Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:315]

[TurtleDude]

You're correct that the Second Amendment didn't give th federal government the power to regulate arms. The Second Amendment is quite clear on that point. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is crystal clear.

Then there's the fourteenth amendment, limiting state governments as well.

So, now we're left with anyone can carry any weapon any time, no one can regulate them in any way whatsoever. That's what Pirate MK1 says, if I'm understanding his posts correctly.

Yet, few of us are willing to have totally unregulated arms.

So, what do we need? Shall we amend the Constitution? Allow anyone to carry any arm anywhere at any time, no restrictions, as it says in the Second Amendment? Or do we allow the SCOTUS to continue to "interpret", i.e., rewrite, the Second Amendment?

states have a legitimate power to regulate firearms. If the second amendment is applied to the states completely, a state could still ban crew served weapons, nukes, bombs, artillery because those weapons are not small arms-ie ones that a citizen could normally keep and bear

secondly, use restrictions on firearms do not normally raise questions of infringing on KEEPING AND BEARING firearms. such as saying you cannot discharge a centerfire rifle in the public parks or city square.

the entire issue became nothing more than a seething cesspool of dishonesty based on FDR's pandering

 

[Dittohead not!]

well yes and no. I think that applies to the second amendment but not the tenth

I'm not sure how the tenth amendment allows anyone to regulate arms.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm not sure how the tenth amendment allows anyone to regulate arms.

the tenth amendment essentially says powers not specifically granted the federal government remain with the groups that endowed the federal government with power, the people and the several states.

 

[matchlight]

The right to keep and bear arms as stated in the 2nd is an unlimited right.

The Supreme Court disagrees with that claim. Justice Scalia made very clear in Heller that like most rights, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. He mentioned several limitations that have long been generally recognized, even before 1791. Even then, it was well established that the right did not extend to felons and insane people or to the carrying of concealed weapons, and Scalia emphasized that the Court was not questioning the right of government to ban weapons in certain sensitive buildings like courthouses or schools, or to impose some regulations on the commercial sale of firearms.

None of this is to say that government may restrict the right to keep and bear arms in other ways that have not been traditionally recognized as legitimate. Scalia affirmed that the right protected by the Second Amendment predates the Constitution and exists independent of it. That means that what the Second Amendment protects is the right as it was commonly understood in 1791, by which time most people accepted that several exceptions had been carved out of it.

The First Amendment freedom of speech makes a good comparison. Just as the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And yet by 1791, it was well established that that freedom contained certain exceptions. The right to keep and bear arms that the Second Amendment was meant to protect did not extend to felons, any more than the right to free speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect extended to libelers.

 

[Dittohead not!]

states have a legitimate power to regulate firearms. If the second amendment is applied to the states completely, a state could still ban crew served weapons, nukes, bombs, artillery because those weapons are not small arms-ie ones that a citizen could normally keep and bear

secondly, use restrictions on firearms do not normally raise questions of infringing on KEEPING AND BEARING firearms. such as saying you cannot discharge a centerfire rifle in the public parks or city square.

the entire issue became nothing more than a seething cesspool of dishonesty based on FDR's pandering

Discharging a weapon where it's not safe to do so is more of a regulation on the use, rather than on keeping and bearing.

If the states can regulate arms despite the Second Amendment, how does the federal government have the right to restrict their ability to do so? DC vs. Heller decided that they can't outlaw handguns altogether, but by what right can the federal government make such a decision?

 

[TurtleDude]

The Supreme Court disagrees with that claim. Justice Scalia made very clear in Heller that like most right, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. He mentioned several limitations that have long been generally recognized, even before 1791. Even then, it was well established that the right did not extend to felons and insane people or to the carrying of concealed weapons, and Scalia emphasized that the Court was not questioning the right of government to ban weapons in certain sensitive buildings like courthouses or schools, or to impose some regulations on the commercial sale of firearms.

None of this is to say that government may restrict the right to keep and bear arms in other ways that have not been traditionally recognized as legitimate. Scalia affirmed tha the right protected by the Second Amendment predates the Constitution and exists independent of it. That means that what the Second Amendment protects is the right as it was commonly understood in 1791, by which time most people accepted that several exceptions had been carved out of it.

The First Amendment freedom of speech makes a good comparison. Just as the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And yet by 1791, it was well established that that freedom contained certain exceptions. The right to keep and bear arms that the Second Amendment was meant to protect did not extend to felons, any more than the right to free speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect extended to libelers.

It is nonsensical to believe that the second amendment ceases to exist at a certain number of bullets a hand held weapon can fire or how many it can hold

 

[TurtleDude]

Discharging a weapon where it's not safe to do so is more of a regulation on the use, rather than on keeping and bearing.

If the states can regulate arms despite the Second Amendment, how does the federal government have the right to restrict their ability to do so? DC vs. Heller decided that they can't outlaw handguns altogether, but by what right can the federal government make such a decision?

exactly which is why incorporation of the second amendment to the states does not stop such state regulation as to discharging firearms.

let me try to explain again

1) the federal government has no power to regulate privately owned small arms because it never was given that power in the first place. That is true no matter how you interpret the second amendment and the tenth amendment is the source for this

2) the second amendment when applied to the states does not create the same blanket ban on every action concerning federal regulation of firearms and their use that the tenth amendment does to the federal government because the states actually have certain powers to regulate firearms and their uses while the federal government does not

3) the Bill of rights was never intended to control state action. Remember, the founders were creating a new government and required the consent of the states and the people to endow the federal new government with certain powers. only where the states ceded certain powers, did the federal government get powers.

4) the civil war reconstruction saw states in the south trying to deny the basic rights of freed slaves. State governments dominated by the Klan pretended that the state constitutions did not apply to freed slaves. So the constitution was amended where the federal government was given additional powers-powers that were taken from the several states and given to the federal government and those powers were interpreted by the courts to include a power to enforce some of the bill of rights when asserted by citizens against their own states.

but some of that action not only prevented state governments from improperly denying blacks rights that should have been guaranteed by state government at a state level but this new power allowed the federal government to actually override some legitimate state powers. And when that conflict took place, federal courts had to adjudicate state powers vs the incorporation of the federal bill of rights-a document that was originally intended to reiterate that the new federal government did not have certain powers

so what we know have is a document that was merely a restatement that the new federal government did not have powers in some areas to now being a set of laws that prevent states from acting in areas where the state governments DID have powers.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

states have a legitimate power to regulate firearms. If the second amendment is applied to the states completely, a state could still ban crew served weapons, nukes, bombs, artillery because those weapons are not small arms-ie ones that a citizen could normally keep and bear

secondly, use restrictions on firearms do not normally raise questions of infringing on KEEPING AND BEARING firearms. such as saying you cannot discharge a centerfire rifle in the public parks or city square.

the entire issue became nothing more than a seething cesspool of dishonesty based on FDR's pandering

Not according to the McDonald v Chicago SCOTUS ruling.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not according to the McDonald v Chicago SCOTUS ruling.

uh that is wrong. States cannot infringe on the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

a state saying you cannot possess a firearm in a state courthouse or shoot a pistol on the village green does neither

 

[Dittohead not!]

exactly which is why incorporation of the second amendment to the states does not stop such state regulation as to discharging firearms.

Actually, the Second Amendment doesn't mention discharging firearms.

let me try to explain again

1) the federal government has no power to regulate privately owned small arms because it never was given that power in the first place. That is true no matter how you interpret the second amendment and the tenth amendment is the source for this

Nor does the Second Amendment mention the size of arms.

2) the second amendment when applied to the states does not create the same blanket ban on every action concerning federal regulation of firearms and their use that the tenth amendment does to the federal government because the states actually have certain powers to regulate firearms and their uses while the federal government does not

Derived from what, if not the SCOTUS, which is a part of the federal government?

3) the Bill of rights was never intended to control state action. Remember, the founders were creating a new government and required the consent of the states and the people to endow the federal new government with certain powers. only where the states ceded certain powers, did the federal government get powers.

Correct, but then came the 14th. Amendment.

4) the civil war reconstruction saw states in the south trying to deny the basic rights of freed slaves. State governments dominated by the Klan pretended that the state constitutions did not apply to freed slaves. So the constitution was amended where the federal government was given additional powers-powers that were taken from the several states and given to the federal government and those powers were interpreted by the courts to include a power to enforce some of the bill of rights when asserted by citizens against their own states.

Some of the Bill of Rights? Isn't the entire bill of rights supposed to apply to all citizens of every state?

but some of that action not only prevented state governments from improperly denying blacks rights that should have been guaranteed by state government at a state level but this new power allowed the federal government to actually override some legitimate state powers. And when that conflict took place, federal courts had to adjudicate state powers vs the incorporation of the federal bill of rights-a document that was originally intended to reiterate that the new federal government did not have certain powers

OK, now you're getting to where the states can regulate arms. So, do the federal courts, then, have the right to determine which regulations are constitutional and which are not?

so what we know have is a document that was merely a restatement that the new federal government did not have powers in some areas to now being a set of laws that prevent states from acting in areas where the state governments DID have powers.

Not sure just how to interpret that one.

But it sounds as if you support the federal courts being able to determine just how the states may or may not regulate arms. Maybe I've misinterpreted that.

 

[SHOOTER]

if one follows the lar yes they can and should be able to,this myth about machine guns is almost laughable,give someone that knows what he or she is doing a benelli m2 tactical a couple of boxes of #4 buck and every one dies,or gets mamed.
funny how people that know nothing about guns like to talk about guns ,this is about ISLAM not guns,i as an AMERICAN refuse to accept this as the new norm
we will have to kill these nuts,each and every one,or we wait until they set off a nuke in NEW YORK CITY,they will kill every one ,mothers,daughters ,fathers ,brothers,any one that is not MUSLIM.
yet this white house if afraid we might kill someones mother or daughter,or child,yet these nuts can kill at will and the aswr is take the guns.
that is not gonna happen unless we let it,this is not about guns this is about ISLAM it is about making the world an islamic caliphate ,you convert or you die,this is not about guns.
while this white house sucks it's thumb CHRISTIANS are being beheaded,peope are being killed here in AMERICA and the white house does nothing.
the left needs to keep sucking it's thumb and whistling past the graveyard,people are getting killed because of this presidents administration's lack of action,this is not about guns this is about a war and a thumb sucking liberal wimp president that has no backbone .

run don run
run don run

run don run


run don run

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually, the Second Amendment doesn't mention discharging firearms.


Nor does the Second Amendment mention the size of arms.



Derived from what, if not the SCOTUS, which is a part of the federal government?



Correct, but then came the 14th. Amendment.



Some of the Bill of Rights? Isn't the entire bill of rights supposed to apply to all citizens of every state?




OK, now you're getting to where the states can regulate arms. So, do the federal courts, then, have the right to determine which regulations are constitutional and which are not?




Not sure just how to interpret that one.

But it sounds as if you support the federal courts being able to determine just how the states may or may not regulate arms. Maybe I've misinterpreted that.

They have to now that the boundaries between federal and state power were screwed up

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

uh that is wrong. States cannot infringe on the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

a state saying you cannot possess a firearm in a state courthouse or shoot a pistol on the village green does neither

OK, found this in McDonald v Chicago:

Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis
counsels Opinion of the Court otherwise, that guarantee is fully binding on the States and thus limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values. As noted by the 38 States that have appeared in this case as amici supporting petitioners, “tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.” Brief for State of Texas et al. as Amici Curiae

 

[TurtleDude]

OK, found this in McDonald v Chicago:

Yep and here is the issue. the second amendment does not prevent the federal government from acting in every possible area involving firearms. rather its the fact that the federal government was never given any power to act in that area which prevents such action-in other words the tenth amendment prevents the federal government from acting as does the fact that the federal government doesn't have the proper power.

Now states had powers that the federal government did not. so that is where we have some interesting conflicts. because the second amendment is not a complete ban when applied to state governments.

 

[American]

The gun control sweep post Orlando massacre is really beginning to take effect:

Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules



Scalia's words from the Heller decision are starting to take fruition: "the second Amendment IS NOT an unlimited right".

Don't burn your hands rubbing them together in glee.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

It is nonsensical to believe that the second amendment ceases to exist at a certain number of bullets a hand held weapon can fire or how many it can hold

So according to Judge Alito in McDonald v Chicago:

“tate and local experimentation with reasonable firearms regulations will continue under the Second Amendment.”

I'm trying to understand this, so for argument sake, why wouldn't a ten round limit for pistol magazines be a "reasonable firearm regulation?" It doesn't prevent the right to "keep and bear."

 

[TurtleDude]

So according to Judge Alito in McDonald v Chicago:



I'm trying to understand this, so for argument sake, why wouldn't a ten round limit for pistol magazines be a "reasonable firearm regulation?" It doesn't prevent the right to "keep and bear."

I don't find any such limitations to be constitutional since that directly interferes with the ability of the people to KEEP and bear arms. What is more reasonable is a state government saying that you cannot firearm a pistol in a court house or carry a pistol in the county jail. there is no rational reason for any magazine limit and it of course is nothing more than a scheme to whittle away on gun ownership.

and I say again, any government that supplies its civilian employees cannot be heard to say that other civilians have no legitimate reason WHATSOEVER to own the same weapons

judges often think they are wiser than anyone else and they can draw proper lines. The crap the USSC has done and the four Bannerrrhoid justices have proven that is foolish

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

Yep and here is the issue. the second amendment does not prevent the federal government from acting in every possible area involving firearms. rather its the fact that the federal government was never given any power to act in that area which prevents such action-in other words the tenth amendment prevents the federal government from acting as does the fact that the federal government doesn't have the proper power.

Now states had powers that the federal government did not. so that is where we have some interesting conflicts. because the second amendment is not a complete ban when applied to state governments.

What I got from reading McDonald v Chicago the issue that violated the 2A was the handgun ban.

However, according to Alito, the 2A also allows for reasonable regulations by "state and local" experimentation.

So WTF are reasonable regulations?

 

[TurtleDude]

What I got from reading McDonald v Chicago the issue that violated the 2A was the handgun ban.

However, according to Alito, the 2A also allows for reasonable regulations by "state and local" experimentation.

So WTF are reasonable regulations?

reasonable regulation

stuff that applies to everyone including police officers. Police officers cannot shoot a firearm in the public park any more than you and I can

stuff that prevents the firing of a gun in such a way that its likely such a use would cause harm

stuff that impedes honest people from owning guns is never reasonable IMHO and violates the second amendment no matter what government unit perpetrates such a law

 

[ludin]

There's something wrong with people who think private citizens should be able to purchase machine guns. Gives the rest of gunnies a bad name.

you can legally purchase a machine gun depending on the state.
as long as it was made before 1986 and you pass the required background check
then you can legally own a machine gun.

it isn't cheap and is very expensive but you can own one.

The moronic ruling of this court is that handguns were only protected by heller which wasn't the case.
that is a very very strict and narrow reading of heller.

what is dishonest about the OP in this case is that he states this this was anything to do with gun control
and it wasn't.

 

[jimbo]

states have a legitimate power to regulate firearms. If the second amendment is applied to the states completely, a state could still ban crew served weapons, nukes, bombs, artillery because those weapons are not small arms-ie ones that a citizen could normally keep and bear

secondly, use restrictions on firearms do not normally raise questions of infringing on KEEPING AND BEARING firearms. such as saying you cannot discharge a centerfire rifle in the public parks or city square.

the entire issue became nothing more than a seething cesspool of dishonesty based on FDR's pandering

I've never bought into the argument that the states can infringe on the second. The 10th reserves for the states powers not specifically granted to the feds. Seems to me that the 2nd clearly gives the feds control and that control says shall not be infringed.

By contrast, the the first says "Congress shall make no law" giving the right to regulate to the states. Can you imagine the hornets nest opened up if a state decided it was going to regulate religion, speech, or the press?

 

[TurtleDude]

I've never bought into the argument that the states can infringe on the second. The 10th reserves for the states powers not specifically granted to the feds. Seems to me that the 2nd clearly gives the feds control and that control says shall not be infringed.

By contrast, the the first says "Congress shall make no law" giving the right to regulate to the states. Can you imagine the hornets nest opened up if a state decided it was going to regulate religion, speech, or the press?

the second gives the feds NOTHING. its a negative restriction on what they can do

 

[jimbo]

Are you willing to accept the limitation of arms that can be "born", i.e., carried around, or does it apply to any arm?

Give me a big enough truck and I can bear a nuclear tipped ICBM.

 

[jimbo]

the second gives the feds NOTHING. its a negative restriction on what they can do

I think that's my point. Badly worded, but the feds reserved the power to not restrict citizens keeping and bearing.

 

[TurtleDude]

I think that's my point. Badly worded, but the feds reserved the power to not restrict citizens keeping and bearing.

Lets try to clear up the confusion

the federal government has no proper power to interfere with privately owned arms because the federal government was never given any such power.

The states ratified the 14th amendment and thus ceded powers to the federal government. Federal courts have concluded that some of those powers ceded to the federal government to allow the federal courts to prevent the states from interfering with certain rights of the people