Gun-seizure laws grow in popularity since Parkland shooting

[Vadinho]

Show us anywhere that these people have been able to go to court and address their accusers.
where has due process been done so that it isn't a guy in a court room by himself with a judge making
accusations that someone cannot defend against?

that is like the terrorist watch list and FISA courts all unconstitutional implementations of government run a muck with too much power.



some hand guns run 300-400 bucks. an AR15 will cost you 1000 easily for a decent one.

So your point is that any confiscations should involve a money transfer. I am good with that, a buyback program works for me. How do you feel about police confiscating money and valuables without having to prove guilt?

 

[apdst]

I was quoting Scalia.

You said the court made gun bans legal in the 19th Century. Now, you're crawfishin.

 

[apdst]

So your point is that any confiscations should involve a money transfer. I am good with that, a buyback program works for me. How do you feel about police confiscating money and valuables without having to prove guilt?

It's unconstitutional. So are DUI checkpoints.

 

[ataraxia]

as long as you have the right permit you are capable of own any weapon you want.
you are 100% wrong on this.

So you are saying that Antonin Scalia expressing the majority opinion of the supreme court, and citing court precedent all the way back to the 19th century, is 100% wrong on this. But you know better. Got it, thanks. :roll:

 

[ataraxia]

as long as you have the right permit you are capable of own any weapon you want.
you are 100% wrong on this.

Wait, you are saying it's OK to require permits on weapons now? Wow, cool!:roll:

 

[ataraxia]

"that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

You do know this doesn't support outlawing any weapons, right?

Saying that the second amendment does not mean you have a right to "carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose" means there are weapons which can be illegal to "carry in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose". What else could it mean?

 

[Rucker61]

So you are saying that Antonin Scalia expressing the majority opinion of the supreme court, and citing court precedent all the way back to the 19th century, is 100% wrong on this. But you know better. Got it, thanks. :roll:

Scalia said "that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

which is not the same thing as saying a weapon can be banned. Again, note the conjunctions, which links every part of the sentence together.

 

[Rucker61]

Saying that the second amendment does not mean you have a right to "carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose" means there are weapons which can be illegal to "carry in any manner whatsoever for whatever purpose". What else could it mean?

It's a use restriction versus an ownership restriction. You seem to be inferring the latter.

 

[ataraxia]

It's a use restriction versus an ownership restriction. You seem to be inferring the latter.

OK you can have a full auto, as long as you keep it in a gun range. Good enough?

 

[ataraxia]

It's a use restriction versus an ownership restriction. You seem to be inferring the latter.

Bless you heart you're trying so hard. But that's not what Scalia says. Let's look at what he says again, shall we?

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
-Antonin Scalia

You can't even keep it. Sorry.

 

[Rucker61]

OK you can have a full auto, as long as you keep it in a gun range. Good enough?

He didn't say that, did he? Stating that there are limits does not imply that any limits are allowed.

 

[ataraxia]

He didn't say that, did he? Stating that there are limits does not imply that any limits are allowed.

Not ANY limits, but SOME limits are not unconstitutional.

 

[Rucker61]

Bless you heart you're trying so hard. But that's not what Scalia says. Let's look at what he says again, shall we?



You can't even keep it. Sorry.

keep AND carry in ANY manner AND for whatever purpose. It's all one phrase. You can't break it into pieces.

 

[Rucker61]

Not ANY limits, but SOME limits are not unconstitutional.

Agreed. Did SCOTUS establish any restrictions on the government(s) with regards to what limits would be Constitutional?

 

[ataraxia]

Agreed. Did SCOTUS establish any restrictions on the government(s) with regards to what limits would be Constitutional?

I believe the general guideline was "in common use". Clearly that was enough to restrict full autos and bump stocks. Seems to me high capacity magazine clips and certain types of bullets would also fit the bill.

Regardless, I am glad that you now agree that there ARE limits. We can argue later about where exactly that line needs to be drawn. The fact that I have gotten you to admit that the SCOTUS does NOT think that ANY limits are unconstitutional is a big deal. It's rare that one can claim a clear victory like that in these debate forums. Let me celebrate this for a little bit!

 

[ataraxia]

keep AND carry in ANY manner AND for whatever purpose. It's all one phrase. You can't break it into pieces.

Sure. And the "keep" part is part of that phrase.

 

[ludin]

So your point is that any confiscations should involve a money transfer. I am good with that, a buyback program works for me. How do you feel about police confiscating money and valuables without having to prove guilt?

that isn't what i said but typical liberal dishonesty tactic.
is it that hard to address actual arguments? i guess so.

I am 100% against the police confiscating anything without a warrant and or due process of the individual.
it is 100% unconstitutional.

unlike leftists i am pretty consistent.

 

[ataraxia]

It's unconstitutional. So are DUI checkpoints.

So then search warrants are unconstitutional too?

 

[ludin]

So you are saying that Antonin Scalia expressing the majority opinion of the supreme court, and citing court precedent all the way back to the 19th century, is 100% wrong on this. But you know better. Got it, thanks. :roll:

No i am saying i know what you are allowed to own and not own.
it is perfectly legal to own a grenade launcher or any other weapon (barring some more modern military equipment depending).
as long as you have the right permits.
yes you are wrong.

 

[apdst]

So then search warrants are unconstitutional too?

They can be, if they're issued w/o probable cause.

 

[Rucker61]

I believe the general guideline was "in common use". Clearly that was enough to restrict full autos and bump stocks. Seems to me high capacity magazine clips and certain types of bullets would also fit the bill.

Regardless, I am glad that you now agree that there ARE limits. We can argue later about where exactly that line needs to be drawn. The fact that I have gotten you to admit that the SCOTUS does NOT think that ANY limits are unconstitutional is a big deal. It's rare that one can claim a clear victory like that in these debate forums. Let me celebrate this for a little bit!

Based on Miller, Heller and Caetano, the allowable restrictions should fall outside of "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militla". Given that Caetano, a 9-0 decision, established "hundreds of thousands" as "in common use" and Maloney v Singas used 64,890 as a suitable lower limit, we've got an established baseline to go with.

We know that there are 175,000 pre-ban machine guns in the hands of citizens, which doesn't quite meet the "hundreds of thousands" guideline of Caetano, but machine guns certainly fall into ""having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militla". For sure short barreled rifles and suppressors exceed the 200,000 figure according to ATF numbers. AR-15s number in the millions, and "high capacity magazines" in the hundreds of millions. It seems that the guidelines established by SCOTUS protect all of those.

Interesting that you bring up bump stocks, as there was never any discussion of "in common use" with regards to the ban on them; we did see unilateral action by the executive branch to redefine what was covered under the NFA 1934. Given the acceptance of that, there shouldn't be any issue with a similar executive branch move that determines that SBRs, SBSs and suppressors, having met the SCOTUS establish guidelines for "in common use for lawful purposes", and removes them from NFA restrictions.

 

[ataraxia]

No i am saying i know what you are allowed to own and not own.
it is perfectly legal to own a grenade launcher or any other weapon (barring some more modern military equipment depending).
as long as you have the right permits.
yes you are wrong.

So why is that permit requirement OK, and it's not OK for some other types of weapons?

And you can't carry nuclear arms or a tank with live ammo. Why? Where's your outrage?

 

[Rucker61]

Sure. And the "keep" part is part of that phrase.

I can keep an AR-15 and 30 round magazines. I can't keep one, carry it locked and loaded at high ready and wander the mall with it.

 

[Rucker61]

So why is that permit requirement OK, and it's not OK for some other types of weapons?

And you can't carry nuclear arms or a tank with live ammo. Why? Where's your outrage?

Are nuclear weapons or tanks bearable arms? Are they in common use for lawful purposes?

 

[ataraxia]

Based on Miller, Heller and Caetano, the allowable restrictions should fall outside of "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militla". Given that Caetano, a 9-0 decision, established "hundreds of thousands" as "in common use" and Maloney v Singas used 64,890 as a suitable lower limit, we've got an established baseline to go with.

We know that there are 175,000 pre-ban machine guns in the hands of citizens, which doesn't quite meet the "hundreds of thousands" guideline of Caetano, but machine guns certainly fall into ""having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militla". For sure short barreled rifles and suppressors exceed the 200,000 figure according to ATF numbers. AR-15s number in the millions, and "high capacity magazines" in the hundreds of millions. It seems that the guidelines established by SCOTUS protect all of those.

Interesting that you bring up bump stocks, as there was never any discussion of "in common use" with regards to the ban on them; we did see unilateral action by the executive branch to redefine what was covered under the NFA 1934. Given the acceptance of that, there shouldn't be any issue with a similar executive branch move that determines that SBRs, SBSs and suppressors, having met the SCOTUS establish guidelines for "in common use for lawful purposes", and removes them from NFA restrictions.

Like I said, we can go back and forth on exactly WHERE the limits should be drawn. But this whole idea of all this outrage and crying "unconstitutional" at any proposed limits is, I think you would agree, a little silly.