- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Not following you. Can you restate?
see Z's answer=that is spot on
Not following you. Can you restate?
Ok. But I do be the argument has been used to justify regulations we have, and was argued before most of us were born.
actually FDR wanted to ban machine guns to put the bootleggers out of business (as idiotic as thinking an interstate ban on switchblades would get rid of the hells' angels) but his AG said that was unconstitutional so they concocted a tax scheme based on the Commerce Clause that would make owning a MG too expensive for anyone but the wealthy
I'm thinking more US v Miller. But there are other places as well I think.
Miller was an outcome based decision where there was no Miller in attendance to present a contrary argument since he had died by the time the case came up. and if we were to actually follow miller then the tommy gun, the M14, the M2 and the M16 would all be clearly protected since the military use thereof is indisputable
the supremes were braying asses in that case because they pretended that there was no evidence of shotguns being used by the military which is idiotic. indeed there was a major controversy in WWI where US soldiers used Winchester 1897 and 1912 model shotguns loaded with buck shot as "trench sweepers" -far more effective in the close quarters of trench warfare than bolt action rifles. The germans claimed that buck shot=which was soft lead rather then FMJ bullets, violated the hague convention (often called the geneva convention terms) against "expanding" or 'dum dum' bullets
Yes, I think I understand the Miller ruling. The main point was that they could regulate.
yeah and it was based on a fraudulent expansion of the commerce clause because they didn't want to upset the guy who threatened to pack the court
but the regulation was based on a bogus factual assumption
That sounds like an excuse to me. Would you agree we regulate today? Seem to me that argument won he day.
that is the statist approach
No approach. Just a fact.
yes and many people believe it was based on improper grounds. sort of like claiming that some guy in my home state not Growing wheat impacted "interstate commerce"
FDR used the turmoil of the times to basically crap all over the bill of rights
yes and many people believe it was based on improper grounds. sort of like claiming that some guy in my home state not Growing wheat impacted "interstate commerce"
FDR used the turmoil of the times to basically crap all over the bill of rights
Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.
While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.
Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.
Current case law allows for regulation of firearms to certain degrees. However, case law also leaves a lot of grey area in regards to this. As to whether or not current case law is "constitutional" or not is something debated by both sides of constitutional scholars.
While personally I feel a lot of the regulation efforts are anti-constitutional in spirit (and some I do believe are outright unconstitutional...such as in the past when I saw people talk about possibly going about HEAVILY regulating ammo to the point where firearms would be near useless)...my main objection with efforts is rarely based singularly on the notion of being unconstitutional. I do this because, while I may disagree with it, the reality is the current legal situation in this country seems to disagree with me since we have numerous regulatory laws on the books without being struck down by the SCOTUS or successfully challenged by scholars far more intelligent on this matter than those on this forum.
Yes, a certain amount of regulation is technically at this time constitutional. That doesn't mean I must believe it falls within the spirit of the constitution, that the benefit of the legislation is worth the damage it does to generalized constitutional principles across all amendments, or that the legislation is reasonable in nature in relation to the further mitigation of our rights.
many of what Scalia and his former law clerk Professor STeven Calabresi term "faint hearted originalists" will not fight the regulations because while they were clearly unconstitutional when passed, these FHO don't want to cause upheaval by overturning crap that has been around for decades.
however, the scholarship is more and more on our side
the utter idiocy of many gun control measures and the arguments supporting them has started to become obvious to people other than us hard core gun rights advocates
Assault rifles been banned since 1986.
There's a way to get one if you're a licensed collector and have a lot of money, but you can't go down to Wall-Mart and buy an assault rifle.
Anyway, no assault rifle was used in either of these shootings.
Google "Connecticut's Assault Weapon Ban", read the text of the law, and that's your answer.
Non-LEO civilians need assault rifles for the same reason LEO civilians do (and police do have assault rifles).I know theyre banned and I know you can get them illegally..I used that as an example.
It's not a suggestion, it's an actual law Connecticut put into effect in 1994. What a silly thing for you to say.This is a state Governor suggesting.
No one said Connecticut's AWB was Federal regulation.Hardly proposed federal legislation.
The ban is an attack on gun owners.And, to top it off, there was no mention made of an attack on gun owners!
every year nut case democrats introduce bans on semi auto sporting firearms. Diane FineSwine has promised to introduce another ban in back when she helped get the first one passed, she admitted she wanted to seize all those that were currently owned at the time. Weren't you one of the obama supporters who claimed Obama and the dems were not anti gun?
Non-LEO civilians need assault rifles for the same reason LEO civilians do (and police do have assault rifles).
But the point is moot since no assault rifles were used in this murder. According to Connecticut law, no "assault weapons" were used in this murder, either.
It's not a suggestion, it's an actual law Connecticut put into effect in 1994. What a silly thing for you to say.
The ban is an attack on gun owners.
Sounds like he's just playing politics by trying to do something that wouldn't have stopped this shooting, or any other one, but at the same time makes it look like he's taking action.That ban is no longer in effect Jerry. The Governor suggested reinstating it:
Connecticut governor calls for new assault weapons ban - latimes.com
How so?