You think you're pro-2nd but you're not

[pknopp]

Right, just because it blatantly says we have a right to keep and bear arms does not mean we have a right to keep and bear arms.

Meanwhile, abortion is a explicit Constitutional right.

Take it up with the court. Do you believe what I said isn't what they said?

Do you have some issue with someone discussing what happened in the ruling?

 

[pknopp]

No....Heller didn't say that....in fact, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment....

Feel free to quote that part.

 

[woodwork201]

The NFA is as unconstitutional as RvW was but good luck getting a case before SCOTUS that they will take.....Machine guns are scary.

And no, violent felons should not have access to guns upon discharge....Ever. Work around them and you will understand why.

That said there is no reason a non-violent felon of sound mind should not have all federal/state rights restored upon their discharge.

But no gun law will keep a violent felon from accessing a gun, don't you agree? If a violent felon is too dangerous to be around a gun, he's too dangerous to be out of prison.

And what about violent felons who have not been convicted? Current laws still give them access to guns.

And what about non-violent people who might be convicted of a violent crime? There are plenty of domestic abuse cases that fit that model.

 

[1srelluc]

One can petition for return of rights to I believe treasury secretary.

But no gun law will keep a violent felon from accessing a gun, don't you agree? If a violent felon is too dangerous to be around a gun, he's too dangerous to be out of prison.

And what about violent felons who have not been convicted? Current laws still give them access to guns.

And what about non-violent people who might be convicted of a violent crime? There are plenty of domestic abuse cases that fit that model.

I don't like to name call but that is about the most ignorant "argument" I've come across.

 

[2aguy]

Feel free to quote that part.

Miller.....

Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

 

[woodwork201]

Thomas Jefferson said

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”​

The actual quote is:

"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." - Jefferson to H. Tompkinson (AKA Samuel Kercheval), July 12, 1816

And he's right. If there are changes needed to the Constitution, you should work to pass amendments.

 

[woodwork201]

I wanna nuke, just a little one.

Good luck with that. Iran has spent many billion dollars and decades trying. Go for it if you think you can get one.

Congress should really pass an amendment banning personal ownership of the materials and the explosives for nukes.

 

[pknopp]

Miller.....

Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

{{meta.fullTitle}}

I never realized Justice McReynolds decided Heller.

 

[2aguy]

I never realized Justice McReynolds decided Heller.

Heller cited Miller...

 

[M14 Shooter]

I never realized Justice McReynolds decided Heller.

"Heller didn't say that....in fact, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment...."

"Feel free to quote that part."

Thus, the except form Miller

 

[pknopp]

Heller cited Miller...

The justices that decided Heller stated it didn't necessarily cover all arms. They didn't say it didn't but they were specific to note to not assume it did.

 

[pknopp]

"Heller didn't say that....in fact, it cited Miller which stated that arms related to military service were protected by the 2nd Amendment...."

"Feel free to quote that part."

Thus, the except form Miller

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm

 

[M14 Shooter]

The justices that decided Heller stated it didn't necessarily cover all arms.

If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.

In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-r-0578.htm

v Bruen:
...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

 

[pknopp]

If fact, they literally said the 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.

In 1939, what do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what do you suppose this includes?

They never said that. What it might mean to a new case in 2022 could mean something entirely different. As I was clear to note, they didn't rule it didn't include all arms, they ruled to not assume it did.

 

[pknopp]

v Bruen:
...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

We are discussing HELLER.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They never said that.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

The clear and obvious takeaway:
The 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.

What it might mean to a new case in 2022 could mean something entirely different.

I'm sorry -- I wasn't clear:
In 1939, what weapons do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what weapons do you suppose this includes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

We are discussing HELLER.

In case you were not aware, Bruen expands and clarifies Heller.

 

[pknopp]

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

The clear and obvious takeaway:
The 2nd does not cover all 'arms" - just those that have a reasonable relationship to the preservation of the well-regulated militia.


I'm sorry -- I wasn't clear:
In 1939, what weapons do you suppose this included?
In 2022, what weapons do you suppose this includes?

It matters NONE what I think. I've stated many times I believe a person should be able to own anything the government does, but in discussing a supreme court case, what was ruled is what was ruled, and my opinion means nothing.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It matters NONE what I think. I've stated many times I believe a person should be able to own anything the government does, but in discussing a supreme court case, what was ruled is what was ruled, and my opinion means nothing.

Side........ step.
But OK.