Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds............

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

imyoda said:

Pay attention...........Heller holds that the government has the right and duty to regulate the sale and use of the weapons.................GOT THAT?

Click to expand...

Ok mr rude guy, show me where in the ruling it says they have the right and duty to regulate the sale and use of the weapons. I can tell you now that it doesn't, but I will let you find out for yourself since you obviously haven't read it.
so no I don't 'GOT THAT'

I will help you out here, since there seems to be a deficiency you have with this. The case doesn't involve the USE of firearms at all. It only regulates the sale in respect to licensing and fees. 4 of the 10 items in the DC law were struck down.
And lastly this is just the circuit court. It may go to the scotus at some point as the original case did.

And spare me your further condescending arrogance and just read the law. its clear this case involved registration, fees, education test, appearing in person for fingerprinting and photo, bringing your gun you are going to register and re-registration.
Nothing about use. but go for it. pick through there and find out your wrong. you wont admit it I'm sure but that's ok, I don't expect you to.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

imyoda said:

Pay attention...........Heller holds that the government has the right and duty to regulate the sale and use of the weapons.................GOT THAT?

Click to expand...

No. It does not.

Pay attention..........The phrase that the 2nd is not an unlimited right was phrased in connection with existing limitations on felons (due process) and those accorded mentally deficient status by the courts (due process). It is not an open barn door to unlimited regulation as you suggest.

GOT THAT?

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Mr Person said:

Is there a historical basis for the "common sense" test?


(I'm not an originalist, and I think so-called originalists aren't being honest with themselves, but perhaps that's a discussion for the "constitution" forum... so it's not a critique).


The fundamental issue here is that I don't think we have a relevant historical precedent. Because private arms = military arms at the time of the founding and because modern weaponry was unforeseeable in many respects, there is no common sense reason to think that there was an "original intent" as to whether the proposition "private arms = military arms" should always be true. But there are undeniable common sense reasons to say that regardless, there are plenty of military weapons and associated gear that private individuals shouldn't have.

I don't like your "National Guard" interpretation. I think the Court should develop what it has already said: that the core of the 2nd Amd. is an individual right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, with tertiary purposes of hunting and having the possibility of some sort of functional militia. I think "National Guard" as a test focuses too much on the functional militia. The core should be the point.

Therefore, the stuff that's best for self-defense should be the most protected. Hunting and militia purposes should also be protected, but not necessarily as strongly. (Note: nobody is worried about limiting hunting arms).

And that would almost certainly still leave room to ban serious military weapons (and I'm not talking about WWI weapons...)

Click to expand...

Its usually a jury, or a reasonable person test.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Mr Person said:

Are you sure? Weren't merchant vessels, privately owned, allowed to carry canons if desired? I haven't made a study of that question, but I don't recall ever reading anything on such a prohibition in the various historical sources I've read (admittedly, that wasn't their focus either)

Besides, here's the thing...I think you're just as far outside "original intent" as I am on this. You're reasoning, and I'm reasoning, but I think there isn't really any original intent to anchor this particular point that either of us could claim. It was a simple fact of reality that military arms were private arms at the time. I'm not aware of any evidence that the founders foresaw a difference.



My point about "weapon the military possesses would be a disaster. Think of the kind of arsenal a huge drug organization could control" wasn't an argument about original intent. It was me saying that I like the practical reality that the 2nd has been so interpreted, because it would be a disaster if there was no "military style" weapon ban. That wasn't a constitutional legal argument....it was me saying "phew, I'm glad it worked out like that"

Click to expand...

you appear confused

1) the second amendment protects individual arms

2) there was no federal power or law that would prevent someone from owning a man o war

remember, for the government to ban something, it has to have the power to do so

if there is a guarantee to own something the government has to jump through two hurdles

1) prove it has the power to restrict ownership of that item

2) overcome the specific guarantee of ownership

so with firearms, the federal government is acting unconstitutionally twice over when it passes crap like the Hughes Amendment banning the possession-by private citizens-of hand held automatic weapons made after May 19, 1986. I suspect just about every justice would admit-if you could force them to be truthful, that this law violates the second, ninth and tenth amendments

now what if the government passes a law saying women cannot wear mini skirts? using your thinking -where is the constitutional amendment for someone to dress that way?

who cares I would say-the federal government never was given any power in that area and that alone prevents such action

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Mr Person said:

Is there a historical basis for the "common sense" test?


(I'm not an originalist, and I think so-called originalists aren't being honest with themselves, but perhaps that's a discussion for the "constitution" forum... so it's not a critique).


The fundamental issue here is that I don't think we have a relevant historical precedent. Because private arms = military arms at the time of the founding and because modern weaponry was unforeseeable in many respects, there is no common sense reason to think that there was an "original intent" as to whether the proposition "private arms = military arms" should always be true. But there are undeniable common sense reasons to say that regardless, there are plenty of military weapons and associated gear that private individuals shouldn't have.

I don't like your "National Guard" interpretation. I think the Court should develop what it has already said: that the core of the 2nd Amd. is an individual right to bear arms for purposes of self-defense, with tertiary purposes of hunting and having the possibility of some sort of functional militia. I think "National Guard" as a test focuses too much on the functional militia. The core should be the point.

Therefore, the stuff that's best for self-defense should be the most protected. Hunting and militia purposes should also be protected, but not necessarily as strongly. (Note: nobody is worried about limiting hunting arms).

And that would almost certainly still leave room to ban serious military weapons (and I'm not talking about WWI weapons...)

Click to expand...

if a police department or other civilian LE agency has a type of weapon, then it obviously has said weapons for self defense in a civilian environment-not as weapons of war. and that alone makes said weapons (by type-not specific brand) suitable for other civilians to use for self defense.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

OpportunityCost said:

No. It does not.

Pay attention.......... It is not an open barn door to unlimited regulation as you suggest.

Never said that. Don't try to put words in m y mouth...
GOT THAT?

Click to expand...

Obama careful on Heller
Obama careful on Heller - - POLITICO.com

As Scalia says”
““I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe. Today’s ruling, the first clear statement on this issue in 127 years, will provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

COMMENTARY


“…….. 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Heller's holding did not extend beyond an analysis of Second Amendment rights in the home, and did not purport to endanger certain state regulations of guns: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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." – See more at: The Second Amendment and the Right to Regulate Guns in Public - FindLaw

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gun Rights Must be Regulated to Guarantee Americans the Right to Life - US News
Terrorism, Guns and the Right to Life

“… Belief in the right to life means regulating guns, just as we regulate our other freedoms….”


“…the Supreme Court, even as it ruled in 2008 that individuals have a right to bear arms, concedes the government has a right to regulate arms. “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in District of Columbia v. Heller. …”++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Yes my friend...........Government has right to regulate guns..........

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

SocialD said:

Ok mr rude guy, show me where in the ruling it says they have the right and duty to regulate the sale and use of the weapons. I can tell you now that it doesn't, but I will let you find out for yourself since you obviously haven't read it.
so no I don't 'GOT THAT'

I will help you out here, since there seems to be a deficiency you have with this. The case doesn't involve the USE of firearms at all. It only regulates the sale in respect to licensing and fees. 4 of the 10 items in the DC law were struck down.
And lastly this is just the circuit court. It may go to the scotus at some point as the original case did.

And spare me your further condescending arrogance and just read the law. its clear this case involved registration, fees, education test, appearing in person for fingerprinting and photo, bringing your gun you are going to register and re-registration.
Nothing about use. but go for it. pick through there and find out your wrong. you wont admit it I'm sure but that's ok, I don't expect you to.

Click to expand...

But..................."Where's the beef"

A well written OPINION.......... but factless in support/prove/argue makes it just your opinion......

Take a look below and you can see I know of what I speak........

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

OpportunityCost said:

No. It does not.

Pay attention..........The phrase that the 2nd is not an unlimited right was phrased in connection with existing limitations on felons (due process) and those accorded mentally deficient status by the courts (due process). It is not an open barn door to unlimited regulation as you suggest.

GOT THAT?

Click to expand...

.......and also says the government has the right to regulate guns..................GOT THAT?

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

imyoda said:

But..................."Where's the beef"

A well written OPINION.......... but factless in support/prove/argue makes it just your opinion......

Take a look below and you can see I know of what I speak........

Click to expand...

was that regarding what you said? because you haven't given anything here except opiniions and insults here.
You made allegations insisting this was about the courts upholding DCs ability to regulate gun sales and gun use.. you were told no that's not what it was by others and myself and I suggested that you go read and it look for yourself
and instead of doing that.. obviously because you knew if you did you would find you were wrong... your response is... wheres the beef...
So, I will go forward with the conclusion that it is complete waste of time to further respond to your nonsense.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

imyoda said:

.......and also says the government has the right to regulate guns..................GOT THAT?

Click to expand...

DICTA

what gun control law did Heller uphold

the several states have some powers to regulate the use of firearms

that is true

federal gun control is based on a massive dishonesty

real "conservatives" know that

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

SocialD said:

was that regarding what you said? because you haven't given anything here except opiniions and insults here.
You made allegations insisting this was about the courts upholding DCs ability to regulate gun sales and gun use.. you were told no that's not what it was by others and myself and I suggested that you go read and it look for yourself
and instead of doing that.. obviously because you knew if you did you would find you were wrong... your response is... wheres the beef...
So, I will go forward with the conclusion that it is complete waste of time to further respond to your nonsense.

Click to expand...

The requisite portions of Heller saying the government has the right to regulate guns................ and in the Heller case.......... the man had to comply with obtaining a weapon to keep in his house........and if you read Heller carefully............. You will come the understand that............ the right to have a gun in your house for personal protection.........

Now let's not go postal on me............It was Scalia who said that....

Don't you folks pay attention to "respected and responsible news" purveyors?

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

As is Imyoda's normal behavior, he decided not to link the full text, but just that which supports his argument. This is the full text of ruling 2.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. 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. Pp. 54–56.

Click to expand...

Ruling 2 is not meant as carte blanche to write new legislation, it is a signal SCOTUS will not to overturn legislation regarding gun control for felons and for those that are adjudicated mentally ill and should not possess a firearm. In both cases, due process is observed and THIS is the clear signal SCOTUS wanted to send. Please read the full text in pages 54 to 56 for the full text and its context.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

TurtleDude said:

you appear confused

Click to expand...

Whatever. You appear to be unwilling to actually debate me point for point. Nothing after you typed here is a refutation or direct response to what I'm saying. Seems that whenever I engage you, you just respond with repetitions of statements that you're right because you say you are right.

You're not actually responding to my points.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Mr Person said:

Whatever. You appear to be unwilling to actually debate me point for point. Nothing after you typed here is a refutation or direct response to what I'm saying. Seems that whenever I engage you, you just respond with repetitions of statements that you're right because you say you are right.

You're not actually responding to my points.

Click to expand...

do you honestly believe that any part of the United States Constitution was written with the intent that the federal government have any power to tell private citizens what sort of firearms they could own or how they acquire them?

its a simple yes or no question

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

OpportunityCost said:

Funny how every other right in the BoR has that scrutiny applied.

Click to expand...

To be fair, applying strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment would be the job of the Supreme Court. Lower courts shouldn't be expected to step up and set that precedent on their own.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Mr Person said:

Are you claiming that Heller III did not hold that challenged gun laws are to be tested with "intermediate scrutiny" rather than the "strict scrutiny" the NRA demanded? (Do you understand the difference without using google?).

Click to expand...

"Narrowly tailored and least restrictive" vs "no such requirements" seems straightforward enough. But I confess that I'm at a loss regarding the difference between "compelling interest" and "important interest".

Mr Person said:

A few notes on Heller I:

First, Heller made explicitly clear that the "arms" described in "right to keep and bear arms" were not military weapons.

Click to expand...

There is a right in English Common Law to have a gun suitable for self defense to defend your home (and perhaps defend yourself while you are going about in public). As a Common Law right, the Ninth Amendment should have incorporated it.

I tend to see the Heller ruling as more in the spirit of that Common Law right than in the spirit of the Second Amendment (which has a greater focus on military capability).

Mr Person said:

Regardless, I'll say this: whether or not the Court has satisfied you as to its basis for holding that there is some federal power to regulate in this area, I'm glad it at least came out that way because the last thing we need is major gangs like the Crips and Bloods fighting out their wars with tanks, etc. They cause enough carnage with the guns they have now, and it would also be a nightmare for the police.

An unlimited 2nd Amd. that would prevent citizens from owning any weapon the military possesses would be a disaster. Think of the kind of arsenal a huge drug organization could control.

Why do you think the founders intended citizens to be able to possess all possible weapons that might be invented in the future? This strikes me as one of those areas where the founders had no specific intent for the future, and indeed couldn't imagine some of the things we've come up with. Thermonuclear bombs, submarines, jet fighters, and coming along now, lasers and rail-guns replacing deck guns.

There have got to be some limits, either practically, or in reflection of the fact that there is no original intent as to hydrogen bombs.

Click to expand...

If the courts were to apply strict scrutiny to the Heller decision, wouldn't that still allow the government to outlaw private possession of thermonuclear weapons?

Is there any reason to think a prohibition against private ownership of machineguns and grenade launchers would fail to pass muster under strict scrutiny?

For that matter, if the government were to limit magazine capacity to 10 rounds (without saddling the law down with nonsense about flash suppressors and pistol grips), is there any reason to think that wouldn't pass muster with strict scrutiny?

Is there any gun law that would be genuinely beneficial to public safety that would not pass muster with strict scrutiny?

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Casper said:

True, I would agree that if the government believes at LEO's need specific firearms to ensure their own safety and that of the population then the citizens should have those same firearms in order to protect themselves.

Click to expand...

I like the idea of linking police weapons and self defense weapons. But I usually go about it differently. I advocate requiring all police (including federal law enforcement) to have to obey all gun laws that apply to civilians (including local gun laws, if the police happen to enter a locality where local gun laws exist).

I believe this would balance out both police weapons and civilian weapons. It will prevent civilians from being barred from possessing adequate defensive weapons, and it will prevent the police from being equipped with weapons that are clearly way too powerful for police work.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

haymarket said:

The Heller decision - in as much as it was the child of Scalia and the four right leaning justices - has not a long life expectancy. The new replacement for Scalia will be a non right winger and if all goes as expected and the Dems keep the White House - you will see a 6- 3 margin reversing Heller and upholding reasonable gun regulations within a few years.

Click to expand...

Not if we elect a Republican in 2016.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Toggle Almendro said:

Not if we elect a Republican in 2016.

Click to expand...

You are correct about that. Trump is making no secret that he is sucking up to the NRA and will carry their water for them.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Toggle Almendro said:

Not if we elect a Republican in 2016.

Click to expand...

reversing Heller would have repercussions against the Dems that they fear. Obama's victory in 2008 was facilitated by the Heller decision as it allowed lots of union gun owners to vote for Obama figuring his anti gun proclivities would be checked. Demi appointees overturning Heller would cause a massive backlash against that party

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Toggle Almendro said:

To be fair, applying strict scrutiny to the Second Amendment would be the job of the Supreme Court. Lower courts shouldn't be expected to step up and set that precedent on their own.

Click to expand...

They aren't even applying intermediate scrutiny.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

OpportunityCost said:

They aren't even applying intermediate scrutiny.

Click to expand...

Some of them claim they are, although they then allow bans on carrying guns in public under their claimed intermediate scrutiny.

I'm sympathetic with the plight of the lower courts though. A ruling that people have the right to carry guns nearly everywhere in public is a big step. And big steps are the job of the Supreme Court. Lower courts shouldn't have to stick their necks out like that.

What we need are more conservatives on the Supreme Court so they will start taking more of those big steps. Then the lower courts will follow along.

If Trump wins, things should work out well. If Trump loses, it'll be a long while before the courts start truly enforcing the Second Amendment.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Toggle Almendro said:

Some of them claim they are, although they then allow bans on carrying guns in public under their claimed intermediate scrutiny.

I'm sympathetic with the plight of the lower courts though. A ruling that people have the right to carry guns nearly everywhere in public is a big step. And big steps are the job of the Supreme Court. Lower courts shouldn't have to stick their necks out like that.

What we need are more conservatives on the Supreme Court so they will start taking more of those big steps. Then the lower courts will follow along.

If Trump wins, things should work out well. If Trump loses, it'll be a long while before the courts start truly enforcing the Second Amendment.

Click to expand...

Well if you look at the case in which the NY and Connecticut bans were upheld, the court argued repeatedly the cases in which intermediate scrutiny was needed and then simply ignored the end results of the law vis a vis the impact on crime which was the law's stated purpose. So the court knew the government interest was a farce but didn't examine it enough to validate whether people's rights are violated for a farce. Mind you, this is at the appellate level, they should be applying intermediate scrutiny but did not, they used mid-level or cursory scrutiny, which is ridiculous for a Bill of Rights issue.

I'm pretty sure we agree in essence but are arguing finer points, but that's okay, too.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

haymarket said:

The Heller decision - in as much as it was the child of Scalia and the four right leaning justices - has not a long life expectancy. The new replacement for Scalia will be a non right winger and if all goes as expected and the Dems keep the White House - you will see a 6- 3 margin reversing Heller and upholding reasonable gun regulations within a few years.

Click to expand...

Unlikely. Not in todays current public climate. The court will be hard pressed to overturn Heller. And the NRA won't be challenging any gun restrictions with a liberal court to put Heller in jeopardy. Its not like we haven't had to deal with a liberal court.

And frankly its the democrats third rail. Go after firearms and it will cost the democrats election after election.

Face it haymarket.. people don't accept your definition of "reasonable" when told exactly what your regulations would entail.

Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

TurtleDude said:

reversing Heller would have repercussions against the Dems that they fear. Obama's victory in 2008 was facilitated by the Heller decision as it allowed lots of union gun owners to vote for Obama figuring his anti gun proclivities would be checked. Demi appointees overturning Heller would cause a massive backlash against that party

Click to expand...

I honestly don't see how Heller would be overturned even with a liberal court.

With a liberal court, the NRA (who is basically the only group with the resources to bring a lawsuit to the supreme court) won't bring a lawsuit against a firearm regulation unless it knows it can win. that's why they waited so long for Heller.