• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds............ (1 Viewer)

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

Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds Government Right to Regulate Guns
Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds Government Right to Regulate Guns



Now haven’t I been telling yall that is the case……….

His definition that it didn't do what the NRA wanted?
The truth is that the ultimate policy objective of the gun lobby is to completely de-regulate the ownership and use of guns.

Had the Court agreed with the NRA’s argument that the government’s attempt to regulate gun ownership could only be decided on the basis of ‘strict scrutiny,’ i.e., a law is only valid if it fits the exact issue for which it has been designed, you could basically throw out every gun-control statute that has ever been passed.

Funny how every other right in the BoR has that scrutiny applied.
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

His definition that it didn't do what the NRA wanted?




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

the guy who wrote the blog ImYoda fawns over has no understanding of constitutional law nor Heller. and that blogger appears to be a gun dealer who doesn't understand that he's cutting his own throat by fluffing the anti gun side. But the fact is, leading Banoid politicians like Hildabeast whined about Heller. That should tell everyone something

And it also proves ImYoda is a gun banner
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

His definition that it didn't do what the NRA wanted?




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

Not every assertion stemming from a Constitutional right, even ones under the Bill of Rights, are entitled to a strict scrutiny review. For example the claim that a punishment violates the 8th Amendment has generally not be reviewed under a strict scrutiny analysis but are more analogous to a 'heightened' rational basis review.
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

the guy who wrote the blog ImYoda fawns over has no understanding of constitutional law nor Heller.



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?). That they did not uphold gun registration requirements?

I haven't read Heller III, but then, I'm not the one accusing someone else of not understanding constitutional law. How about you provide quotes backed by citation to the portions of Heller III that you say the author misunderstood?



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.


"Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." ....The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008)



Second, Heller explicitly limited Miller and in doing so expressed surprise at the notion that Miller should be read to overturn laws barring ownership of military weapons like machine guns:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial [625] and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008) (citations omitted)
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........


Third, Heller relied on that explicit limitation in describing bans on military weapons as something that the decision does NOT overrule, even if that would mean that a modern militia would be useless due a lack of military weapons:


"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.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause [628] and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

District of Columbia v. Heller
, 554 U.S. 570, 626-28 (2008) (citations omitted)





So they left open multiple possible areas of gun control legislation in the first Heller decision. It sounds like Heller III shows further areas are open, in terms of the specific regulations upheld in that case.

(It's also kind of a big deal to hold that intermediate scrutiny controls 2nd Amd. based challenges, rather than strict scrutiny)
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

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?). That they did not uphold gun registration requirements?

I haven't read Heller III, but then, I'm not the one accusing someone else of not understanding constitutional law. How about you provide quotes backed by citation to the portions of Heller III that you say the author misunderstood?



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.


"Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." ....The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008)



Second, Heller explicitly limited Miller and in doing so expressed surprise at the notion that Miller should be read to overturn laws barring ownership of military weapons like machine guns:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial [625] and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008) (citations omitted)

Heller is a flawed decision and most of us who deal in this area of law know so. Most importantly, the Heller decision did not actually explain why the federal government properly has ANY power in this area. Its something the Miller court assumed but never really set forth. and the "common use" test has major problems. Now some of us read that as including civilian police departments and the national guard which makes sense. If, on the other hand, as some banners have suggested, it only applies to privately owned firearms or weapons, that means the federal government could ban any new weapon for whatever reason it wanted and defend on the grounds that the weapon has yet to be in common use because it was banned before lots of people could obtain it

BTW what pre-existing right did the founders intend to recognize with the second amendment?

and does anyone honestly believe that "commerce among the states" was intended or can even be honestly used to tell someone in Ohio they cannot make or own a machine gun for use in their own state?
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

oh if anyone wonders about the blogger cited by ImYoda in the article contained in the OP

you might want to read up on the guy

The Truth About Mike "The Gun Guy" Weisser - The Truth About Guns

Weisser isn’t what you’d call firm on gun rights. It’s a fact we’ve highlighted again and again and again and again.


Deadbeat Mike Weisser, Ware Gun Shops, Stiffs AmmoLand & Worse The Second Amendment

Mike Weisser, proprietor of the Ware Gun Shop in Ware, MA is a con-man, deadbeat and enemy of the Second Amendment!

so don't think he is some sort of pro gun advocate telling the "truth"
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Heller is a flawed decision and most of us who deal in this area of law know so. Most importantly, the Heller decision did not actually explain why the federal government properly has ANY power in this area. Its something the Miller court assumed but never really set forth. and the "common use" test has major problems. Now some of us read that as including civilian police departments and the national guard which makes sense. If, on the other hand, as some banners have suggested, it only applies to privately owned firearms or weapons, that means the federal government could ban any new weapon for whatever reason it wanted and defend on the grounds that the weapon has yet to be in common use because it was banned before lots of people could obtain it

"us who deal in this area of law"?

I do criminal appeals and post-conviction stuff, indeed have relied on Heller/McDonald in one brief, but I certainly wasn't aware that anyone was specializing specifically in 2nd Amd. challenges.....




Anyway, you were first saying that the author was wrong about existing constitutional law (though I take issue with his use of "exact fit"). Now, it's that you take issue with the Court's reasoning in Heller, which are different things entirely. I jumped on you because you seemed to be taking the position that the author was wrong about the decision and more generally wrong about various types of regulation being permissible under the 2nd. And that position would be wrong.



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

"us who deal in this area of law"?

I do criminal appeals and post-conviction stuff, indeed have relied on Heller/McDonald in one brief, but I certainly wasn't aware that anyone was specializing specifically in 2nd Amd. challenges.....




Anyway, you were first saying that the author was wrong about existing constitutional law (though I take issue with his use of "exact fit"). Now, it's that you take issue with the Court's reasoning in Heller, which are different things entirely. I jumped on you because you seemed to be taking the position that the author was wrong about the decision and more generally wrong about various types of regulation being permissible under the 2nd. And that position would be wrong.



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.

two obvious flaws with this line of thinking

one state powers-

two-arms as referenced in the second amendment did not mean ordnance nor artillery but rather individual arms a citizen would be able to keep and bear. sort of hard to bear a 12 pound cannon or a 105MM smoothbore gun as used on a Abrams MBT

and the pseudo ontological argument that the government has to have these powers thus those powers must be constitutional really doesn't cut it

There are many reasons why H bombs wouldn't be covered from the fact they aren't arms within the meaning of the second to the fact that they are indiscriminate weapons of Mass Destruction that have interstate and international ramifications
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

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?). That they did not uphold gun registration requirements?

I haven't read Heller III, but then, I'm not the one accusing someone else of not understanding constitutional law. How about you provide quotes backed by citation to the portions of Heller III that you say the author misunderstood?



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.


"Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." ....The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008)



Second, Heller explicitly limited Miller and in doing so expressed surprise at the notion that Miller should be read to overturn laws barring ownership of military weapons like machine guns:


We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial [625] and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra
.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008) (citations omitted)
You do know that the AR's sold to civilians in gun stores are not military weapons, don't you? One can still and always has been able to buy military weapons, they just have to pay through the nose for the privilege
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

You do know that the AR's sold to civilians in gun stores are not military weapons, don't you? One can still and always has been able to buy military weapons, they just have to pay through the nose for the privilege

and before the idiotic NFA and later the even more idiotic Hughes Amendment, civilians and always been able to freely own the standard issued individual weapon of the infantry.

be it a Springfield muzzle loader, a Springfield A3-03, a Garand MI rifle a MI carbine. indeed the federal government-operating the now privatized Office of Civilian Marksmanship (until Clinton known as the Dept, of Civilian Marksmanship) sold millions of Garands, bolt action A3-03 and other WWI (like the P17 Enfield) rifles, and the MI carbine to US citizens. all bonafide weapons of war
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

and before the idiotic NFA and later the even more idiotic Hughes Amendment, civilians and always been able to freely own the standard issued individual weapon of the infantry.

be it a Springfield muzzle loader, a Springfield A3-03, a Garand MI rifle a MI carbine. indeed the federal government-operating the now privatized Office of Civilian Marksmanship (until Clinton known as the Dept, of Civilian Marksmanship) sold millions of Garands, bolt action A3-03 and other WWI (like the P17 Enfield) rifles, and the MI carbine to US citizens. all bonafide weapons of war
True, as we see times have a changed, now we are lucky to get what we can.
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

True, as we see times have a changed, now we are lucky to get what we can.

WHICH IS why i advocate the common sense interpretation that "in common use" includes both civilian police and the National guard

or in the alternative-any firearm or type of firearm that is available to Civilian police agencies should be freely available to honest citizens with the same restrictions as buying a 22 caliber bolt action rifle in Texas or Wyoming.

and the standard issue rifle of the national guard is equally available
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

WHICH IS why i advocate the common sense interpretation that "in common use" includes both civilian police and the National guard

or in the alternative-any firearm or type of firearm that is available to Civilian police agencies should be freely available to honest citizens with the same restrictions as buying a 22 caliber bolt action rifle in Texas or Wyoming.

and the standard issue rifle of the national guard is equally available

That I would agree with.
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

That I would agree with.

its an easy test that makes complete sense. If a weapon is so dangerous that no civilian can even merely own it, then it has no business being issued to civilian government agents for use in our civilian environment If on the other hand, if it is issued to civilian police for self defense against criminals in our urban areas, then that alone proves it has a legitimate use in the homes of other civilians
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

the guy who wrote the blog ImYoda fawns over has no understanding of constitutional law nor Heller. and that blogger appears to be a gun dealer who doesn't understand that he's cutting his own throat by fluffing the anti gun side. But the fact is, leading Banoid politicians like Hildabeast whined about Heller. That should tell everyone something

And it also proves ImYoda is a gun banner

1) Speculation.

2) Bull****, some gun dealers actually believe in responsible gun sales, no throats are slashed from common sense alone.

3) Political propaganda bull**** that is tangent to the thread.

4) However much you might dislike Hillary Clinton, there is no reason to give credit to the idea that everything she supports is wrong.

5) Speculation and bull****.
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

1) Speculation.

2) Bull****, some gun dealers actually believe in responsible gun sales, no throats are slashed from common sense alone.

3) Political propaganda bull**** that is tangent to the thread.

4) However much you might dislike Hillary Clinton, there is no reason to give credit to the idea that everything she supports is wrong.

5) Speculation and bull****.

your posts have no credibility in this area based on your prior posts. I have proven that the clown ImYoda cited is a gun restrictionist and every thread ImYoda has started on this sub forum is anti gun
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds Government Right to Regulate Guns
Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds Government Right to Regulate Guns



Now haven’t I been telling yall that is the case……….

You should read the comments at the bottom of that article you linked where about 95% of his commenters pick apart the logic in the article.

One example of one of the comments

"despite the fact that every, single gun used illegally or inappropriately first entered the market through a legal sale."

Blatantly false. Criminals breaking into a gun shop doesn't count as a legal sale. Neither does guns smuggled across the border. Nor does a sale in which the buyer lies on the 4473 (let's talk about how those go unprosecuted shall we??).

Or another --

>"in the name of Constitutional freedom they have attempted to stymie even the most minimal government efforts to keep guns out of the 'wrong hands.'"

The NRA did not oppose Coburn's universal background check proposal. You have only Harry Reid and his acolytes to thank for that.

>"a non-sequitur if I ever heard one, or increase penalties for gun crimes, despite the fact that every, single gun used illegally or inappropriately first entered the market through a legal sale."

Leave it to Mike to complain about a non sequitur, and then immediately spew a worse non sequitur of his own
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

its an easy test that makes complete sense. If a weapon is so dangerous that no civilian can even merely own it, then it has no business being issued to civilian government agents for use in our civilian environment If on the other hand, if it is issued to civilian police for self defense against criminals in our urban areas, then that alone proves it has a legitimate use in the homes of other civilians
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.
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

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

You should read the comments at the bottom of that article you linked where about 95% of his commenters pick apart the logic in the article.

One example of one of the comments

"despite the fact that every, single gun used illegally or inappropriately first entered the market through a legal sale."

Blatantly false. Criminals breaking into a gun shop doesn't count as a legal sale. Neither does guns smuggled across the border. Nor does a sale in which the buyer lies on the 4473 (let's talk about how those go unprosecuted shall we??).

Or another --

>"in the name of Constitutional freedom they have attempted to stymie even the most minimal government efforts to keep guns out of the 'wrong hands.'"

The NRA did not oppose Coburn's universal background check proposal. You have only Harry Reid and his acolytes to thank for that.

>"a non-sequitur if I ever heard one, or increase penalties for gun crimes, despite the fact that every, single gun used illegally or inappropriately first entered the market through a legal sale."

Leave it to Mike to complain about a non sequitur, and then immediately spew a worse non sequitur of his own


Pay attention...........Heller holds that the government has the right and duty to regulate the sale and use of the weapons.................GOT THAT?
 
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

two obvious flaws with this line of thinking

one state powers-

two-arms as referenced in the second amendment did not mean ordnance nor artillery but rather individual arms a citizen would be able to keep and bear. sort of hard to bear a 12 pound cannon or a 105MM smoothbore gun as used on a Abrams MBT

and the pseudo ontological argument that the government has to have these powers thus those powers must be constitutional really doesn't cut it

There are many reasons why H bombs wouldn't be covered from the fact they aren't arms within the meaning of the second to the fact that they are indiscriminate weapons of Mass Destruction that have interstate and international ramifications


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

You do know that the AR's sold to civilians in gun stores are not military weapons, don't you? One can still and always has been able to buy military weapons, they just have to pay through the nose for the privilege

1. AR-15's are pretty much a semi-only version of M-16s. (I've fired them, but I prefer the clunkier AK. I seem to be able to hold a heavier gun more steadily, for whatever reason).

2. Kind of beside the point, because I was flagging - by quoting the relevant portions of Heller - the general types of regulation the Court hinted would likely be acceptable.

3. I'm also not talking about what a politician calls an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle." I'm talking about the broad nod the USSC gave toward bans on "military style weapons."

4. Politicians use "assault" to make the weapon sound scary, and have some pretty stupid sounding definitions of what's OK and what's not (re: the types of mods or attachments that can be used). That I understand.
 
Last edited:
Re: Despite NRA Victory Claims, Latest Heller Decision Importantly Upholds...........

its an easy test that makes complete sense. If a weapon is so dangerous that no civilian can even merely own it, then it has no business being issued to civilian government agents for use in our civilian environment If on the other hand, if it is issued to civilian police for self defense against criminals in our urban areas, then that alone proves it has a legitimate use in the homes of other civilians

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...)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom