the assault weapons ban

 

[2aguy]

baileyn45, post: 19670923,

Gee, good come back. I could spend the next week posting stories of people getting shot and killed with fully automatic weapons.

It's a lie. You said it happens every day. You can't find one news report that it happens once a year let alone every single day.

Fully automatic weapons are successfully banned and that is not an infringement on your right to bear arms.

Lying about the success of the constitutional machine gun ban won't win the argument that semi automatic weapons and high capacity magazines cannot be banned as well. They are very deadly and a menace to society. No one has the right to play with them.

Your claim that you have a constitutional right to fire off thirty rounds and reload in ten seconds but you accept that you don't have the right to fire off thirty rounds in three seconds is so bogus its laughable.

The intent of the framers taken as literal as humanly possible certainly can be interpreted in modern times that any advances in warfare technology specifically rapid fire human killing capability must be limited to use by a well regulated militia.

Sorry Mr Fib, that's what an honest and reasonable judge will decide based on exactly what is written.

Dumb shit....more people are killed by lawn mowers each year than by mass shooters with rifles.

Dumb shit...more people are killed by knives every single year than have been killed by these rifles in 35 years of mass public shootings.

Dumb shit....more people are killed by wasp and bee stings than are killed by these rifles each year.

They are not deadly, they are not banned by these judges.......these judges have to lie to make their rulings...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19671472

Dumb shit....more people are killed by lawn mowers each year than by mass shooters with rifles.

Is a lawn mower designed to inflict mass casualties on humans in combat situations?

And why are you comparing accidental deaths to mass murder?

Do you have stats where s lawn mower was used to commit mass murder.

You assault rifle cult spokespeople get dumber and dumber with every post.

 

[2aguy]

It isn't a victory, the judge lied since Scalia wrote in Heller, and Alito in Caetano that these weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment...this judge lied...

This is what Scalia wrote;

{{“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

If society Constitutionally decides that an AR15 is a dangerous and unusual weapon it may be banned according to Scalia.

Like the others....you can't read Heller and Scalia without lying.......

From your quote of the Heller ruling...

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

Nothing in that bans weapons by type........you moron. This shows you have no point.

Next...

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time".....you are such a doofus...the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, you doofus......over 8 million of them in private hands and semi auto rifles there are over 16 million of them in private hands if not more......

So right there, you have shown you have no point......

And then, because lying judges on the 4th Circuit tried to use your stupid argument to ban stun guns in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had to bitch slap them with the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling...

This also re addresses your stupid point about these weapons not existing when the Founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights....

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons) have been outlawed since 1933.

Ignorant Trolls...unable to address the topic of the thread...just drop some shit and call it good, eh? LMAO at outlawed..as I own two fully automatic weapons..legally.

I am sure billy bob was referring to unlicensed ownership.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 19671472

Dumb shit....more people are killed by lawn mowers each year than by mass shooters with rifles.

Is a lawn mower designed to inflict mass casualties on humans in combat situations?

And why are you comparing accidental deaths to mass murder?

Do you have stats where s lawn mower was used to commit mass murder.

You assault rifle cult spokespeople get dumber and dumber with every post.

I am showing you, dumb ass......that these rifles are not dangerous in actual deaths as common tools we allow children to use every weekend in this country and they kill more people every year than mass shooters do with these rifles......

There are 8 million of them in private hands, and a handful, if that, are used each year in crime..........

You guys are irrational.....you are extremists, and you cannot be reasoned with.......you ignore the truth, the facts and the reality, and when you asshats become judges you completely ignore legal Precedent and Supreme Court rulings in order to ban guns....

This is why we don't trust you, this is why we are now going to fight you for every bump stock, bullet, magazine, rifle, pistol, shot gun and sling shot....

There is no "reasonable" gun control law you will finally stop at and say, we have enough laws.....you will go on until all guns are banned...

Molon Labe, you dumb ass..

 

[Crepitus]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

take it up with scalia, hack

Fuck Scalia too.
How am i a hack by being able to read a document on my own? Are you fuckin retarded?

The funny thing is that you don't even realize you are interpreting it to mean what you want it to. Thats just human nature.

Lol please elaborate

"Elaborate"?

You read it and see what you want to see, just like everyone else.

It's not that complex a concept dude.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It isn't a victory, the judge lied since Scalia wrote in Heller, and Alito in Caetano that these weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment...this judge lied...

This is what Scalia wrote;

{{“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

If society Constitutionally decides that an AR15 is a dangerous and unusual weapon it may be banned according to Scalia.

Like the others....you can't read Heller and Scalia without lying.......

From your quote of the Heller ruling...

“Nothing in our opinion should 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.”

Nothing in that bans weapons by type........you moron. This shows you have no point.

Next...

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ” }}

the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time".....you are such a doofus...the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, you doofus......over 8 million of them in private hands and semi auto rifles there are over 16 million of them in private hands if not more......

So right there, you have shown you have no point......

And then, because lying judges on the 4th Circuit tried to use your stupid argument to ban stun guns in Massachusetts, the Supreme Court had to bitch slap them with the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling...

This also re addresses your stupid point about these weapons not existing when the Founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights....

Caetano v. Massachusetts - Wikipedia

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Scalia wrote that the right to bear arms is not unlimited.

He knocks down your entire wall of words with that statement. You accept that your right to bear arms is not unlimited.

The Parkland students who survived the shooting are making the case for public opinion that the rifle used against them is a dangerous and unusual weapon.

Scalia did not determine what constitutes a dangerous and unusual weapon but he left it open for society through legislation and the courts to decide.

Your defense based on the popularity of an unusual weapon commonly used by mass murderers is not politically sustainable.

And politically is where this gets decided, but Scalia has added his name to the legal opinion that the right to bear arms is in no way unlimited.

Politics will decide where those limits are

You are siding with a weapon often used for mass murder.

Good luck with that.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

baileyn45, post: 19670923,

Gee, good come back. I could spend the next week posting stories of people getting shot and killed with fully automatic weapons.

It's a lie. You said it happens every day. You can't find one news report that it happens once a year let alone every single day.

Fully automatic weapons are successfully banned and that is not an infringement on your right to bear arms.

Lying about the success of the constitutional machine gun ban won't win the argument that semi automatic weapons and high capacity magazines cannot be banned as well. They are very deadly and a menace to society. No one has the right to play with them.

Your claim that you have a constitutional right to fire off thirty rounds and reload in ten seconds but you accept that you don't have the right to fire off thirty rounds in three seconds is so bogus its laughable.

The intent of the framers taken as literal as humanly possible certainly can be interpreted in modern times that any advances in warfare technology specifically rapid fire human killing capability must be limited to use by a well regulated militia.

Sorry Mr Fib, that's what an honest and reasonable judge will decide based on exactly what is written.

I hate stupid people!

You can own a fully automatic weapon but the requirements and cost are a lot more than a semi-automatic!

The difference between automatic and semi-automatic weapons

Also let me tell you those like me prefer pump action shotguns over the AR-15 and in a gun fight I will use my pump action with a .38 snub nose revolver for close range instead of a AR-15 any day of the week and you can not ban shotguns and revolvers nor their ammo!

Snubnosed revolver - Wikipedia