Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

[Abatis]

United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

This one is even WORSE for the gun-grabbing commies.

By deduction, ANY WEAPON used by the military would be a part of "ordinary military equipment" and WOULD BE protected by the 2A, including the M60 and M249 machine guns.

Absolutely true but the "Miller Rule" (protecting the civilian possession and use of arms of a type that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or of a type that could be used effectively in the common defense) was tempered by Scalia in Heller with Heller elevating "in common use at the time" to a full share of the 2nd Amendment's protection criteria.

So, while that moved the restrictions of the NFA off the menu of immediate challenges following Heller , it was an easy lift so arms of a type and configuration without a focused military use would, with little fanfare, fall under 2nd Amendment protection -- like handguns.

The de-fanging of the Miller Rule was no doubt one of the watering-down instances to gain Kennedy's signature on Scalia's opinion (making it the majority).

Challenging the NFA will happen, all in good time . . .

 

[Abatis]

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

Not familiar with this one.

Lewis gets little attention, it was a case with a felon as the plaintiff so there of course was no law overturned. It is interesting because the Court goes to great lengths explaining what Lewis could have done to relieve the RKBA disability before he armed himself in violation of he law.

The Court clearly does this in the context that every citizen possesses the 2ndA RKBA until he is convicted of a crime that impresses the rights disablement.

Nowhere does the Court say that Lewis, after getting his conviction set aside and then receiving a full pardon, must then go to the National Guard Recruiting Office and enlist to have his 2ndA rights restored.

.

 

[Abatis]

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Pretty much shoots them down again, as it applies to D.C.

Much is bandied about by anti-gunners that Heller was a 5-4 decision and that was the score for the "individual right" vs. "collective right" theories . . . That is a great fraud (to borrow from Justice Burger), it is an outright lie.

The 5-4 score was on the question of whether the DC statutes should stand or be invalidated on legal maneuvering, not constitutional grounds. The dissents were based on the standard of scrutiny (Breyer) and the outright ignoring of SCOTUS, inspecting the text of the 2ndA to discern the "scope" of the right (Stevens) -- of course both of those endeavors concluded the DC statues should stand.

On this larger question, on whether the 2nd Amendment secures a "collective right" or "individual right", Heller was 9-0 for the individual right.

The dissents all agreed that whatever the debate has been over that question, that debate is now dead.

The dissents all agreed that the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment protects an “individual” right has always been the interpretation represented in the Court's precedent, that it is the interpretation represented in all three opinions issued that day in June 2008 by the Court, and is, plainly said, the interpretation that the entire Heller Court subscribes.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

Makes Heller apply to the states under the 14th Amendment.

McDonald has been in suspended animation since being handed down because SCOTUS took a hiatus from the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Abatis]

Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)


Not familiar with this one.

Caetano was a case challenging a stun-gun ban in Massachusetts. It is very useful to cite to dispense with the typical anti-gunner idiocy that the 2ndA only protects muskets . . .

This was a per curiam decision which are short and unsigned and typically represent a decision on an issue that is not believed controversial (within the Court).

The Mass. state supreme court held that since stun-guns were not in common use at the time the 2ndA was enacted, they could be banned.

SCOTUS relied on Heller which contains a paragraph dispelling that idea (internal citations removed):

"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, . . . , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . . , 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."​

The Court wrote in Caetano v. Massachusetts:

​

"The Court has held 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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015). . . .​

​

. . . the [Massachusetts] court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. . . .​

​

. . . the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the . . . judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."​

Caetano is also useful because it dispenses with any argument that there is some numerical value that must be attained, for an arm to be deemed "in common use".

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?

There are over a million serious violent crimes a year, none of which police have ever prevented, and thousands of which are caused BY police.
So obviously it is essential to have an armed population.
If we want to reduce crime, we should not only ensure the population is armed, but get rid of police.
Police historically always become the corrupt agents of the dictators, like the Gestapo, Stasi, Tonton Macaque, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

The KKK was an extension of the government of the wealthy elite.
The wealthy elite always control government, and they always abuse the poor majority.
The last thing any liberal or progressive should ever want is gun control.
The intent of gun control is always evil.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?

Internet badass

 

[westwall]

Internet badass

More like internet dumbass.

P1 Roll Call: Utah cop ambushed, Citizens rescue cops

Video: P1 Roll Call: Utah cop ambushed, Citizens rescue cops

Watch P1 Roll Call: Utah cop ambushed, Citizens rescue cops and more Weekly Police News Updates videos on Police1

www.police1.com

Armed civilian shoots and kills suspect, saving life of Arizona trooper 'ambushed' on highway​

The suspect shot the trooper, then got on top of him and started bashing his head on the pavement. A passerby stepped in and fatally shot the suspect

Armed civilian shoots and kills suspect, saving life of Arizona trooper 'ambushed' on highway

The suspect shot the trooper, then got on top of him and started bashing his head on the pavement. A passerby stepped in and fatally shot the suspect

nationalpost.com

Cops Rescued by Armed Citizens

lawnews.tv

 

[Rigby5]

What's going to allow gun control is that few of young men hunt or shoot these days. They're all playing video games.

58% of NRA membership is over retirement age. Give it another 20-30 years and gun rights won't disappear with a bang, they'll disappear with a whimper.

I disagree.
Gun sales are booming.
Covid, the Ukraine war, economic instability, environmental changes, increased poverty, etc. have all greatly increased gun ownership.
Nothing to do with hunting or shooting for sport.
It has more to do with increased crime and police becoming more alienating.

 

[Rigby5]

Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?

With all the rapes, murders, thefts, crazy government, etc., how is rational to be unarmed and utterly defenseless?

 

[Rigby5]

Lewis gets little attention, it was a case with a felon as the plaintiff so there of course was no law overturned. It is interesting because the Court goes to great lengths explaining what Lewis could have done to relieve the RKBA disability before he armed himself in violation of he law.

The Court clearly does this in the context that every citizen possesses the 2ndA RKBA until he is convicted of a crime that impresses the rights disablement.

Nowhere does the Court say that Lewis, after getting his conviction set aside and then receiving a full pardon, must then go to the National Guard Recruiting Office and enlist to have his 2ndA rights restored.

.

The restrictions on ex-felons seems illegal to me.
You can not have a 2 tiered society.
Either we all have equal rights or none.
How can ex-felons not be allowed to vote and yet still pay taxes, since that is taxation without representation?
If defense of right to life is inherent, then how can anyone force an ex-felon to remain unarmed?

 

[BULLDOG]

With all the rapes, murders, thefts, crazy government, etc., how is rational to be unarmed and utterly defenseless?

Your call if you want to live in a constant state of self induced paranoia. Only cowards live with that kind of fear.

 

[Rigby5]

Your call if you want to live in a constant state of self induced paranoia. Only cowards live with that kind of fear.

Are you saying you think murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc. do not happen, or that you do not care?
Do you mean you don't want to prevent murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc.?

 

[BULLDOG]

Are you saying you think murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc. do not happen, or that you do not care?
Do you mean you don't want to prevent murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc.?

I'm saying those things have always happened. No increase now over times past. The main difference now is coward gun nuts who think they need to be armed 24/7.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm saying those things have always happened. No increase now over times past. The main difference now is coward gun nuts who think they need to be armed 24/7.

Irrelevant if those crimes are increasing or decreasing.
The reality is they are eventually going to happen to you or someone you are close to, and without a firearm, you are defenseless to be able to stop it.
Responsible people know better and realize defense it up to them personally, and there is no one else to rely on.

If you take the number of serious crimes each year and multiply times a lifetime, then divide by the population, you get that everyone will become the victim of a serious crime of violence, about 2.5 times in your life.
So if you prefer to be unable to do anything, that is your choice.
But it seems to me being armed is much more responsible.

 

[BULLDOG]

Irrelevant if those crimes are increasing or decreasing.
The reality is they are eventually going to happen to you or someone you are close to, and without a firearm, you are defenseless to be able to stop it.
Responsible people know better and realize defense it up to them personally, and there is no one else to rely on.

If you take the number of serious crimes each year and multiply times a lifetime, then divide by the population, you get that everyone will become the victim of a serious crime of violence, about 2.5 times in your life.
So if you prefer to be unable to do anything, that is your choice.
But it seems to me being armed is much more responsible.

This country survived quite well without gun nuts until the last few years. You should be ashamed of what your gun nut cowardice is doing to our country.

 

[westwall]

Your call if you want to live in a constant state of self induced paranoia. Only cowards live with that kind of fear.

Who said anything about fear? I have car insurance. Not because I am afraid, but because there are stupid people out there.

The same goes for the gun I carry. I ain't afraid. But there are some real dumb people out there.

 

[Batcat]

Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?

I carry a legally concealed handgun not to kill an attacker but to stop his attack. A .38 snub nosed revolver is an excellent defensive weapon but not necessarily all that lethal.

I am 75 yeas old with a bad back and a candidate for hip replacement.
My noticeable limp and age makes me a weak member of the herd that predators prefer to attack. I am not stupid enough to believe I can take on a young thug and win in a physical fight. My revolver is an equalizer that might prevent my landing in the hospital for a long period or six feet under. Hopefully I will never have to use it for legitimate self defense.

 

[westwall]

This country survived quite well without gun nuts until the last few years. You should be ashamed of what your gun nut cowardice is doing to our country.

Yeah, you love to call people cowards, but you are the one too scared to use a gun to prevent someone from harming you.

How does it feel to live in perpetual fear of an inanimate object?

 

[BULLDOG]

I carry a legally concealed handgun not to kill an attacker but to stop his attack. A .38 snub nosed revolver is an excellent defensive weapon but not necessarily all that lethal.

I am 75 yeas old with a bad back and a candidate for hip replacement.
My noticeable limp and age makes me a weak member of the herd that predators prefer to attack. I am not stupid enough to believe I can take on a young thug and win in a physical fight. My revolver is an equalizer that might prevent my landing in the hospital for a long period or six feet under. Hopefully I will never have to use it for legitimate self defense.

How many times have you shot your gun at somene?