reagan appointee quotes scalia in upholding gun ban

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Clearly, the judge didn't review the entire reason the Second Amendment was created for. If he had, he would have understood that the citizens do have the right to weapons like the AR-15.
I'm waiting to hear about some city cops going to forcibly take guns away from those who haven't committed any crimes and are not willing to give up their guns without an actual fight. I expect the bloodshed will begin. Both cops and civilians will lose their lives. If enough such actions take place, then I believe the millions of gun owners who possess AR-15 style rifles will rise up and the sooner the better.

Wrong again.

It was neither the role nor responsibility of the district court judge to re-examine the meaning of the Second Amendment or the intent of its Framers – that’s the role and responsibility only of the Supreme Court.

The role and responsibility of the district court judge was to rule on the matter before him in accordance with Second Amendment case law as determined by the Supreme Court in Heller/McDonald, and that’s exactly what the judge did.

As already correctly noted: if you disapprove of how this judge ruled, take it up with the Heller Court majority.

 

[August West]

This modern day gun fondler interpretation of the 2nd is nu

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

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic. Thus, they envisioned that such civilians should be armed in such a manner as would be effective against an enemy force.
That was the purpose of the Second Amendment, thus it gave the right of each individual to bear weapons that would deter the armed foot soldiers against whom they would have to fight. Once the far-left gets into control of the country, it will be tyrannical.

What constitutes a tyrannical govt.? The idea that our founders wanted us to have guns so we can shoot our elected officials is ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This modern day gun fondler interpretation of the 2nd is nu

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

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic. Thus, they envisioned that such civilians should be armed in such a manner as would be effective against an enemy force.
That was the purpose of the Second Amendment, thus it gave the right of each individual to bear weapons that would deter the armed foot soldiers against whom they would have to fight. Once the far-left gets into control of the country, it will be tyrannical.

What constitutes a tyrannical govt.? The idea that our founders wanted us to have guns so we can shoot our elected officials is ridiculous.

Exactly.

There is no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ when government becomes ‘tyrannical’ and authorizes citizens to abandon the political (democratic) process and judicial process, suspend elections and vacate election results, and abandon the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully and constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of a majority of the American people.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

LuckyDuck, post: 19676219

If he had, he would have understood that the citizens do have the right to weapons like the AR-15.

Where do you think citizens get the right to play with semi-automatic rifles but not fully automatic rifles? Who decided that?

Here's a clue. It was not the framers.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

LuckyDuck, post: 1967602

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic.

Have you noticed that all fifty states have opted in favor of funding a fairly competent and powerful professional standing infantry, navy and air forces, along with a nuclear arsenal said to be the most powerful military in the history of mankind.

Check it out.

Now you can cite the language in the Second Amendment and yearn for a return to the day when the one shot musket was the most common advanced infantry firearm and officers carried swords, and naval ships were wind powered, and most importantly the space above 10 feet above the surface of the ground was not usable for warfare or anything else.

I have no idea why you beg there be a flimsy impotent futile fifty state citizen militia established in order to justify some perceived concept that 230 years ago our forefathers had in mind that an AR15 would be developed and that law abiding citizens who want one as a personal firearm can expect them to be manufactured and easily available for unregulated purchase.

The Supreme Court ruling that you disregard has in essence separated the right to keep specific handguns in the home in densely populated urban areas from the original concept of establishing a well regulated militia.

That 'limited' right shall not be infringed.

It's an interpretation favorable to the NRA.

I believe that interpretation has absolutely no relationship to the framer's intent - but it is what it is.

That decision does not establish that semi-automatic firearms are protected the same as a handgun in the home.

You appear to be pissing into a very strong wind and wondering why your shoes are getting soiled.

But carry on, it is quite amusing.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This modern day gun fondler interpretation of the 2nd is nu

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

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic. Thus, they envisioned that such civilians should be armed in such a manner as would be effective against an enemy force.
That was the purpose of the Second Amendment, thus it gave the right of each individual to bear weapons that would deter the armed foot soldiers against whom they would have to fight. Once the far-left gets into control of the country, it will be tyrannical.

What constitutes a tyrannical govt.? The idea that our founders wanted us to have guns so we can shoot our elected officials is ridiculous.

Exactly.

There is no Constitutional ‘tripwire’ when government becomes ‘tyrannical’ and authorizes citizens to abandon the political (democratic) process and judicial process, suspend elections and vacate election results, and abandon the right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances guaranteed by the First Amendment to ‘take up arms’ against a lawfully and constitutionally elected government reflecting the will of a majority of the American people.

And there is no foretelling that LuckyDucky and his Merry Band of AR15 Owners would have the backing of 200 million law abiding citizens to toss two and a half centuries of represented governance and law aside so that Lucky Ducky types could continue playing militia men with their AR15s.

 

[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.

take it up with scalia, hack

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic. Thus, they envisioned that such civilians should be armed in such a manner as would be effective against an enemy force.
That was the purpose of the Second Amendment, thus it gave the right of each individual to bear weapons that would deter the armed foot soldiers against whom they would have to fight. Once the far-left gets into control of the country, it will be tyrannical.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unrelated to militia service:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Only the possession of a handgun is entitled to Constitutional protections; the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of a state’s AWB, consequently such measures are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, what was the original intent of the Framers and the original understand of the Founding Generation, including the Second Amendment.

Wrong......from Heller...Semi auto rifles are the most common rifles in the United States......and Heller specifically protects weapons that are in common use......and it also states, all instruments that constitute bearable arms are protected......

You don't know what you are saying....

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.

--------


Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

Clayton.....you don't know what you are saying...these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

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]

LuckyDuck, post: 1967602

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic.

Have you noticed that all fifty states have opted in favor of funding a fairly competent and powerful professional standing infantry, navy and air forces, along with a nuclear arsenal said to be the most powerful military in the history of mankind.

Check it out.

Now you can cite the language in the Second Amendment and yearn for a return to the day when the one shot musket was the most common advanced infantry firearm and officers carried swords, and naval ships were wind powered, and most importantly the space above 10 feet above the surface of the ground was not usable for warfare or anything else.

I have no idea why you beg there be a flimsy impotent futile fifty state citizen militia established in order to justify some perceived concept that 230 years ago our forefathers had in mind that an AR15 would be developed and that law abiding citizens who want one as a personal firearm can expect them to be manufactured and easily available for unregulated purchase.

The Supreme Court ruling that you disregard has in essence separated the right to keep specific handguns in the home in densely populated urban areas from the original concept of establishing a well regulated militia.

That 'limited' right shall not be infringed.

It's an interpretation favorable to the NRA.

I believe that interpretation has absolutely no relationship to the framer's intent - but it is what it is.

That decision does not establish that semi-automatic firearms are protected the same as a handgun in the home.

You appear to be pissing into a very strong wind and wondering why your shoes are getting soiled.

But carry on, it is quite amusing.

Wrong...both D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts specifically protect Semi automatic rifles...

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

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.

--------


Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

...you don't know what you are saying...these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

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.