Judge rules California's ban on Assault Weapons UnConstitutional

[Lursa]

Given this, I'm curious why California didn't ban pump action shotguns after the Lindhurst High shooting, or how the Caltrans shooter was able to use a banned "assault weapon" to kill his co-workers, or why California didn't ban handguns, .45 caliber ammo or ten round magazines used by the Oikos shooter.

It's so stupid...since in that 30 yrs of a ban, criminals still used them to commit crimes and mass shooters still used them for their crimes.

OTOH, they used other firearms and other weapons too.

In any case, the ban was unconstitutional AND pointless. It didnt work.

 

[Lursa]

I didn't say they'd stick. Multiple states have recently banned abortion.

But about that "in common use for lawful purposes" line. Do you think it doesn't apply to AR-15s, shotguns with pistol grips, Gen 5 Glock 19s and handguns with threaded barrels?

True...they created those laws but in every state they were challenged and not a single one was enacted. Those that were adjudicated were all found unconstitutional and the few that have yet to reach their court dates are on hold.

It's possible to pass unconstitutional laws...but they are all open to challenge. Passing them doesnt mean they'll stand. (As you're saying)

 

[Glitch]

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.

You can blame the Supreme Court for it taking so long.

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 it applied only to the federal government. Which meant that the States could enact whatever gun control laws they desired. However, in 1867 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified all of the Bill of Rights now applied to the States.

The Supreme Court decided that rather than incorporate all the Bill of Rights and apply them to the States all at once, they would incorporate each individual right selectively, as the case is brought before the Supreme Court for their review.

As a result of this "selective incorporation" by the Supreme Court it took until 1925 before the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment and applied it to the States in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652. It took the Supreme Court until 2010 before they finally got around to incorporating the Second Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742. It took the Supreme Court until 2019 before they finally got around to incorporating the Eighth Amendment in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___. The Supreme Court is still not done incorporating all the Bill of Rights, they still have parts of the Fifth Amendment which they have yet to incorporate.

 

[craig]

My argument has never really been about if you should have one...but the reason for it. I mean, if you would like to have one, I think you should be allowed to do so...just don't give me a bull$hit reason for it.

If I had one, it would not be for home defense or the militia as the judge suggests; rather for shooting at the range for practice and to have fun with. I'm not a hunter, but I am given to understand that with the proper load, an AR-15 could be used for that purpose. If so, no problem there. Heck, send me some venison!

But don't give me that home defense crap. You can't really haul that around with you everywhere like a pistol, so personal protection isn't really applicable. Plus, what kind of place does one live in that having that as home defense is preferable. Odds are other types of firearms will do a better job functionally speaking. When a person uses a firearm to protect themselves and you hear about it on the news, an AR-15 is usually not the weapon used. I'm sure there are a couple of stories out there, but those are the exceptions and not the rule.

And use for militia? B1tch, please. If by militia you mean those weekend warriors with little or no actual training that would actually help them while using personal weapons...then an AR-15 against a better trained and equipped force won't last very long. Assuming those yahoos don't up and run away or surrender. Besides the state militias and National Guard are better equipped and trained with better weapons via local and federal taxes.

So when I read this article...no problems on declaring the ban unconstitutional. That's good enough. But to go on to say its perfect for self/home defense and for the militia...really? Seriously? C'mon, that's just bull$hit.

Think national disaster and civil disorder. Imagine if we are without power and communications for a week.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

You can blame the Supreme Court for it taking so long.

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 it applied only to the federal government. Which meant that the States could enact whatever gun control laws they desired. However, in 1867 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified all of the Bill of Rights now applied to the States.

The Supreme Court decided that rather than incorporate all the Bill of Rights and apply them to the States all at once, they would incorporate each individual right selectively, as the case is brought before the Supreme Court for their review.

As a result of this "selective incorporation" by the Supreme Court it took until 1925 before the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment and applied it to the States in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652. It took the Supreme Court until 2010 before they finally got around to incorporating the Second Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742. It took the Supreme Court until 2019 before they finally got around to incorporating the Eighth Amendment in Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___. The Supreme Court is still not done incorporating all the Bill of Rights, they still have parts of the Fifth Amendment which they have yet to incorporate.

Incorporation is a separate argument. McDonald was the final step. The activist Court could not achieve that political end without Heller.

 

[Glitch]

Regarding your objections to using an AR-15 for "home defense", I'd say it depends on the home being defended. You may be right if you are talking about someone's home being an apartment, but anyone with more than a quarter acre lot in the 'burbs probably have a greater need for a defensive weapon that can reach out and touch someone or something. A pistol won't cut it.

I'm less concerned with defending my home, and more concerned with defending myself, regardless of where I happen to be at the time.

These mindless anti-gun morons are only capable of thinking of an AR-15, not even realizing that there are numerous other variants. The AR-10 with its 7.62mm round is popular with hunters, as is the AR-12 with its 12-guage capabilities, which I happen to own.

You can always spot the anti-American leftist morons because all they are able to comprehend is the AR-15 and they are always talking about what other people "need" or "don't need" (as if they had a clue). That is because they get their anti-gun talking points spoon fed to them by the anti-American leftist media morons who are equally stupid when it comes to firearms.

 

[Glitch]

Incorporation is a separate argument. McDonald was the final step. The activist Court could not achieve that political end without Heller.

It is not a separate argument. It is specifically the reason why it took the Supreme Court so long to incorporate the Second Amendment.

Don't be silly, of course incorporation could have been achieved without Heller. That was why the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. It just took the Supreme Court 143 years to finally getting around to applying it to the States. Just like it too the Supreme Court 58 years to incorporate the First Amendment and 152 years to finally incorporate the Eighth Amendment.

 

[Lursa]

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

??? So with that reasoning, if you house hasnt ever been broken into, why lock the doors?

Why keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen if you've never needed it so far?

Why teach your kids about stranger danger? How likely is it, really, that they'll be approached?

Why have a security system, carry life jackets, wear seat belts....since that stuff is almost never needed, or didnt need them so far?

 

[Bok Tuklo]

It is not a separate argument.

It is. It has nothing to do with incorporating the enumerated right. You are trying to take a separate argument to explain why it took so long. I said nothing about incorporation. You cannot incorporate a right that doesn't exist.

 

[Lursa]

But let me guess -- that logic only applies to guns.

LOL and it misses on accuracy in a big way. There's no 'right to life' enumerated in the Const. A right to own firearms is...and ARs are firearms. (er, duh of course)

It's sad how easily, and conveniently, some choose to ignore the fact that firearms are used to to preserve life. And freedom.

 

[Glitch]

It is. It has nothing to do with incorporating the enumerated right. You are trying to take a separate argument to explain why it took so long. I said nothing about incorporation. You cannot incorporate a right that doesn't exist.

So now "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't exist.

Why are you trolling this thread?

Now that I know you for what you are, you can stop wasting my time.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

So now "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" doesn't exist.

Why are you trolling this thread?

Now that I know you for what you are, you can stop wasting my time.

Okay. Whenever the Gun Folk get pushback on their fetish they call it "trolling" in order to create a safe space. Have a good day, sir.

 

[Rucker61]

You cannot incorporate a right that doesn't exist.

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."

 

[natman]

It is. It has nothing to do with incorporating the enumerated right. You are trying to take a separate argument to explain why it took so long. I said nothing about incorporation. You cannot incorporate a right that doesn't exist.

Here's the definition of an enumerated right:

The Constitution in the articles and amendments specifically defines many rights enjoyed by the people, such as the right of free speech, religion, etc. Rights that are specifically mentioned are enumerated rights, but other rights not specifically mentioned but which are considered fundamental to the operation of the nation and liberties enjoyed by the people are also protected. These are known as implied or unenumerated rights. [emphasis added]

Enumerated Rights

The Constitution in the articles and amendments specifically defines many rights enjoyed by the people, such as the right of free speech, religion, etc. Rights that are specifically mentioned are enumerated rights, but other rights

www.annenbergclassroom.org

The Second Amendment is an enumerated right and has been at least since the Bill of RIghts was ratified. No further validation is needed.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Here's the definition of an enumerated right:

The Constitution in the articles and amendments specifically defines many rights enjoyed by the people, such as the right of free speech, religion, etc. Rights that are specifically mentioned are enumerated rights, but other rights not specifically mentioned but which are considered fundamental to the operation of the nation and liberties enjoyed by the people are also protected. These are known as implied or unenumerated rights. [emphasis added]

Enumerated Rights

The Constitution in the articles and amendments specifically defines many rights enjoyed by the people, such as the right of free speech, religion, etc. Rights that are specifically mentioned are enumerated rights, but other rights

www.annenbergclassroom.org

The Second Amendment is an enumerated right and has been at least since the Bill of RIghts was ratified. No further validation is needed.

Thank you.

I will correct myself.

It has nothing to do with incorporating the unenumerated right. You are trying to take a separate argument to explain why it took so long. I said nothing about incorporation. You cannot incorporate a right that doesn't exist.

 

[natman]

Thank you.

I will correct myself.

It has nothing to do with incorporating the unenumerated right. You are trying to take a separate argument to explain why it took so long. I said nothing about incorporation. You cannot incorporate a right that doesn't exist.

My post was just about the definition of an enumerated right. The incorporation argument is with somebody else.

 

[bongsaway]

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.

If you listen to certain folks on here, life is just bristling with danger waiting to ambush you at every turn, even in your home.

I just don't have the same idea of people that they do which is why I never felt the need to own a firearm.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

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.

I guess we don't need rights anymore. We have big government to rule over us.

 

[bongsaway]

??? So with that reasoning, if you house hasnt ever been broken into, why lock the doors?

Why keep a fire extinguisher in the kitchen if you've never needed it so far?

Why teach your kids about stranger danger? How likely is it, really, that they'll be approached?

Why have a security system, carry life jackets, wear seat belts....since that stuff is almost never needed, or didnt need them so far?

Any of the items you mentioned designed to kill?

 

[Lursa]

Any of the items you mentioned designed to kill?

Why does that make any difference to the point you were making?

How does 'design' matter? They were designed to protect life too. Just like life jackets, fire extinguishers, seat belts.

 

[Noodlegawd]

A ban an on assault weapon is NOT unconstitutional.

It may or may not be unconstitutional, but it certainly is gobsmackingly stupid.

 

[Noodlegawd]

Yes, because there purpose of the vast majority of them is to kill

That's not true, nor is it relevant.

You have a right not to be deprived of life by the government without due process of law. That right is enshrined in the Constitution. You don't have a right to be protected by the government from other people who want to kill you, at the expense of the rights of others.

 

[bongsaway]

Why does that make any difference to the point you were making?

How does 'design' matter? They were designed to protect life too. Just like life jackets, fire extinguishers, seat belts.

Own a gun if you wish.

 

[Lursa]

Own a gun if you wish.

Of course. But that's not the discussion. Are you acknowledging my point as valid then?

 

[bongsaway]

Of course. But that's not the discussion. Are you acknowledging my point as valid then?

Nah, I'm just tired of the subject. Discussing firearms with folks who are hard core second amendment people gets tiresome for me.