H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
You've said you dont feel like looking up supprt for it, so thus far, all youv'e said is that "its my opinion based on the plain reading of the amendment".

That is, your support is that "it says what i think it says becauyse ti says what I think it says."

When you have more than that, let me know.

Sure thing.

Or... you know you can't.
Given that you DO take the time end effort elsewhere, I can only presume that's the case...
You can, of course, prove me wrong.

Presume whatever you want. I could care less.

I see.

So, just to be clear -- there ARE court decision that support MY position and, at the same time, oppose yours.

Right?

I don't necessarily agree with that. There are decision that talk about the meansing of the word "well regulated militia". The Miller case was one of them, I think. Maybe the lower court DC decision did too.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
Yes. Your support for your opinion is: your opinion. :roll:

No, my opinion is supported by the plain language of the amendment, as well as the facts that courts (excepting the recent DC App decision) have never struck down gun regulation laws.

You have already admitted that there -are- court decision that do strike down gun control laws based on the 2nd -- and by doing so, those decisions necessarily support my position, and necesarily oppose yours.

I do not know that the DC App decision agreed with your position that the Govt has no power to regulate private ownership of arms. In the news blurbs I read, the opinion was to the extent that there was an individual right to own guns, but that it was something that can be reasonably regulated by the Govt.

TurtleDude · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
If it is upheld on appeal that will be the law.

and basing your opinion on what are often statist or outcome based politically generated decisions not supported by judges repeated by other judges bound by precedent is not a sound position to argue upon. the fact is that there is no rational argument that the constitution either prohibits the Government from regulating private possession of weapons when they are not kept pursuant to a well regulated militia or the equivalent.

So file a lawsuit and address it. All but two SC judges have been appointed by Republicans, it should be an easy case.

a rather statist comment-you have yet to address 9th and Tenth amendment ramifications nor have you explained where the federal government was given the necessary powers

try again-merely misinterpreting the second amendment is not sufficient to create a power that defeats the 9th and tenth amendments

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Sure thing.

Oh, I'll be counting the moments. :roll:

Presume whatever you want. I could care less.

Couldn't. You couldn't care less.
Sorry. Pet peeve.

I don't necessarily agree with that.

The DC case struck the ban down on the grounds that the 2nd does indeed protect an individual right regardless of any relationship of that individual to the militia.

Here's the decision:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Please tell me how the DC gun ban case isnt a case that directly supports my positon and isnt a case that directly oppose yours.

You can bring up Miller if yu want.
When you do, I'm going to ask you a question re: standing.
You wont be able to answer it.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
You've said you dont feel like looking up supprt for it, so thus far, all youv'e said is that "its my opinion based on the plain reading of the amendment".

That is, your support is that "it says what i think it says becauyse ti says what I think it says."

When you have more than that, let me know.

Here you go. From: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 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.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
The DC case struck the ban down on the grounds that the 2nd does indeed protect an individual right regardless of any relationship of that individual to the militia.

Here's the decision:
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf

Please tell me how the DC gun ban case isnt a case that directly supports my positon and isnt a case that directly oppose yours.

You can bring up Miller if yu want.
When you do, I'm going to ask you a question re: standing.
You wont be able to answer it.

Don't have the time to wade thru the decision now. But since you are contending it supports your position, please cite the language that says a Govt cannot require registration of guns as a 2d amendment infringement.

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
No, my opinion is supported by the plain language of the amendment...

The meaning of which is your opinion.
Thats circular reasoning (or a self-sustaining delsuion -- you decide)

as well as the facts that courts (excepting the recent DC App decision) have never struck down gun regulation laws.

The DC gun ban case is not the only court decsion that opposes your opinion and supprts mine.
US v Emerson, 5th USCC, 2001.

Now, I've noted 2 cases that support my positon -- when were you going to post a decision that supports yours?

I do not know that the DC App decision agreed with your position that the Govt has no power to regulate private ownership of arms

Ooh!! Nice try at misdirection!
My position is that the 2nd protects an individual right, regardless of affiliation with the militia, and that all else flows from that

Certainly, you;re honest enough to admit -that- this is my position, and that the case in question does indeed support that position.

In the news blurbs I read, the opinion was to the extent that there was an individual right to own guns, but that it was something that can be reasonably regulated by the Govt.

The opinion has been posted.
Please, cite the part of it that supports your grasp at straws, above.

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Don't have the time to wade thru the decision now. But since you are contending it supports your position, please cite the language that says a Govt cannot require registration of guns as a 2d amendment infringement.

Ooh!! Nice try at misdirection!
My position is that the 2nd protects an individual right, regardless of affiliation with the militia, and that all else flows from that

Certainly, you;re honest enough to admit -that- this is my position, and that the case in question does indeed support that position.

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Here you go. From: FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment
US v Miller...

One question:

If, in Miller, as you argue, the court indeed held that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, the person seeking that protection must be a member of the militia, 'well regulated' or otherwise:

Why was Miller granted standing to invoke the 2nd amendmentin his defense?
On what grounds?

I warned you I'd ask this.
I can only assume you have an actual answer.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
Ooh!! Nice try at misdirection!
My position is that the 2nd protects an individual right, regardless of affiliation with the militia, and that all else flows from that

Did you lie or where you simply wrong when you wrote:

Registration is prior restraint, and thus, an infringement on the right to arms.
The right to arms shall not be infringed.

Certainly, you;re honest enough to admit -that- this is my position, and that the case in question does indeed support that position.

Stand by what I said. If you want to show me the language in the DC app circuit that supports your contention that registration is an infringement on a right to bear arms or retract it I'll agree.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
One question:

If, in Miller, as you argue, the court indeed held that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, the person seeking that protection must be a member of the militia, 'well regulated' or otherwise:

Why was Miller granted standing to invoke the 2nd amendmentin his defense?
On what grounds?

I warned you I'd ask this.
I can only assume you have an actual answer.

Go ahead. Why?

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Did you lie or where you simply wrong when you wrote:

Registration is prior restraint, and thus, an infringement on the right to arms.
The right to arms shall not be infringed.[/

Click to expand...

My position is that the 2nd protects an individual right, regardless of affiliation with the militia, and that all else flows from that

The cruix of the bosciut here is whose right is protected.

And I'll continue the Prior Restraint argument as soon as you go back and answer my questions regarding same.,

Certainly, you;re honest enough to admit -that- this is my position, and that the case in question does indeed support that position.

You ARE that honest, arent you?

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Go ahead. Why?

Its -your- cite.

You tell me.

If, as you argue, Miller supports the idea that 2nd amdnemnt protection applies to only those affiliated with the militia, then Miller, not affiliated with any militia, did not have standning to invoke the 2nd as his defense.

And yet, he was granted standing.

I ask again:
Why?
On what grounds?

If you cannot answer these questions, then there isnt any way you can (with any intellectual honesty) argue that Miller supports your position.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
Its -your- cite.

You tell me.

If, as you argue, Miller supports the idea that 2nd amdnemnt protection applies to only those affiliated with the militia, then Miller, not affiliated with any militia, did not have standning to invoke the 2nd as his defense.

Who says that? He is a citizen and has standing to raise any rights he things he has. Because the court doesn't agree with him doesn't mean he doesn't have standing.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
My position is that the 2nd protects an individual right, regardless of affiliation with the militia, and that all else flows from that

The cruix of the bosciut here is whose right is protected.

And I'll continue the Prior Restraint argument as soon as you go back and answer my questions regarding same.,

Certainly, you;re honest enough to admit -that- this is my position, and that the case in question does indeed support that position.

You ARE that honest, arent you?

As you have restated your position, from my quick read of news clips I agree the DC App says it does protect an individual right, as that was the basis for overturning the lower court decision.

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Who says that? He is a citizen and has standing to raise any rights he things he has. Because the court doesn't agree with him doesn't mean he doesn't have standing.

I see -- you dont understand what "standing" is, and what has to be in place in order for someone to claim it.

No wonder you think Miller supports your position.

Oh well. Did you have anything else that you think supports your position, or was that your best shot?

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
As you have restated your position, from my quick read of news clips I agree the DC App says it does protect an individual right, as that was the basis for overturning the lower court decision.

And so:
-There are cases that support my position;
-There are cases that oppose yours.
Correct?

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

Who says that? He is a citizen and has standing to raise any rights he things he has. Because the court doesn't agree with him doesn't mean he doesn't have standing.

M14 Shooter said:
I see -- you dont understand what "standing" is, and what has to be in place in order for someone to claim it.

No wonder you think Miller supports your position.

I see you totally dodged my question.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
And so:
-There are cases that support my position;
-There are cases that oppose yours.
Correct?

Could be. When I asked you when any court supported your position that a Govt could not require registration, you said "never".

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
Oh well. Did you have anything else that you think supports your position, or was that your best shot?

We've been talking about my opinion, in your opnion, what is the effect of the language "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," in the 2dAmd?

If the intent was to create an unregulate individual right, why did the amendment read: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
I see you totally dodged my question.

Only because its not possible to have a discussion with someone that doesnt understand what's being discussed. You, as is apparent from yoru question, do not understand what 'standing' is, why its important here, and how the fact that the court granted Miller standing completely destroys your argument tha Miller supports the idea that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd,an individual must have som affiliation with the militia, well-regulated or otherwise.

Look up the term in its legal context and get back to me -- then we can discuss it.

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
Originally Posted by M14 Shooter
And so:
-There are cases that support my position;
-There are cases that oppose yours.
Correct?

Click to expand...

Could be

How is he DC case NOT an example, even afte ryou admit that it -does- support my position and that it does oppopse yours.

When I asked you when any court supported your position that a Govt could not require registration, you said "never".

And you fell for it, didn't you? :mrgreen:

M14 Shooter · Apr 19, 2007

Iriemon said:
We've been talking about my opinion, in your opnion, what is the effect of the language "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State," in the 2dAmd?

Actually, we've been discussing whose right is protected by the 2nd.

You argue that to have your right protected, you must be affiliated with the militia, well-regilated or otherwise.
You havent offered anything but your opinion as to the 'plain meaning of the text ' to support this.

I argue that to have your right ptotected, you do NOT need to have an affiliation to the militia, well-regulated or toerwise, and I have supported this position with something other than my opinion -- indeed, I have cited court cases that support my opinion -AND- oppose yours.

This is the determining matter when discussion whether or not something the government does -- registration, gun bans, etc, -- violates someones' rights.

If the intent was to create an unregulate individual right, why did the amendment NOT SIMPLY read: "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

As the cases I cited explain - This is a preamble to the protection of the right explaining why the right is protected. As such, it does not place a restriction on whose right is protected or under what conditions such protection is granted:

In sum, it held that, to give the Second Amendment's preamble its
full and proper due, there is no need to torture the meaning of its
substantive guarantee into the collective rights or sophisticated
collective rights model which is so plainly inconsistent with the
substantive guarantee's text, its placement within the bill of rights
and the wording of the other articles thereof and of the original
constitution as a whole. If the people were disarmed there could be no
militia (well-regulated or otherwise) as it was then understood. That
expresses the proper understanding of the relationship between the
Second Amendment's preamble and its substantive guarantee.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
Only because its not possible to have a discussion with someone that doesnt understand what's being discussed. You, as is apparent from yoru question, do not understand what 'standing' is, why its important here, and how the fact that the court granted Miller standing completely destroys your argument tha Miller supports the idea that to enjoy the protection of the 2nd,an individual must have som affiliation with the militia, well-regulated or otherwise.

Look up the term in its legal context and get back to me -- then we can discuss it.

I cited language from Miller that supports my position.

You have raised some vague claim of standing that that somehow the Supreme Court missed. You are unwilling or unable to support the basis for your opinion.

And regardless of a standing issue that you claim exists, the SC took the case, and issued an opinion portions of which I cited which supports my decision. Unless the opinion was later reversed or modified because of standing it is good law, regardless of your take on standing.

Iriemon · Apr 19, 2007

M14 Shooter said:
How is he DC case NOT an example, even afte ryou admit that it -does- support my position and that it does oppopse yours.

I haven't read the opinion

And you fell for it, didn't you? :mrgreen:

Oh yeah you sure fooled me.

H.R. 1022: Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007

warrior of the wetlands