Judge rules California's ban on Assault Weapons UnConstitutional

[PIPEWRENCH]

Oozing anal wart Gavin Nuisance is having a meltdown over the ruling. what a putrid POS that governor is

The constitution is a stumbling block to socialism.

 

[VySky]

I thought we don't like federal judges going rogue. Hypocrisy.

I’m glad Trump added to the 9th circuit courts where this is headed.

 

[VySky]

Oozing anal wart Gavin Nuisance is having a meltdown over the ruling. what a putrid POS that governor is

Good. Hope they vote surfer boy out of office. Even Bruce would be better.

 

[bongsaway]

We are talking about using a gun for self defense. If I were shooting at someone outside my house in self defense it most likely would be because they are shooting at me. There are drive-by shootings. It could be someone trying to break in that I may have yelled a warning at who decided to start shooting at me from outside. These are a few examples of the thousands of legitimate reasons I may have to defend my self from someone outside. You brought up the scenario about shooting at someone outside my home and I merely pointed out that there are many valid and justified reasons to shoot someone outside your house threating your life or your family. What is so hard to understand about that.

And how many times of those thousands of legitimate reasons have you used to shoot at people outside of your home on your property?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

The Court is a political entity at this point and are currently taking the political position favorable to the Gun Cult as shown by the enumeration in Heller an individual right that did not previously exist. There is little that can be done short of expanding the Court so that it no longer favors this particular political interest group.

Until then, or years into the future when minority rule in this nation is finally overcome, all we can do is watch the slaughter they embrace.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The Court is a political entity at this point and are currently taking the political position favorable to the Gun Cult as shown by the enumeration in Heller an individual right that did not previously exist. There is little that can be done short of expanding the Court so that it no longer favors this particular political interest group.

Until then, or years into the future when minority rule in this nation is finally overcome, all we can do is watch the slaughter they embrace.

Due to the constant misinterpreting the Constitution by the left and Democrats is their undoing. The 2A isn't a right given to its citizens by the government, its is a restriction placed on a governments banning of a God given right.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Due to the constant misinterpreting the Constitution by the left and Democrats is their undoing. The 2A isn't a right given to its citizens by the government, its is a restriction placed on a governments banning of a God given right.

If it is "God given," doesn't that mean everyone on Earth has it?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

If it is "God given," doesn't that mean everyone on Earth has it?

America doesn't own the world. We can only apply it to within our own borders.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

America doesn't own the world. We can only apply it to within our own borders.

So you are favorable to anyone within our borders, regardless of status, having this particular God given right?

What other God given rights do you wish to extend to everyone within our borders?

 

[Linuxcooldude]

So you are favorable to anyone within our borders, regardless of status, having this particular God given right?

What other God given rights do you wish to extend to everyone within our borders?

Get to the point, 20 questions to get to the punch line is wasting my time. I also participate in other threads.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Get to the point, 20 questions to get to the punch line is wasting my time. I also participate in other threads.

Just exploring this whole "God given" concept as opposed to governing with the consent of the governed. You can go back to other threads.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Just exploring this whole "God given" concept as opposed to governing with the consent of the governed. You can go back to other threads.

Great! Thanks, that's all I wanted. Such as "That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Obviously not unlimited that don't violate someone else's rights. They didn't want the federal government giving rights to the American people that they should have in the first place...only for them to take them away later on. Which is why the Bill of Rights restricts the government rather than letting the government give rights to the people. Or rather not letting government give rights, which was never theirs to give, as they are god given, unalienable rights. Unalienable ( rights ) refers to that which cannot be given away or taken away.

 

[Rich2018]

go away under the bridge dweller.

Nah, don't be like that, I won't judge you for your viewing habits

...unless you watch Fox News that is.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

And how many times of those thousands of legitimate reasons have you used to shoot at people outside of your home on your property?

The same amount of times I have used a gun to shoot at people inside my house. Even as an MP in the military I never shot at anyone, ever. So I guess shooting at someone outside my house is as relevant as shooting at someone as a police officer and a soldier. I never thought about that until you brought it up.

 

[Rucker61]

The Court is a political entity at this point and are currently taking the political position favorable to the Gun Cult as shown by the enumeration in Heller an individual right that did not previously exist.

The constitutions of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).


In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." However, the federal government and all of its power exist solely because of the Constitution. No Constitution, no governmental authority, no militia, no military, yet the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes would still exist.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.

The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.

In 1982 the Senate published a report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

The claim that Heller changed the interpretation of the right protected by the Second Amendment from a collective to an individual viewpoint simply has no merit.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

quote

The constitutions of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times..

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17).


In US v Cruikshank. 1876, SCOTUS recognized that "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." However, the federal government and all of its power exist solely because of the Constitution. No Constitution, no governmental authority, no militia, no military, yet the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes would still exist.

Without the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms, Miller, whose entire appeal was based upon that right, would have no standing to have his case reviewed by SCOTUS.

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.

The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.

In 1982 the Senate published a report entitled "the right to keep and bear arms report" that affirmed an individual rights viewpoint.

The claim that Heller changed the interpretation of the right protected by the Second Amendment from a collective to an individual viewpoint simply has no merit.

If it is so self evident and unquestioned, why did it takeover 200 years after the Second Amendment's ratification for it to be enumerated? Scalia was reduced to trying to retroactively pin it on Miller.

Heller is like Roe; an enumeration of a right that did not exist until the political will of those who wanted it reached the Court.

 

[natman]

quote


If it is so self evident and unquestioned, why did it takeover 200 years after the Second Amendment's ratification for it to be enumerated? Scalia was reduced to trying to retroactively pin it on Miller.

Heller is like Roe; an enumeration of a right that did not exist until the political will of those who wanted it reached the Court.

The right to keep and bear arms was clearly enumerated when first written in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Rucker61]

quote


If it is so self evident and unquestioned, why did it takeover 200 years after the Second Amendment's ratification for it to be enumerated? Scalia was reduced to trying to retroactively pin it on Miller.

Rights don't have to be enumerated to exist, for one; see "9th Amendment". Secondly, the 2nd Amendment can only protect an individual right. It has no ability to restrict the power granted the federal government over the organization and arms of the militia as enumerated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 and Article 2, Section 2. If the collective view was correct, why did states continually adopt an individual rights view in their constitutions from 1776 through the 21st century?

Heller is like Roe; an enumeration of a right that did not exist until the political will of those who wanted it reached the Court.

The right to keep and bear arms has been treated as an individual right since ratification. The collective view is a relatively modern interpretation. Miller is pretty much worthless for either side, given the circumstances of the case and the value of the opinion.

Why United States v. Miller was so badly written - The Volokh Conspiracy

Before District of Columbia v. Heller, the 1939 decision United States v. Miller was the Supreme Court’s leading decision on the Second Amendment. Miller was, to put it mildly, obliquely written. As Michael O’Shea has detailed, the opinion seems mainly concerned with whether the gun in question...

volokh.com

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Rights don't have to be enumerated to exist, for one; see "9th Amendment".

That is a good argument if you do not consider the 9th Amendment a wholly rhetorical protection of rights enumerated in the constitutions of the Several States at the time and not covered by the other 11 (10 ratified) amendments offered. These rights exist and while there is no specific mechanism for enumerating them, Article III Section 2 is just vague enough for the Court to take that responsibility for themselves in 1803 unwittingly and 1965 explicitly.

 

[Noodlegawd]

I think you should be allowed to do so...just don't give me a bull$hit reason for it.

Why do we have to give you a reason to have one? Does anyone make you give them a reason why you should be allowed to have a car that can go 100+ mph?

 

[Noodlegawd]

Just who's side are these judges on ?

The side of common sense and individual rights?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

The side of common sense and individual rights?

That doesn't seem likely.

 

[Noodlegawd]

That doesn't seem likely.

How so? What's common sense about banning rifles based on whether they have pistol grips or adjustable shoulder stocks?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

How so? What's common sense about banning rifles based on whether they have pistol grips or adjustable shoulder stocks?

I was referring to the actions of judges. Siding with common sense and the protection of individual rights is rare for a judge. I can't help you with whatever it is you are talking about.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Why do we have to give you a reason to have one? Does anyone make you give them a reason why you should be allowed to have a car that can go 100+ mph?

No reason a Ferrari has to go 200+ when the speed limit is no more than 85mph?