[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD"

"Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy"

Woodworking and Construction Hacks

"CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination"

"NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law"

"Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing"

Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine

Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn.

After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning

Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate

Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending.

Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar”

"Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny"

"Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is"

Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner.

Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him

South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien

GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis

Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash

New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms

Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania

Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally

"It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala

Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump

Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive'

(Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: It is here: Court ruling paves way for mass confiscation of firearms in America
Source: Intellihub
URL Source: https://www.intellihub.com/it-is-he ... cation-of-firearms-in-america/
Published: Oct 22, 2015
Author: Alex Thomas
Post Date: 2015-10-22 11:19:50 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 14213
Comments: 92

Gun control proponents and media allies also continue to push for mass confiscation

By Alex Thomas

(INTELLIHUB) — In a ruling that directly paves the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a much-anticipated decision, has upheld the constitutionality of the New York SAFE Act of 2013.

Shockingly, the court ruled that nearly all of the most drastic gun control law in the history of the United States did not violate the Second Amendment and is therefore constitutional.

That’s right, a law passed in the wake of Sandy Hook that included and paved the way for confiscation of millions of legally purchased firearms has been ruled “constitutional” with proponents already calling for a similar law to be enacted at the federal level.

As an article published by the American Thinker noted, “If the SAFE Act is upheld by the Supreme Court, nothing prevents Congress from summarily outlawing tens of millions of firearms overnight. Once those firearms become contraband, the government may confiscate and destroy them without compensating the owner (just as the government confiscates and destroys illegal drugs).

“The Second Circuit’s decision leaves the Second Amendment in its gravest peril ever.  Second Amendment rights are now hanging by a one-vote margin in the same Supreme Court that upheld Obamacare and declared a national right to gay marriage.

Constitutional conservatives and Second Amendment supporters ought to be terrified over the prospect of Justice Scalia having a heart attack during a Hillary Clinton presidency.” (and as we know Clinton is calling for mass confiscation herself)

Australian style mass confiscation is coming

In the weeks since the most recent mass shooting in the country, literally dozens of mainstream publications have promoted Australia as the country to look towards when considering new gun control laws in America.

“Despite the fact that for years gun control groups and anti-gun liberals have claimed that they only want “common sense” gun control, news outlets such as Salon and Slate are once again openly praising Australia’s controversial 1996 gun control law, a law that included a mandatory gun buy back program under the threat of government force.

After the Oregon school shooting, highly trafficked liberal news outlet Slate republished an article praising Australia’s gun control law that was originally released in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre.

In the weeks since the recent shooting the article has become the top read report on the site as well as linked by dozens of other liberal news outlets. (emphasis mine)

On April 28, 1996, a gunman opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania. By the time he was finished, he had killed 35 people and wounded 23 more. It was the worst mass murder in Australia’s history.

Twelve days later, Australia’s government did something remarkable. Led by newly elected conservative Prime Minister John Howard, it announced a bipartisan deal with state and local governments to enact sweeping gun-control measures. A decade and a half hence, the results of these policy changes are clear: They worked really, really well.

At the heart of the push was a massive buyback of more than 600,000 semi-automatic shotguns and rifles, or about one-fifth of all firearms in circulation in Australia.

The country’s new gun laws prohibited private sales, required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners, and required that gun buyers present a “genuine reason” for needing each weapon at the time of the purchase. (Self-defense did not count.) In the wake of the tragedy, polls showed public support for these measures at upwards of 90 percent.

Like most other articles praising Australia’s gun laws, the author of the Slate article completely leaves out the fact that the buyback program was mandatory which means that anyone that refused to go along with the program was subject to government raids and or violence.”

“Remember, these are the same liberals who claim that they do not want to take away all guns while literally writing articles promoting a gun law that not only included gun confiscation but also banned purchasing guns for use in self-defense!”

Another recent article published in the mainstream press, this time by CNN, dreamed of disarming all Americans whiling calling for banning all guns “once and for all”.

The article, written by liberal poet and Middlebury College professor Jay Parini, was a perfect example of how on one hand gun control advocates and their media allies tell the public that they only want “common sense” reform while on the other they are pushing for a full-scale ban.

Parini gets to the crux of his and the many who share his views on the lefts agenda which is the confiscation of millions of legally owned firearms under the threat of government attack and subsequent outlawing of all handguns and rifles.

Let me dream for a moment: I would much prefer to live in a country where only hunters who pass appropriately strict tests for mental competence and a knowledge of gun safety can still acquire rifles that are appropriate for hunting.

Handguns and assault rifles would be banned, period.

Banned. Period. There you have it folks, CNN letting a hard left authoritarian use their platform to “dream” about disarming America. It gets worse.

So let’s get rid of guns in this country, once and for all, making it a felony to possess a handgun or assault rifle. Over a period of years, illegal guns will gradually disappear. Guns don’t kill people, as they say.

People who acquire guns — legally or illegally — do. And we should make it extremely difficult for them to get their hands on these weapons.

Liberal media now pushing for gun owners to be shot

Not only are the mainstream media and gun control advocates pushing for a mass confiscation plan in the United States, they are also making it clear that they have no problem with gun owners being shot which would be a likely and obvious outcome if the government decided to outlaw millions of firearms overnight.

Just days ago, author and Coppin State University writing teacher D. Watkins published an article on the prominent hard left news outlet Salon.com that called for all gun owners to be shot if they wanted to use their 2nd Amendment right.

“Starting out the article with the writers dreams of charging five thousand dollars per bullet, Watkins then makes his position on gun ownership in America startlingly clear.” (emphasis mine)

Rock was definitely on point, $5000 bullets would be great but I’d take it a step further––I believe that being shot should be requirement for gun ownership in America. It’s very simple. You need to have gun, like taking selfies with pistols, can’t live with out it? Then take a bullet and you will be granted the right to purchase the firearm of your choice.

If we could successfully implement this rule, I guarantee the mass shootings will stop. Watching cable news now in days makes me physically ill.

Week in and week out we are forced to learn about another coward, who can’t stand to deal with the same rejection that most of us face–– so they strap themselves with guns and then cock and spray at innocent people. Heartbroken survivors and family member images go viral, as our elected officials remain clueless.

So there you have it. A court has upheld a New York law that paves the way for mass confiscation in America while at the same time the mainstream media is pushing this plan for confiscation and making it clear that if gun owners have to be shot to achieve this agenda then so be it.

The one question that remains is whether or not the American people will stand by as their 2nd Amendment right is openly destroyed right before their very eyes.

This article originally appeared on Intellihub.com.

About the Author

Alex Thomas is a reporter and opinion journalist who has worked in the alternative media for over three years. His work has been featured on numerous news outlets including Infowars and RT. You can contact him hereAlex is an exclusive weapon of IntellihubRead more articles by this author here.

Feel free to post the above article in part or in full on your website or blog leaving the byline and all original links intact.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0 US)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 68.

#4. To: Deckard, Stoner (#0)

In a ruling that directly paves the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in a much-anticipated decision, has upheld the constitutionality of the New York SAFE Act of 2013.

What the Court actually held:

At pp. 4-5:

Before: Cabranes, Lohier, and Droney, Circuit Judges.

Before the Court are two appeals challenging gun-control legislation enacted by the New York and Connecticut legislatures in the wake of the 2012 mass murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The New York and Connecticut laws at issue prohibit the possession of certain semiautomatic "assault weapons" and large-capacity magazines. Following the entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants on the central claims in both the Western District of New York (William M. Skretny, Chief Judge) and the District of Connecticut (Alfred V. Covello, Judge), plaintiffs in both suits now press two arguments on appeal. First, they challenge the constitutionality of the statutes under the Second Amendment; and second, they challenge certain provisions of the statutes as unconstitutionally vague. Defendants in the New York action also cross-appeal the District Court's invalidation of New York's seven-round load limit and voiding of two statutory provisions as facially unconstitutionally vague. We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York's law regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut's prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we AFFIRM in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of Connecticut insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, and REVERSE in part its holding with respect to the Remington 7615. With respect to the judgment of the District Court for the Western District of New York, we REVERSE in part certain vagueness holdings, and we otherwise AFFIRM that judgment insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines and invalidated the load limit.

SAFE Act decison by cseiler8597

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-22   16:44:55 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: nolu chan (#4)

" What the Court actually held: "

Help me out here nc, I have been splitting firewood all day, I am tired, and my glasses are broke.

Please, if you can, give me a bottom line "what the court held. "

Thanks in advance

Stoner  posted on  2015-10-22   19:31:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: Stoner (#5)

Please, if you can, give me a bottom line "what the court held."

The 2nd Circuit wrote, "We hold that [...] laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment...."

It's going to SCOTUS. I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt, but it would not exactly disarm the masses.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-22   21:31:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: nolu chan (#7)

Please, if you can, give me a bottom line "what the court held..

The 2nd Circuit wrote, "We hold that [...] laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment...."

It's going to SCOTUS. I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt, but it (this decision?) would not exactly disarm the masses. (If upheld by the SCOTUS?)

Is this what you meant to write?

tpaine  posted on  2015-10-22   23:30:45 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: tpaine (#8)

Is this what you meant to write?

Yes.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-23   16:50:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: nolu chan, -- infringements are merely overreaches? (#10)

The 2nd Circuit wrote, "We hold that [...] laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment...."

But it (this decision) would not exactly disarm the masses. (If upheld by the SCOTUS) --- nolu chan

Nevertheless, laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines WOULD violate AND INFRINGE upon our rights under the Second Amendment...

So you think it is MERELY an overreach?

tpaine  posted on  2015-10-23   20:39:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: tpaine, Stoner (#11)

But it (this decision) would not exactly disarm the masses. (If upheld by the SCOTUS) --- nolu chan

Nevertheless, laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines WOULD violate AND INFRINGE upon our rights under the Second Amendment...

So you think it is MERELY an overreach?

There you go again --- Ronald Reagan.

What I said was....

I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt, but it would not exactly disarm the masses.

It would not disarm the masses, as alluded to by the yella article. Even if upheld by SCOTUS, it would only affect people in NY and CT. It would not actually change anything in NY and CT where laws of 2012/2013 were challenged.

It effects legally required registration of defined semiautomatic weapons.

Even if given maximum enforcement and 100% citizen capitulation, it would not disarm the citizenry. For example, the opinion specificly held, "New York's law regulating load limits" to seven rounds "does not survive the requisite scrutiny. "One further provision — Connecticut's prohibition on the non-semiautomatic Remington 7615 — unconstitutionally infringes upon the Second Amendment right."

Someone with a Remington 7615 is not exactly unarmed. The law does not remotely appear to infringe upon a Remington 700 either.

Upholding the New York or Connecticut laws would not make that the law of any other jurisdiction, state or federal. It would affirm that a state can choose whether or not to prohibit certain specific categories of weapons or require registration of semiautomatic weapons. The law has already been in effect for nearly three years, registration required for nearly two years.

If not upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would obviously do nothing.

If upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would not disarm the United States.

Someone with a Remington 7615 is not exactly unarmed. The law does not remotely appear to infringe upon a Remington 700 either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act

The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 commonly known as the NY SAFE Act is a gun regulation law in the state of New York. The law passed by the New York State Legislature on January 15, 2013, in the middle of the night under a "message of necessity", bypassing the state's 3 day required review period and was signed into law by Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo on the next day

The New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (TEXT PDF)

The NY SAFE Act requires the registration of semiautomatic weapons. That has been the law in NY for almost three years.

It has not disarmed New Yorkers. It has not actually done much of anything. It appears that New Yorkers figured out that the good Lord gave them middle fingers for a reason, as they have demonstrated to Governor Cuomo.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-safe-act-weapons-registry-numbers-released-article-1.2267730

Low assault-weapon registration stats suggest low compliance with Gov. Cuomo’s landmark SAFE Act gun control law

By Adam Edelman
New York Daily News
Updated: Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 2:26 PM

[excerpt]

In the years since Gov. Cuomo signed the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act, otherwise known as the NY SAFE Act, a total of 23,847 people have applied to register their assault-style weapons with the state, according to statistics provided by the New York State Police.

Those individuals themselves registered 44,485 assault-style weapons — a term whose definition under the law was expanded to include military-style features like a pistol grip and popular civilian models of the M16 and AK47 assault rifles — with State Police, the data, which was first obtained by the Albany Times Union, show.

By comparison, individuals in Connecticut, a state with roughly one-fifth the population of New York, registered more than 50,000 assault-style weapons after similar legislation was passed there in April 2013.

Law enforcement experts have estimated there could be nearly 1 million assault-style weapons in circulation across the state, suggesting that many New Yorkers are ignoring a central provision of what had been touted by gun control advocates as a milestone law.

“What these numbers expose is that, if there are people who are wilfully ignoring the law, that means tens of thousands of gun owners are not complying with a law that is supported by New Yorkers," said Leah Gunn Barrett, executive director of New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, citing a May poll commissioned by her group that showed state residents support key provisions of the SAFE Act.

For the below, "some" evidently is a media way to express that expert estimates indicate 95% of the weapons are not registered.

http://www.npr.org/2015/07/24/425966334/flouting-the-law-some-new-yorkers-wont-register-guns

Flouting The Law, Some New Yorkers Won't Register Guns

Joel Rose
NPR
July 24, 2015 4:52 PM ET

[excerpt]

The law has some of the nation's toughest regulations on guns and ammunition, including a ban on the sale of so-called "military style assault weapons," like the AR-15 style long rifle used in the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It also requires New Yorkers to register the assault weapons they already own with police.

Critics of the law see registration as the first step toward confiscation. And some say they just won't do it.

"I just don't see there's any need to," says Joseph Fuller of Cohoes, N.Y. Fuller says he owns several guns, including at least one that he's required to register under the SAFE Act. But he hasn't.

"I don't pay attention, to be honest," says Fuller. "I have friends out in the boondocks. They won't register their guns either. And they told me ... don't even bother. Don't worry about it."

No one knows exactly how many so-called assault weapons there are in New York. But the number is likely far more than the 45,000 that have been registered so far. The New York State Police released that number recently, but only after being ordered to by a court.

"[The SAFE Act] still may be law, but the people of New York state have repealed it on their own," says Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. "They're just ignoring the law."

For the Connecticut law,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Connecticut

CGS 53–202

Partial ban. Selective fire weapons, some .50 BMG variants, and semiautomatic center-fire firearms with one defined feature; banned weapons lawfully possessed prior to this date must be registered with DESPP. Registered weapons may only be sold or transferred to a licensed gun dealer, to the State Police or local police department or transferred to a recipient outside of Connecticut. Assault weapons manufactured and lawfully obtained prior to September 13, 1994 no longer require registration with DESPP and may be sold or transferred to non-prohibited persons. Exceptions exist for active and retired law enforcement and military members.

http://law.justia.com/codes/connecticut/2012/title-53/chapter-943/section-53-202

2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 53 - Crimes
Chapter 943 - Offenses Against Public Peace and Safety
Section 53-202 - Machine guns.

Universal Citation: CT Gen Stat § 53-202 (2012)

Recent SCOTUS precedents indicate no propensity toward confiscation of guns or denial of an individual right to keep and bear arms.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/08-1521/

SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2009
MCDONALD V. CHICAGO, 561 U.S. __ (2010)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

McDONALD et al. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the seventh circuit

No. 08–1521. Argued March 2, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases—United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535—which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.

Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

567 F. 3d 856, reversed and remanded.

Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right, recognized in Heller, to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. Pp. 5–9, 11–19, 19–33.

(a) Petitioners base their case on two submissions. Primarily, they argue that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Slaughter-House Cases’ narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected. As a secondary argument, they contend that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right. Chicago and Oak Park (municipal respondents) maintain that a right set out in the Bill of Rights applies to the States only when it is an indispensable attribute of any “ ‘civilized’ ” legal system. If it is possible to imagine a civilized country that does not recognize the right, municipal respondents assert, that right is not protected by due process. And since there are civilized countries that ban or strictly regulate the private possession of handguns, they maintain that due process does not preclude such measures. Pp. 4–5.

(b) The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War’s aftermath fundamentally altered the federal system. Four years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court held in the Slaughter-House Cases, that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only those rights “which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws,” 16 Wall., at 79, and that the fundamental rights predating the creation of the Federal Government were not protected by the Clause, id., at 76. Under this narrow reading, the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only very limited rights. Id., at 79–80. Subsequently, the Court held that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government in Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller, 153 U. S. 535, the decisions on which the Seventh Circuit relied in this case. Pp. 5–9.

(c) Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to the States is considered in light of the Court’s precedents applying the Bill of Rights’ protections to the States. Pp. 11–19.

(1) In the late 19th century, the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits the States from infringing Bill of Rights protections. See, e.g., Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516. Five features of the approach taken during the ensuing era are noted. First, the Court viewed the due process question as entirely separate from the question whether a right was a privilege or immunity of national citizenship. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 99. Second, the Court explained that the only rights due process protected against state infringement were those “of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.” Ibid. Third, some cases during this era “can be seen as having asked … if a civilized system could be imagined that would not accord the particular protection” asserted therein. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, n. 14. Fourth, the Court did not hesitate to hold that a Bill of Rights guarantee failed to meet the test for Due Process Clause protection, finding, e.g., that freedom of speech and press qualified, Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666; Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U. S. 697, but the grand jury indictment requirement did not, Hurtado, supra. Finally, even when such a right was held to fall within the conception of due process, the protection or remedies afforded against state infringement sometimes differed from those provided against abridgment by the Federal Government. Pp. 11–13.

(2) Justice Black championed the alternative theory that §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment totally incorporated all of the Bill of Rights’ provisions, see, e.g., Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 71–72 (Black, J., dissenting), but the Court never has embraced that theory. Pp. 13–15.

(3) The Court eventually moved in the direction advocated by Justice Black, by adopting a theory of selective incorporation by which the Due Process Clause incorporates particular rights contained in the first eight Amendments. See, e.g., Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U. S. 335, 341. These decisions abandoned three of the characteristics of the earlier period. The Court clarified that the governing standard is whether a particular Bill of Rights protection is fundamental to our Nation’s particular scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. Duncan, supra, at 149, n. 14. The Court eventually held that almost all of the Bill of Rights’ guarantees met the requirements for protection under the Due Process Clause. The Court also held that Bill of Rights protections must “all … be enforced against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment according to the same standards that protect those personal rights against federal encroachment.” Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 10. Under this approach, the Court overruled earlier decisions holding that particular Bill of Rights guarantees or remedies did not apply to the States. See, e.g., Gideon, supra, which overruled Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455. Pp. 15–19.

(d) The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States. Pp. 19–33.

(1) The Court must decide whether that right is fundamental to the Nation’s scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, or, as the Court has said in a related context, whether it is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and the Heller Court held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___, ___. Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., the Court found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___, ___–___. It thus concluded that citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___. Heller also clarifies that this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Glucksberg, supra, at 721. Heller explored the right’s origins in English law and noted the esteem with which the right was regarded during the colonial era and at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights. This is powerful evidence that the right was regarded as fundamental in the sense relevant here. That understanding persisted in the years immediately following the Bill of Rights’ ratification and is confirmed by the state constitutions of that era, which protected the right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 19–22.

(2) A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation’s system of ordered liberty. Pp. 22–33.

(i) By the 1850’s, the fear that the National Government would disarm the universal militia had largely faded, but the right to keep and bear arms was highly valued for self-defense. Abolitionist authors wrote in support of the right, and attempts to disarm “Free-Soilers” in “Bloody Kansas,” met with outrage that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms had been taken from the people. After the Civil War, the Southern States engaged in systematic efforts to disarm and injure African Americans, see Heller, supra, at ___. These injustices prompted the 39th Congress to pass the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Congress, however, ultimately deemed these legislative remedies insufficient, and approved the Fourteenth Amendment. Today, it is generally accepted that that Amendment was understood to provide a constitutional basis for protecting the rights set out in the Civil Rights Act. See General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 389. In Congressional debates on the proposed Amendment, its legislative proponents in the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right deserving of protection. Evidence from the period immediately following the Amendment’s ratification confirms that that right was considered fundamental. Pp. 22–31.

(ii) Despite all this evidence, municipal respondents argue that Members of Congress overwhelmingly viewed §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment as purely an antidiscrimination rule. But while §1 does contain an antidiscrimination rule, i.e., the Equal Protection Clause, it can hardly be said that the section does no more than prohibit discrimination. If what municipal respondents mean is that the Second Amendment should be singled out for special—and specially unfavorable—treatment, the Court rejects the suggestion. The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner. Pp. 30–33.

Justice Alito, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy, concluded, in Parts II–C, IV, and V, that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. Pp. 10–11, 33–44.

(a) Petitioners argue that that the Second Amendment right is one of the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is no need to reconsider the Court’s interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases because, for many decades, the Court has analyzed the question whether particular rights are protected against state infringement under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Pp. 10–11.

(b) Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are rejected because they are at war with Heller’s central holding. In effect, they ask the Court to hold the right to keep and bear arms as subject to a different body of rules for incorporation than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. Pp. 33–40.

(c) The dissents’ objections are addressed and rejected. Pp. 41–44.

Justice Thomas agreed that the Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms that was recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, fully applicable to the States. However, he asserted, there is a path to this conclusion that is more straightforward and more faithful to the Second Amendment’s text and history. The Court is correct in describing the Second Amendment right as “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U. S. 145, 149, and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721. But the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, which speaks only to “process,” cannot impose the type of substantive restraint on state legislation that the Court asserts. Rather, the right to keep and bear arms is enforceable against the States because it is a privilege of American citizenship recognized by §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides, inter alia: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” In interpreting this language, it is important to recall that constitutional provisions are “ ‘written to be understood by the voters.’ ” Heller, 554 U. S., at ___. The objective of this inquiry is to discern what “ordinary citizens” at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification would have understood that Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean. Ibid. A survey of contemporary legal authorities plainly shows that, at that time, the ratifying public understood the Clause to protect constitutionally enumerated rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 1–34.

Alito, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II–A, II–B, II–D, III–A, and III–B, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts II–C, IV, and V, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Kennedy, JJ., join. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Sotomayor, JJ., joined.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2007
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-24   0:35:47 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: nolu chan (#12)

"The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."

" ... so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

Now, wouldn't you conclude from that statement by the court that all arms suitable for a militia would be protected from infringement? The court must believe that a citizens' militia consists of the people bearing handguns.

This is why the Heller decision is so screwed up. The court is trying to have it both ways. They refer to the citizen milita to justify gun ownership, but then they make up definitions like "in common use at the time" and "for self defense in the home" to limit the types of arms protected.

Where is the amendment protecting the formation of state citizen militias from federal infringement? Where is the amendment protecting the arms used by state citizen militias?

That used to be the second amendment. But after Heller, it seems the second amendment only protects handguns for self defense.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-10-24   10:43:49 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: misterwhite (#19)

" ... so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

Now, wouldn't you conclude from that statement by the court that all arms suitable for a militia would be protected from infringement? The court must believe that a citizens' militia consists of the people bearing handguns.

This is why the Heller decision is so screwed up. The court is trying to have it both ways. They refer to the citizen milita to justify gun ownership, but then they make up definitions like "in common use at the time" and "for self defense in the home" to limit the types of arms protected.

Where is the amendment protecting the formation of state citizen militias from federal infringement? Where is the amendment protecting the arms used by state citizen militias?

That used to be the second amendment. But after Heller, it seems the second amendment only protects handguns for self defense.

Yes, with the 2nd Amendment language and history, it protected a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms suitable for self-defense of themselves or for the defense of their State against a usurping Federal government.

The language and meaning has not changed. The times have changed.

The people cannot realistically bear arms which will permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. Of course, arms are things that are carried about, and would not include the full arsenal of Federal weaponry.

In addressing the militias, these played an important role prior to the Civil War. With the conscription acts, the State militias were effectively conscripted into Federal service. Later, the organized State militias became the National Guard, subject to being federalized. The Union as it was, was not saved, but was revolutionized into something new.

While those changing of the times are noted, I must note that the 2nd Amendment has not changed. It says the same thing today as it said when ratified. What it said when ratified, and what it meant when ratified, are the only words and meaning that have been ratified under the 2nd Amendment.

I personally object to court rulings which morph the meaning of the Constitution in according with the justices' interpretation of some allegedly Living Constitution. I generally note that it is their opinion which legally counts.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-24   22:45:43 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, roscoe, aka stone, Y'ALL (#29)

The people cannot realistically bear arms which will permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. Of course, arms are things that are carried about, and would not include the full arsenal of Federal weaponry.

There we have it, sports fans.. Proof positive from Nolu Chan's own mouth that he considers the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces."

Good Gawd Almighty... Is this what is being taught in American (law?) schools?

tpaine  posted on  2015-10-25   0:25:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: tpaine (#30)

The people cannot realistically bear arms which will permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. Of course, arms are things that are carried about, and would not include the full arsenal of Federal weaponry.

There we have it, sports fans.. Proof positive from Nolu Chan's own mouth that he considers the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces."

No, sports fans. The people with their rifles cannot prevail against the U.S. Armed Forces with their equipment. Perhaps tpaine believes that running about in the woods on weekends with a rifle equips him to whip the combined forces of the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard.

Or do folks believe city dwellers in apartment buildings should be able to possess rocket propelled grenades, C4 explosives, and nuclear explosives? And perhaps those with a personal airstrip in the countryside should have a fully equipped aircraft with a GAU-8/A Avenger Brrrt sticking out the front.

The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and beararms. It does not protect an individual "right" to any weaponry imaginable. This was adequate for the purpose when ratified.

Show me a picture of a civilian population able to overcome the power of the modern armed forces and I will show you a picture of insanity.

What exactly will they have that would permit them to prevail over cruise missiles, air force guns and bombs, and army heavy artillery? Or maybe they want to take their arms to sea and take on the U.S. Navy aircraft, guns, and torpedoes.

Arms. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.

Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

Give everyone in the nation all the "arms" of their choice and they will still not be equipped to withstand the force available to the U.S. Armed Forces. The Army and the rest can exert force of an entirely different order of magnitude. There is no conceivable amount of arms which will permit the civilian population to prevail over the Federal armed forces. Not even if they have Grandpa tpaine running around in the woods with an automatic rifle. The Air Force can confront his automatic rifle with a GAU-8/A Avenger. Grandpa tpaine can have his own tank and it won't matter.

The people have a right to keep and bear arms. No bearing of arms would be sufficient to prevail against the power of the Federal armed forces.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-10-25   12:31:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: nolu chan (#36)

The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and beararms. It does not protect an individual "right" to any weaponry imaginable. This was adequate for the purpose when ratified.

Show me a picture of a civilian population able to overcome the power of the modern armed forces and I will show you a picture of insanity.

It says right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I take the words literally. That means you can have any weapon, aircraft carrier, airstrip, tank you want to.

If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail.

The military would split along ideological lines like the rest of the country.

Just my opinion.

Don't worry I can't afford an aircraft carrier anyway.

A K A Stone  posted on  2015-10-25   12:34:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#68. To: A K A Stone (#37)

" If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail.

The military would split along ideological lines like the rest of the country.

Just my opinion. "

As long as we are not talking about a few people squaring off with an Airborne Division in their front yard, yes it is possible

Stoner  posted on  2015-10-26   13:32:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 68.

#69. To: Stoner, a k a stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#68) (Edited)

A K A Stone (#37)

" If God forbid a civil war did come to America. It is possible that people resisting with the guns we already have could prevail. The military would split along ideological lines like the rest of the country.

Just my opinion. "

Stoner -- yes it is possible.

More than possible. The military would split, -- because most of our military men believe implicitly in our Constitution, and its principles of individual liberties.. -- They would not fight for a despotic govt...

Nolu Chan has been brainwashed into believing that our military would blindly 'follow the orders' of our politicians.

tpaine  posted on  2015-10-26 13:50:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 68.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com