|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 22, 2017, 11:30 AM | #76 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,607
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 22, 2017, 11:57 AM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 22, 2014
Location: Floyd, VA
Posts: 242
|
While Heller clarified a facet of the 2nd amendment that handguns for self defense in the home are protected, this court seems to be assuming that self defense in the home is the only protection afforded by the 2nd amendment, and that any firearm beyond their perception of adequate for that use is not protected. How is a 10 round magazine adequate for self and home defense in the event of a home invasion?
__________________
In NJ, the bad guys are armed and the households are alarmed. In VA, the households are armed and the bad guys are alarmed. Last edited by TomNJVA; February 22, 2017 at 07:28 PM. |
February 22, 2017, 12:21 PM | #78 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 9, 2010
Location: live in a in a house when i'm not in a tent
Posts: 2,483
|
TomNJVA
Quote:
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2012/...led-triple-ho/ Hmm, you might be onto something here... Perhaps it's best to keep in mind that the life saved by a 10 round magazine might not be YOURS....
__________________
I'm right about the metric system 3/4 of the time. |
|
February 22, 2017, 01:34 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
1. Once again, Heller is not the blessing some thought it was.
2. 10 round - limit. Watch what you say. How many times have folks on this forum and elsewhere in the gun choir mocked those who say to carry higher capacity handguns or magazines? How many shotguns used for home defense (who hasn't read - pump shotgun, just rack it, 'enuf said - in HD home thread) carry more than 10 rounds? 3. How many folks recommend a revolver like a SW Model 10 with 6 rounds for home defense? Get the point - Heller for handguns and reasonable restrictions was a giant gift to AWBs and capacity bans. Given the Scotus won't touch it in the foreseeable future, that's all she wrote folks. By the way, the Garand - the greatest battle rifle ever - carried 8 rounds. If you have to justify higher capacity weapons with something beyond 'shall not be infringed', you had better know your stuff on this one.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 22, 2017, 01:47 PM | #80 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
You have to go back to the Miller case. The supreme court made no decision of the legality of the short shotgun but instead made this statement before referring the case back to the lower court:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." In effect saying that the second amendment protects the right to have military type guns. |
February 22, 2017, 02:06 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
February 22, 2017, 02:30 PM | #82 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 25, 2011
Posts: 8
|
Quote:
__________________
RD |
|
February 22, 2017, 04:33 PM | #83 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
|
|
February 22, 2017, 06:52 PM | #84 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
The "presumptively lawful" language wasn't a giveaway. It was what was needed to get that fifth vote IMO. It would not shock me to learn that some of the majority justices were squeamish about signing an opinion that could end up striking down much of federal and state gun regulation. If you don't have that fifth vote, then the Second Amendment is a nullity - either a collective right of the states or an individual right so weak that no regulation is burdensome enough to trigger it.
If you want an individual right in Heller, you need five votes. You need to give some guidance to lower courts in order not to get Miller-esque rulings that appear to be pro-Second at first glance; but aren't. And finally, you need to not close the door on future possibilities if the court's makeup changes for the better, while limiting the damage done if it changes for the worst. And you need to do it all in an ethical manner limiting the opinion to the narrow set of facts in Heller. And frankly, courts just saying "presumptively lawful" and upholding gun regulation isn't as bad for our future options as forcing courts to actually do real legal research supporting gun regulations. The lazier the courts are now, the better it is for us if the court makeup does improve. |
February 22, 2017, 08:39 PM | #85 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
February 22, 2017, 08:52 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Heller appears to have made the handgun the quintessential weapon that is most deserving of protection.
Irony abounds. Handgun Control Inc. would be a really uncool name at this point. Probably just as well that they changed it. |
February 23, 2017, 03:35 AM | #87 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
|
Quote:
The notion that Federal district and appellate courts are ‘anti-gun’ is unfounded and devoid of merit. Indeed, jurists such as U.S. District Judge Marcia Krieger have acknowledged in their rulings the questionable nature of many firearm regulatory measures. For example, in her decision upholding Colorado’s magazine capacity limit and background check regulations she noted that: Quote:
|
||
February 23, 2017, 08:17 AM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
February 23, 2017, 08:24 AM | #89 | ||
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; February 23, 2017 at 08:34 AM. |
||
February 23, 2017, 10:52 AM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I would also point out that Heller did not make getting a handgun so easy in many states. Look at NY - it takes months and many, many hoops to jump through. A long wait, references, checks, etc.
The legal types get wrapped up in their arcane arguments and not the purity of the issue. A reasonable decision about handguns would have been that no state cannot the purchase of a handgun to a law abiding citizen who passes something like NICS. No waiting periods, no long waits to get permission, no references that have to be interviewed, etc. You pass NICS, you get the gun that day. Does that happen - nope. So did the Earth really move from Heller? Maybe the slightest tremor. I am not a lawyer, for sure, but the court fight doesn't seem so hot to me.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 23, 2017, 01:20 PM | #91 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
|
|
February 23, 2017, 01:35 PM | #92 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
|
|
February 23, 2017, 04:08 PM | #93 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
Quote:
Quote:
We need to push that type of argument and how that's what Heller was saying . I don't for a second believe nor do the judges and lawyers believe what " reasonable restrictions " meant was as many as possible should be past . We have plenty of so called reasonable restrictions . It's time we frame the debate showing that and how it's time to stop with the restrictions . How come nobody talks about the in common use part . That was another way to say slow down on the restrictions but lets not undo all that's come in the past . How about the part that says to carry on ones person to be ready etc etc . Some how here in CA they think that to mean an unloaded firearm with ammo near by is a "ready to use" firearm . Is there any other item that you can remove a critical part of it's operation and still call it ready to use ? Sure the car is ready to drive , you just have to put the tire back on . IT"S NOT READY TO DRIVE IF A CRITCAL COMPONENT IS MISSING They know very well what's being asked and what the intent was . I believe we need to get these other definitions worked out before we can move on .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
||
February 23, 2017, 04:53 PM | #94 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,467
|
Quote:
Same applies to those evil silencers. |
|
February 23, 2017, 06:01 PM | #95 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 6,876
|
I don't disagree there's not an argument there and really goes to my point that he did not want to undo all gun laws prior . My point was the in common use phrasing was likely written in with the intent to stop the bleeding . It how ever does not seem to be argued in that way or judges don't see it that way .
__________________
If Jesus had a gun , he'd probably still be alive ! I almost always write my posts regardless of content in a jovial manor and intent . If that's not how you took it , please try again . |
February 23, 2017, 06:40 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 3, 2017
Posts: 1,583
|
Ultimately the people decide what law is lawful or whether a law applies in any situation by serving on a jury. As a juror we do have the power to nullify a law in general or as it applies to a particular case. Any decision made by a jury is final and only one juror has to nullify to make a hung jury.
|
February 23, 2017, 08:59 PM | #97 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 28, 2011
Location: Alaska
Posts: 206
|
The confusing part to me is the potential for forcing the Supreme Court to issue the ultimate limit on magazine capacity. If the lower courts continue to claim they are applying intermediate scrutiny, and uphold a ten round limit, what happens in the next case when a state enacts a law with a four round limit? A two round limit? Is that still constitutional? Will the Supreme Court someday have to decide exactly how many rounds are constitutionally protected (similar to the boondoggle over when abortions are "ok" vs. when they aren't)?
I can't see the court wanting to go there, knowing how well that's worked out with abortion restrictions. In my mind, forget all the arguments about public safety and "respect" for the second amendment...if a state can limit magazines to ten rounds, then they can limit it to three rounds or one. Most people seem to recognize that being allowed a single bullet is far from "the right to keep and bear arms." Yet, I have not seen that argued in the briefs I've read in many of these cases. I wonder why that isn't a more prominent argument.
__________________
The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. -James Burgh |
February 23, 2017, 09:34 PM | #98 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 532
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
February 24, 2017, 12:01 PM | #99 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
About magazine bans and the states further reducing the capacities. That has an interesting history in NY State where the 7 round ban fell but 10 stuck:
http://buffalonews.com/2015/10/19/ap...-bullet-limit/ I have a question. In all these discussions of Heller, McD and the circuit court decisions we see theory, Miller, the militia and all kinds of arcane prose. I pose a simple question based on my behavioral orientation from my profession. It is this: If we look at the laws, bans, permit/license rules and the like - what positive expansion of gun rights have been based on Heller and McD? If they were positive, did gun ownership and carry actually expand in an area. What negatives occurred despite these SCOTUS decisions? So has handgun ownership become really easy in DC? I noted NY still is intensely restrictive for any type of ownership. IL seems to have eased up. Thus - real world outcomes as far as getting people being able to exercise gun rights or real world outcomes that limit them. That's what counts as compared to Miller, Militias, original intent, scrutiny at different levels, blah, blah. If the guns are still not getting to law abiding citizens - it's all hot air, IMHO.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
February 24, 2017, 12:46 PM | #100 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|