The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old April 10, 2018, 10:04 AM   #26
USAFNoDak
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.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 10, 2018, 10:09 AM   #27
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
From 357 Python:

Quote:
What will be next? Any centerfire firearm that can hold more than 10 rounds regardless of the magazine. If the gun can hold a box magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds even though there are no such magazines in existence it will eventually be banned.

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.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 08:20 AM   #28
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer View Post
The lower court opinions are taking Scalia's prose and ramming down the throat of the RBKA proponents. You may argue that he didn't mean this or that but that's not the way it's coming down. Heller was a very, very, mixed bag.
So are the lower courts claiming that Heller somehow upholds all current and future gun control restrictions?
ATN082268 is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 08:51 AM   #29
USAFNoDak
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.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 12:52 PM   #30
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
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.
That's exactly correct.

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.
zukiphile is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 03:24 PM   #31
dreaming
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2016
Posts: 186
What Justice Scalia actually said in Heller was just the opposite.

Quote:
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
This was in retort to Justice Stevens wrong headed argument that SCOTUS had held in Miller, "That the Second Amendment "protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons." Yet, the antis continue to insist that the non military use of weapons of war may be regulated even though they clearly, as is the AR-15, be typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
dreaming is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 04:09 PM   #32
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
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.
I would never state such nonsense knowing that the Chevy Corvair claims the title of the safest car ever made!
__________________
"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.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 06:34 PM   #33
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
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.
44 AMP is offline  
Old April 11, 2018, 08:57 PM   #34
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN082268
So are the lower courts claiming that Heller somehow upholds all current and future gun control restrictions?
Basically, yes. They have latched onto the unfortunate "presumptively lawful" description Mr. Scalia hung on existing gun laws that weren't under examination in Heller and they misconstrue that as saying that the SCOTUS has determined that all existing gun controls are constitutional. What it really means is, "That's not under discussion today, so we'll presume that it's legal until it gets examined on its own merits."

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
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old April 22, 2018, 12:01 AM   #35
Murby
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.....
Murby is offline  
Old April 25, 2018, 06:25 AM   #36
ATN082268
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca View Post
Basically, yes. They have latched onto the unfortunate "presumptively lawful" description Mr. Scalia hung on existing gun laws that weren't under examination in Heller and they misconstrue that as saying that the SCOTUS has determined that all existing gun controls are constitutional. What it really means is, "That's not under discussion today, so we'll presume that it's legal until it gets examined on its own merits."

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.
I'm not sure I understand this. I was under the impression that a court only reviews the law brought before it and I'm not sure how a court could automatically rubber stamp all future laws without knowing what they are...
ATN082268 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08716 seconds with 8 queries