|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 10, 2018, 10:04 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
The Three Legs of the Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Stool.
It appears to me that there are already 3 legs built for the stool to uphold the 2nd Amendment protected RKBA.
1. US vs. Miller has the USSC implying that weapons useful for preserving the efficiency of the militia would have their possession protected by the 2nd A. 2. D.C. vs. Heller has the USSC confirming that the RKBA, protected by the 2nd A., is indeed an individual right, and not a right whose exercise is in anyway connected to one's membership in the militia. 3. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that all of the privileges and rights of "We The People" are bound for protection by the states and local governments, as well as the Congress. I'm hoping that someday, the USSC would use those 3 legs to stand up for our RKBA, including AR-15's and similar type firearms. The Judge in Massachusetts took a saw and cut off the US vs. Miller leg. That must now be repaired, somehow, sometime.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
April 10, 2018, 10:09 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
From 357 Python:
Quote:
Yes, because the black market will supply magazines to fit certain types of guns which can accept a box style magazine, and those magazines will be capable of holding more rounds than the specific laws would set as a limit. Unless you can suppress the demand, making the supply illegal will certainly commence the black market to fill in as the supplier. If there could possibly be box magazines which hold more than 10 rounds for any specific types of firearms, those firearms will be targeted for a ban, sure as shootin'.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. Last edited by USAFNoDak; April 10, 2018 at 10:13 AM. Reason: Include original quote from another poster. |
|
April 11, 2018, 08:20 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
So are the lower courts claiming that Heller somehow upholds all current and future gun control restrictions?
|
April 11, 2018, 08:51 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Some of the lower courts, and in some case just a singular judge, are declaring that Scalia stated in Heller that any military "style" firearms are subject to being banned and such bans do not run afoul of the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
April 11, 2018, 12:52 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Of course, I could declare that USAFNoDak stated that the Ford Pinto was the safest car ever made, but that doesn't mean you actually said it.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
April 11, 2018, 03:24 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 186
|
What Justice Scalia actually said in Heller was just the opposite.
Quote:
|
|
April 11, 2018, 04:09 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
|
April 11, 2018, 06:34 PM | #33 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,812
|
The problem we are having with these lower court rulings is because of two things, one resulting from the other. The first thing is the attitude that any, and everything they want to do, to further their agenda, is allowed, legal, and proper, UNLESS specifically and directly prohibited.
Because of that, they are using the "legalese" language used in SCOTUS decisions as their loophole. We read it one way, they read it another, and their reading justifies their bans and restrictions. In the Miller case, the court essentially prefaced their ruling with the phrase the court "has been shown no evidence"... This does not mean evidence does not exist, it means the court didn't see it. However, this is taken to mean that there is no evidence, and they proceeded from there... Likewise, language in the Heller decision spoke to how "other laws regulating.." certain arms were "presumed to be legal". This statement is what is being used to justify current AR bans, etc. Some people I have spoken with, explained to me how that language does NOT mean what the anti-gunners say it means. What I have been told the "presumed legal" language means is "court speak" for "since we are not ruling on those laws, today, we will consider them presumed legal, until we do rule on them, specifically". This is drastically different from what the anti-gun folks are saying, and to date, the high court has not seen fit to rebuke them of otherwise clarify that interpretation. I am also informed that it is not the job of SCOTUS to do that. Until, and unless they hear a case that requires it. Not a perfect system, by a long shot, but the one we have to use, faults, flaws and all.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
April 11, 2018, 08:57 PM | #34 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,458
|
Quote:
But lower and appellate courts are not examining the constitutionality of these other laws, they are using that phrase as a basis to avoid examining them, and to rule that they are lawful because [they say] Heller said so. Last edited by Aguila Blanca; April 12, 2018 at 12:49 AM. Reason: typos |
|
April 22, 2018, 12:01 AM | #35 |
Member
Join Date: September 26, 2013
Posts: 30
|
Wow.. you guys sure know a lot about what's going on with gun control.
Sounds like a lot of infringing to me..... |
April 25, 2018, 06:25 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|