reagan appointee quotes scalia in upholding gun ban

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19671502

You guys are irrational..

It is irrational to compare accidents involving common household devices used by million and millions of people to a firearm being used to commit mass murder.

I'm sorry it is not irrational, it is insane.

They should confiscate your guns by reason of insanity.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bruce_T_Laney, post: 19671551

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

You must hate yourself then.

Manufacture and sale of new ones to the general public are banned. Collectors can own older and fire ones but not buy certain essential parts,

If you think I'm stupid please explain why all the above is not a government restriction on the sale and use of those types of firearms.

My point stands. Yours makes no sense at all.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Bruce_T_Laney, post: 19671551

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!

Tell me, do you know, expect advance warning when this gunfight is going to breakout?

I'm trying to picture how you function in your daily existence carrying that shotgun and pistol loaded up with enough backup ammo to survive a gunfight against an AR15 weilding gun owner.

 

[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.

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.

You are a moron........I broke down you points one by one......you are wrong...you are lying about the opinion in Heller and what Scalia wrote.....


As to "dangerous and unusual" I showed you in Caetano v. Massachusetts what the standard is and the AR-15 civilian rifle does not meet that standard...you have to lie in order to get it there...


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

“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........

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"........the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, ......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......


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

This also re addresses the 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.

 

[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.

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.

This is what Scalia actually wrote on what weapons are protected...he even cites ginsburg.....

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.

--------

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

And then Alito shows you are wrong with the ruling in Caetano v. Massachusetts when the 4th Circuit tried to say stun guns were unConstitutional....he then went on to explain "Dangerous and unusual," and how that does not apply to AR-15 civilian rifles and all semi automatic weapons....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

----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.

 

[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.

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.

Let me highlight an important quote from the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling that addresses AR-15 civilian rifles and semi automatic weapons and the anti gunner crap about their being dangerous....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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’”).

You are wrong....that judge is wrong...the 4th Circuit ruling on Assault weapons is wrong..

 

[August West]

Bruce_T_Laney, post: 19671551

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!

Tell me, do you know, expect advance warning when this gunfight is going to breakout?

I'm trying to picture how you function in your daily existence carrying that shotgun and pistol loaded up with enough backup ammo to survive a gunfight against an AR15 weilding gun owner.

You`re forgetting the little gun he tucks inside his bra.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19671629

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

“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........

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"........the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, ......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......

The above two paragraphs from your wall of words show that you are not s very honest fellow.

You wrote under the first paragraph that there is no mention of type of weapon.

But go back and read the second paragraph. You see it is there that the type of weapon is referrrd to.

It went right over your head didn't it.

"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

See the words 'historical tradition' ? That goes directly to my previous point that AR15s will be banned based on the political will of the majority and that Scalia confirms there there is a historical tradition of prohibiting dangerous and unusual firearms that does not infringe on any law abiding citizen's right to bear historically acceptable arms.

The popularity of the AR15 as a plaything does not negate the fact that it has become a wesponur of choice for mass murderers.

Mass murderers are not having an accident.

 

[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.

Let me highlight an important quote from the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling that addresses AR-15 civilian rifles and semi automatic weapons and the anti gunner crap about their being dangerous....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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’”).

You are wrong....that judge is wrong...the 4th Circuit ruling on Assault weapons is wrong..

You have s problem because of commonly used for lawful purposes.

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes."



The AR15 has one lawful purpose as a sporting rifle. A play toy in other words.

It, as I have been told by s gun nut, within minutes - Can be converted into an automatic weapon.

For those reasons the AR15 can very easily be categorized as an unusual and dangerous weapon that must be banned

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 19671629

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

“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........

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"........the AR-15 civilian rifle, in particular....is the most "common" rifle in the country, ......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......

The above two paragraphs from your wall of words show that you are not s very honest fellow.

You wrote under the first paragraph that there is no mention of type of weapon.

But go back and read the second paragraph. You see it is there that the type of weapon is referrrd to.

It went right over your head didn't it.

"We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

See the words 'historical tradition' ? That goes directly to my previous point that AR15s will be banned based on the political will of the majority and that Scalia confirms there there is a historical tradition of prohibiting dangerous and unusual firearms that does not infringe on any law abiding citizen's right to bear historically acceptable arms.

The popularity of the AR15 as a plaything does not negate the fact that it has become a wesponur of choice for mass murderers.

Mass murderers are not having an accident.

And you ignore everything else to make that point........


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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’”).

----


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
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.

 

[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.

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.

Let me highlight an important quote from the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling that addresses AR-15 civilian rifles and semi automatic weapons and the anti gunner crap about their being dangerous....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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’”).

You are wrong....that judge is wrong...the 4th Circuit ruling on Assault weapons is wrong..

You have s problem because of commonly used for lawful purposes.

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes."



The AR15 has one lawful purpose as a sporting rifle. A play toy in other words.

It, as I have been told by s gun nut, within minutes - Can be converted into an automatic weapon.

For those reasons the AR15 can very easily be categorized as an unusual and dangerous weapon that must be banned

There are over 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles in private hands used for self defense, hunting, collecting and sports....you dumb ass......

As the most popular rifle in the United States.....they are, by that fact "In Common Use."

 

[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.

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.

Let me highlight an important quote from the Caetano v. Massachusetts ruling that addresses AR-15 civilian rifles and semi automatic weapons and the anti gunner crap about their being dangerous....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

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’”).

You are wrong....that judge is wrong...the 4th Circuit ruling on Assault weapons is wrong..

You have s problem because of commonly used for lawful purposes.

"First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes."



The AR15 has one lawful purpose as a sporting rifle. A play toy in other words.

It, as I have been told by s gun nut, within minutes - Can be converted into an automatic weapon.

For those reasons the AR15 can very easily be categorized as an unusual and dangerous weapon that must be banned

You didn't even use that quote properly because it undermines your point, you doofus....

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.---------

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 1967187

There are over 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles in private hands used for self defense, hunting, collecting and sports....you dumb ass......

There are many other types of firearm for those purposes. That so many AR15 toys have been made and sold is a mistake that must and can be constitutionally corrected.

Rapid fire and high capacity magazines are the features that make them more dangerous and unusal than most historical commonly used firearms,

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 1967187

There are over 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles in private hands used for self defense, hunting, collecting and sports....you dumb ass......

There are many other types of firearm for those purposes. That so many AR15 toys have been made and sold is a mistake that must and can be constitutionally corrected.

Rapid fire and high capacity magazines are the features that make them more dangerous and unusal than most historical commonly used firearms,

Yes...the Supreme Court has shown you don't know what you are talking about.......you don't care about deaths....you hate these guns. They don't kill as many people as knives, clubs or hands, yet you focus on them because you are irrational and a fool...

There are 8 million AR-15 civilian rifles in private hands...over 16 million semi auto rifles....they kill far fewer people than knives, clubs, hands, wasps, bees, or cars.........and you want them banned for the millions of people who use them legally...

You can't be trusted to control any part of our government.....we need to vote you and your scumbag friends out of office.

Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

Rifles....374

knives....1,604

blunt objects....472

bare hands....656

Total gun murder .....11,004

Wasps and bees....and animals....

Afraid of Snakes? Wasps and Dogs Are Deadlier

Of the 1,610 people killed in encounters with animals between 2008 and 2015,

478 were killed by hornets, wasps and bees,

and 272 by dogs, according to a study published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine. Snakes, spiders and scorpions were responsible for 99 deaths over the eight years.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19671881

You didn't even use that quote properly because it undermines your point, you doofus....

I used it in perfect context.

I wrote that the AR15 is not commonly used hunting, self defense like so many other traditional firearms. A small percentage of gun owners possess all 8 million that exist.

It is not a common use firearm just because 8 million have been sold.

Now you can dispute that with some data, but with the fact that 3/4 of adults in this great country of ours do not own any guns at all, let alone a mock assault rifle, you will have a difficult time in court arguing that AR15s are in common use in our time and a necessary danger.

At the time of the founding the most commonly owned firearm was the musket used for hunting. It was dangerous but it had a common necessary lawful use.

Not so with the AR15 today.

It can kill many humans in seconds not minutes. That is unusual for most citizens to have that need for lethal force when hunting,

Very unusual and dangerous indeed.

 

[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.

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

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!

A semi automatic weapon can be defined as a weapon that does not require manually loading the next round...revolvers fit that defintion so they will be coming for those too......and they want your pump action shotgun as well...

and then they will come for your lever action rifles......this scene from HBOs West World seals that deal......lever action rifles in a mass shooting......

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19672002

..you don't care about deaths....you hate these guns.

I certainly care more about victims, survivors and families of mass murder by semi-automatic firearms than you do.

You are more concerned about your forlornly fabricated right to play with semi automatic wespons than those who end up getting shot by one. You want the victims to shut up so you can play with unusual and dangerous toys.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 19672002

..you don't care about deaths....you hate these guns.

I certainly care more about victims, survivors and families of mass murder by semi-automatic firearms than you do.

You are more concerned about your forlornly fabricated right to play with semi automatic wespons than those who end up getting shot by one. You want the victims to shut up so you can play with unusual and dangerous toys.

Dumb ass....Americans use their legal guns, including AR-15s 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack, rape, robbbery and murder.......that outnumbers rifles used in mass shooting by about 1,500,000 times......


They are the most common rifles in the country, so they are not unusual, they are no different from any other gun so they are not dangerous in any way that allows them to be banned per the ruling in D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19672350

Dumb ass....Americans use their legal guns, including AR-15s 1,500,000 times a year

How many times is it an AR15
To stop a robbery or rape. If you are going to cite data could you cite data relevant to the discussion about a judge upholding an assault rifle ban.

You are saying AR15s are commonly used for self or property defense. So how many times.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19672350,

They are the most common rifles in the country, so they are not unusual, they are no different from any other gun so they are not dangerous in any way that allows them to be banned per the ruling in D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts....

You say AR15s

".... are not dangerous in any way that allows them to be banned"

You are wrong and on the losing side.

"Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said."

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

Seven down - 43 to go.

There is no unlimited right to own dangerous and unusual guns. Thank you. Justice Scalia.

And if they can easily be converted to fully automatic machine guns because they can fire multiple rounds without overheating the barrel then they are extremely dangerous.

A case can be made that semi-automatics are the manufacturer's way to skirt the machine gun ban.

If a converted one were used in a mass shooting I wonder if the manufacturers could be sued for producing something so close to an illegal firearms.

You can't convert a three shot deer rifle to a fully automatic can you.