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: 14157
Comments: 92
(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) 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.” 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. 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 here. Alex is an exclusive weapon of Intellihub. Read 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) Gun control proponents and media allies also continue to push for mass confiscation
By Alex Thomas
Australian style mass confiscation is coming
“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!”
Liberal media now pushing for gun owners to be shot
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
Let me guess. These guys got their law degree's out of Cracker Jacks. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
I assume these geniuses have their insurance policy's paid up, and have already pre arranged their funerals. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
gonna be a lot of dead,
What the Court actually held: At pp. 4-5: 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.
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 Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Me too: --- Help me out NC, I have been reading misterwhites idiotic opinions on this issue and I am tired, and my glasses are smoking. Please, if you can, give me a bottom line "what the court held. " Thanks in advance
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.
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...." Is this what you meant to write?
Yeah. I am sure oblabbula & his fellow travelers dream of confiscation, but 1st it would be a logistical impossibility, and 2nd they do not have the balls to try. BTW, thanks for the reply! Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
Yes.
The 2nd Circuit wrote, "We hold that [...] laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment...." 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?
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.... 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 (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. By Adam Edelman [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 Joel Rose [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 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 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/ 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. (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. (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. (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. (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. (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/ 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. (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.
If not upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would obviously do nothing. If upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would not disarm the United States. If upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would infringe upon the rights of (some) citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms. So there you go again, approving of such legalistic/unconstitutional tactics. -- Misterwhite is proud of you...
So there you go again, approving of such legalistic/unconstitutional tactics. You would be more credible if you were honest. Nolu said he disagrees with the decision. He just said it wouldn't affect everyone. He never said he agreed with the decision. Why do you use lies and deception to try to "win" an argument?
Because he can't "win" without doing so.
In my opinion, nolu chan approves such legalistic/unconstitutional tactics.
Get out the dictionary. You obviously need to learn what words mean. Nolu chan- : I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt" Which word do you need help understanding?
I know I'll never 'win', but exposing you anti-constitutionalist propagandists is fun enough.
" ... 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.
If upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would infringe upon the rights of (some) citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms. -- And, in my opinion, those words signify approval of the concept that States can prohibit semi-auto arms. This concept is unconstitutional.
Correct. BUT it would give the green light to other states to pass similar laws.
Hmmm. They said the same thing about deporting illegals.
Didn't Congress pass the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994? That was challenged, but found constitutional. Why do you think the New York law will be found unconstitutional?
From FR, years ago, we see misterwhite/robertpaulsen deception on gun rights: --- Neverdem said: ---- "The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals ----"
I tend to think that the Scorpion and the Frog story explains the behavior.
Roscoe - I tend to think that the Scorpion and the Frog story explains the behavior. Roscoe and misterwhite have been joined at the hip since the early days of FR. (Or possibly even closer). They are both scorpions in their relationship to our Constitution.
So there you go again, approving of such legalistic/unconstitutional tactics. -- Misterwhite is proud of you... There you go again. ~Ronald Reagan. At #7 At #12: I explicitly disagreed with the opinion, the second time underlined and in boldface. I disagreed with the hysterical yella article that claimed that, You can knock off the strawman bullshit. The ruling does not pave the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America. Nor do you point to any aspect of the ruling or the law which authorized mass confiscation of firearms in America. The ruling effected no change to the NY/CT laws of 2012/2013 other than to strike down parts as unconstitutional. The remainder have been in effect and remained in effect, and are limited to NY and CT. The primary complaint has been registration of defined semiautomatic weapons, not confiscation. Even registration has generally been ignored by the public.
Didn't Congress pass the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994? That was challenged, but found constitutional. Why do you think the New York law will be found unconstitutional? I opined that I thought it was an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amendment while documenting that, with a few excepted parts that were overruled, the NY law was held to be constitutional. I did not opine that the NY law would be found unconstitutional by the courts. At #12, I noted, "Recent SCOTUS precedents indicate no propensity toward confiscation of guns or denial of an individual right to keep and bear arms." The 1994 Act exempted weapons already lawfully possessed. I object to these laws on my belief that the 2nd Amendment language and hisory show it to protect, in part, the right of the people of the States to protect their State from an overreaching, usurping Federal government. While this may be anachronistic, I believe changing the Constitution should be done by amendment, and not by some judicial morphing of a "living" Constitution. At #12, I stated: 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. [...] Recent SCOTUS precedents indicate no propensity toward confiscation of guns or denial of an individual right to keep and bear arms. As you point out, Congress passed an assault weapons ban in 1994. I believe that is a part of the ‘‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,’’ see below. It has been around for twenty years. America has not been disarmed. In like manner, the NY law did not threaten to disarm NY, much less America. Note that a NY law, if upheld as constitutional by SCOTUS, remains solely the law of NY. It does not become the law of the other 49 states. The other 49 may adopt such a law, at their discretion. If a NY law is struck down as unconstitutional, then any such law in any state is struck down as repugnant to the Constitution, and no state may adopt such a law. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3355enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3355enr.pdf One Hundred Third Congress of the United States of America AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the twenty-fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-four An Act To control and prevent crime. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’’. [...] TITLE XI—FIREARMS Subtitle A—Assault Weapons SEC. 110101. SHORT TITLE. This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act’’. SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS. (a) RESTRICTION.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection: ‘‘(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon. ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection. ‘‘(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— ‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993; ‘‘(B) any firearm that— ‘‘(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action; ‘‘(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or ‘‘(iii) is an antique firearm; ‘‘(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or ‘‘(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine. The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect. ‘‘(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to— ‘‘(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty); ‘‘(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials; ‘‘(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or ‘‘(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.’’. (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON.— Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: ‘‘(30) The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means— ‘‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as— ‘‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models); ‘‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil; ‘‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70); ‘‘(iv) Colt AR–15; ‘‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC; H. R. 3355—203 ‘‘(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12; ‘‘(vii) Steyr AUG; ‘‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and ‘‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12; ‘‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of— ‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock; ‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; ‘‘(iii) a bayonet mount; ‘‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and ‘‘(v) a grenade launcher; ‘‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of— ‘‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip; ‘‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer; ‘‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned; ‘‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and ‘‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and ‘‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of— ‘‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock; ‘‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; ‘‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and ‘‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’’. (c) PENALTIES.— (1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v).—Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking ‘‘or (q) of section 922’’ and inserting ‘‘(r), or (v) of section 922’’. (2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME.—Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended in the first sentence by inserting ‘‘, or semiautomatic assault weapon,’’ after ‘‘short-barreled shotgun,’’. (d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.—Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.’’.
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.
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?
Maybe not today. Tomorrow could be a different story.
Well, no. Most arms would be kept in the state armory. Each state would decide which arms the militia members would keep. But the second amendment protected all arms necessary to protect the security of a free state. "With the conscription acts, the State militias were effectively conscripted into Federal service." Almost half the states have a State Defense Force (also known as state guards, state military reserves, or state militias) which operate under the sole authority of a state government and are not part of the National Guard.
The primary complaint has been registration of defined semiautomatic weapons, not confiscation. You've shot down your own assertion. Historically registration leads to confiscation. It may not say that they're going to confiscate, but there's little doubt that registration paves the way, as the title of the article suggests. So knock off YOUR strawman bullshit! So knock off YOUR strawman bullshit! hondo68 Well said... And everyone should note,--- misterwhite and roscoe do not refute the unconstitutional concept that semi-autos can be regulated/registered.
Correct. It won't be confiscation. It will be a "mandatory buyback" as they did in Australia. Hell, since this action would be in the interest of the community, the government may use the "takings" power of Kelo to grab these weapons and provide "just compensation" for them. (Hmmm. I should be careful. I might give them ideas.)
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. 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.
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.
I'm looking to get the Beretta ARX-100 when the price comes down a little more. It's got all of those features, including a rail for a grenade launcher.
www.freerepublic.com/focu...c/907467/posts?page=48#48 ---- I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind. -- misterwhite/robertpaulsen
100 million people with 300 million guns? Yeah, I think that's possible.
Yes, it did at the time it was ratified. But arms never applied to things that could not be picked up and carried. The U.S. Armed Forces have a whole lot of stuff that does not fall under the definition of 2nd Amendment arms. No State armed force is equipped to withstand the full force of the Federal forces.
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. If half the federal forces are fighting with the other half, we are no longer talking of the individual right to keep and bear arms. If an individual state (e.g. Texas) were to secede and have the in-state federal nuclear forces go with them, a repeat of the civil war would be unlikely. The force available to both sides would be too great. But this has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear automatic assault rifles of any kind. As the 2nd Amdt proscribes any infringement of the RKBA, I think the govt cannot properly restrict the RKBA. But bearing automatic rifles is now irrelevant to the original purpose of a state or states resisting a usurping Federal government. We would be more reliant on the Federal armed forces refusing to exert its full power. Note that under Art. 1, Sec. 10, Cl. 3: "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay."
The second amendment was written to protect state militias from federal infringement. That would include all arms used by the militia. Back in 1792, all arms could be picked up and carried. But the second amendment never limited arms to that category.
Yep. As it was an explicit declaratory restriction on the federal government, meant to prevent misconstruction or abuse of federal powers, rather than to be construed as the source of the right to keep and bear arms, or as a limitation upon the scope of that right.
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." Your defeatist opinion is noted, but this is not the issue. ---- You consider that the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." --- Your UNCONSTITUTIONAL beliefs are the issue. I ran about with an M1 for the better part of 3 years in the army, and am well aware what a man with a rifle can accomplish. -- Obviously, you don't... We don't necessarily need to have those arms in our possession, seeing that a man with a rifle can get them when needed. In wars of rebellion, the rebels quickly acquire 'any weapons imaginable' from their foes,---- because they have the initial arms to do so. --- That's one reason the 2nd protects the individual right. Your defeatism is noted. But modern guerrilla type tactics all over the world show us that you are wrong, and that they can fight organised armed forces to a standstill. Of course we have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." I can only conclude that you've been brainwashed by govt propagandists.
Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and State govts OUT OF CONTROL.
Yeah. What you said.
I hope you know someone who can do some trigger work on it, I hear it's gritty and close to 12lbs... Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
As usual, you are full of shit. Yes, an eighty year old dude who ran around with an M1 sixty years ago can take on the U.S. Marines and the U.S. Army. Hook up with Rambo and you can conquer the world. Yes, a guy with a gun can seize the U.S. arsenal of nukes, take fighter and bomber aircraft, and go on to defeat the combined U.S. armed forces. That's a plan. I am undecided whether to call your unit the Custer Brigade or the John Brown Brigade. If you have not noticed, Federal military bases are not manned primarily by people of the place where they are at. You may imagine that you will quickly acquire your weapons from a military base and not be killed. The U.S. are fought to a standstill by U.S. politicians. Our armed forces (and some others) have the power to reduce the guerrillas and the land about them to a pile of rubble. That would include you and your M-1 if you went all guerrilla on us. No, I come to the conclusion that the people are unable to bear arms that would permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. The power of the Federal armed forces has passed that point. I can only conclude that you have been a pain in the ass, you are a pain in the ass, and you will continue to be a pain in the ass. As for the law, as the Court puts it, you speak of a bygone era. The Second Amendment has been incorporated to apply against the States. Heller at 592: Heller at 624-25: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 19: McDonald at 40-41: McDonald at 19-20: With this framework in mind, we now turn directly to the question whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s his-tory and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we 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 ___ (slip op., at 57) (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” ofself-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessen-tial self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 58). Excerpts from McDonald: [36] We likewise reject municipal respondents’ argument that we should depart from our established incorporation methodology on the ground that making the Second Amendment binding on the States and their subdivisions is inconsistent with principles of federalism and will stifle experimentation. [37-38] Unless we turn back the clock or adopt a special incorporation test applicable only to the Second Amendment, municipal respondents’ argument must be rejected. Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels 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. [39] It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). [40] Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 21: Of course, by the prevailing logic of some, 48 Stat. 1236, P.L. 43-474, The National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, paved the way for mass confiscation of weapons: (b) The term "machine gun" means any weapon which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically or semiautomatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. [...] SEC. 5. (a) Within sixty days after the effective date of this Act every person possessing a firearm shall register, with the collector of the district in which he resides, the number or other mark identifying such firearm, together with his name, address, place where such firearm is usually kept, and place of business or employment, and, if such person is other than a natural person, the name and home address of an executive officer thereof: Provided, That no person shall be required to register under this section with respect to any firearm acquired after the effective date of, and in conformity with the provisions of, this Act.
I am sorry to hear that the Fed and State govts are out of control, and happy to hear you stand on guard to defeat the U.S. Armed Forces with your M-1. And you are prepared for the Zombie wars. A more likely scenario is an economic implosion with a general breakdown of law and order.
Heller at 592: Heller at 624-25: We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. It should be unsurprising that such a significant matter has been for so long judicially unresolved. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 19: McDonald at 40-41: McDonald at 19-20: With this framework in mind, we now turn directly to the question whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated in the concept of due process. In answering that question, as just explained, we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty, Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, or as we have said in a related context, whether this right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s his-tory and tradition,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). A Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we 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 ___ (slip op., at 57) (some internal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” ofself-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessen-tial self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 58). Excerpts from McDonald: [36] We likewise reject municipal respondents’ argument that we should depart from our established incorporation methodology on the ground that making the Second Amendment binding on the States and their subdivisions is inconsistent with principles of federalism and will stifle experimentation. [37-38] Unless we turn back the clock or adopt a special incorporation test applicable only to the Second Amendment, municipal respondents’ argument must be rejected. Under our precedents, if a Bill of Rights guarantee is fundamental from an American perspective, then, unless stare decisis counsels 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. [39] It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). [40] Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir., at 21: - - - - - You could get a hernia picking up and carrying the cannons. And, as quoted above from NYSRPA v Cuomo, "the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense." http://www.nps.gov/fosu/planyourvisit/upload/18_Pounder_Cannon.pdf
They read it wrong. Miller very clearly said that the ONLY weapons protected by the second amendment were those used by a Militia. The Miller court had no idea if a short-barreled shotgun had "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Because of that they remanded the case back to the lower court for them to make that determination. Miller had NOTHING to do with law-abiding citizens possessing weapons for lawful purposes. The Heller court invented that.
Right. That part in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was just rambling and didn't mean anything. "As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” How convenient for you. Now you can rule that any weapon not commonly used for self-defense can be banned. And boy-oh-boy, that list is long.
Are you out of your mind? I want to learn about your idea for the meaning of "well regulated." Hint: nothing to do with government intervention.
Well, there you go. The "arms" protected by the second amendment today in defense of person and home are the same arms as used by the military.
Yeah. I've read 10-12. But it was built as a 2 MOA assault rifle, not a sniper rifle. I'm looking to get a SPARC II red dot, and that reticule is only 2 MOA.
I was being sarcastic.
I doubt it.
Your defeatist opinion is noted, but this is not the issue. ---- You consider that the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." --- Your UNCONSTITUTIONAL beliefs are the issue. In wars of rebellion, the rebels quickly acquire 'any weapons imaginable' from their foes,---- because they have the initial arms to do so. --- That's one reason the 2nd protects the individual right. Your defeatism is noted. But modern guerrilla type tactics all over the world show us that you are wrong, and that they can fight organised armed forces to a standstill. We have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." I can only conclude that you've been brainwashed by govt propagandists.
So says the KOOKIFORNIA sheep, that willingly stays penned up in the KOOKIFORNIA sheep barn. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and (some) State govts OUT OF CONTROL. You know that they are, yet you claim those govts have the power to prohibit our rights to semi-auto arms.. What in hell is wrong with you? Yep, and still you insist that semi-auto arms can be prohibited. --- Get help, you must be ill..
Pitiful of you to conclude in that silly personal way. Why do you imagine I would give a damn about your 'pain in the ass' opinions? --- You've proven yourself to be a big government apologist with anti-constitutional opinions about our rights to semi-auto arms. -- You're contemptible. You're as silly as nolu, with your KOOKIFORNIA obsession. Rave on...
By all means, SLAVE ON, KOOKIFORNIAN. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
No one can hear you 'laughing out loud' in your parents basement, you pitiful fraud.. Or at least we can hope your folks have escaped for the evening.
You're as original as a fight during a hockey game. lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Whatever
They know the law. They don't care. In the new Amerika, laws as stipulated in the U.S. constitution and the Bill of Rights no longer exist.
Psalm 37
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 Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
" 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.
I agree that many would not. But today's military, rather than the past, is more heavily populated by soldiers that are not even citizens, and probabilities are that they WOULD follow any orders given them. And don't forget that most of the upper ranks are beholden to Oblabula. Regardless, if it starts, it will get very ugly, and very bloody, very quick. Hopefully you & your family will be prepared. Si vis pacem, para bellum Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.
SCOTUS decided it, as surely as they decided on abortion in Roe and same-sex marriage in Obergefell. The state of the law does not depend on your personal opinion or mine. SCOTUS is empowered to make a binding legal decision, and you are empowered to express your opinion to the world. It is of no legal consequence. Your opinion, if stated as your opinion, and qualified as being contrary to the actual law of the United States, is yours to express.
It was a reason given for withholding authority from the Federal government from infringing upon the existing right to keep and bear arms. It was not a definition of the right. The existing right to keep and bear arms was in the English law when the revolution took place. The existing right held by the colonists was not rewritten or abridged by the 2nd Amendment. It arose as an individual right. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp English Bill of Rights 1689 An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
The Federal government has been banning certain weapons since 1934, a proven beyond all doubt, by the National Firearms Act of 1934. Machine Gun Kelly's favorite weapon was banned. If all weapons are allowed, can one rent a floor of the WTC and fill it with C-4 or nuclear bombs in exercise of their Second Amendment rights? How inconvenient to you that SCOTUS has ruled and your opinions contrary to theirs are of no legal consequence. I have opined that the opinion overreaches against the 2nd Amendent as I read it. I do not make believe that my opinion changes the legal reality. And it would seem that the 2nd Amendment could use an update. In 1791, there were no weapons that could wreak havoc on entire continents.
You are sadly mistaken in conflating "the militia" with "the military." The military are members of the armed services. The militia is essentially all the able bodied men at least 17 and under 45 who are eligible to be conscripted into military service, and members of the National Guard and Naval Militia. The militia does not include the U.S. Armed Forces. The members of the National Guard cannot take their government owned weapons home to play with. http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/section-311/ §311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.) Federal Farmer: An Additional Number of Letters to the Republican [...] LETTER XVIII. As to the navy, I do not see that it can have any connection with the local governments. The want of employment for it, and the want of monies in the hands of the union, must be its proper limitation. The laws for building or increasing it, as all the important laws mentioned in a former letter, touching military and money matters, may be checked by requiring the attendance of a large proportion of the representatives, and the consent of a large proportion of those present, to pass them as before mentioned.
You are so deluded that you think yo can take on the U.S. Armed Forces and prevail. You and a group of similar wingnuts are invited to attempt to overthrow the goverment by force, or to peacefully secede from your state and the federal union. I suppose the civil war proves to you that nobody will fight against you. The Federal government has been prohibiting and regulating certain arms since 1934. I did not come to a conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would permit you and your fellow wingnuts to prevail over the Federal forces, I came to the conclusion that you could fully implement your right to keep and bear arms and be unable to prevail against the U.S. armed forces. You are, however, invited to declare your independence as a sovereign citizen and take on the U.S. Marines and Army. Good luck.
I feel safer knowing you are on the job of taking on the U.S. armed forces. I am sure if an 80-year old runs around in the woods with his gun, that will scare the Fed and State govts INTO CONTROL. Hallelujah! The 2nd Circuit court decision which is the topic of this thread should not get in your way is it effected no change to any law except to strike down a couple of existing provisions. I read the court opinion and saw that the thread article was a pile of shit. Of course, you would quote the parts of the court opinion that provide for mass confiscation of guns, if you could find them. Two reasons you do not do so is that you have not read the opinion, and the provisions are not there.
They also believe in carrying out orders, as exemplified by the civil war and more recent conflicts of dubious merit all over the world. They fought for Lincoln's despotic government. In the largest civil disturbance in U.S. history, the Navy shelled lower Manhattan, and army troops went from Gettysburg to New York. They destroyed printing presses of newspapers, killed random civilians as retribution, and held political prisoners, and that is only some of the stuff documented in the official records. A few short-lived rebellions were met with overwhelming force. Of course, with a significant military split, we are no longer talking about trambopaine taking on the U.S. armed forces, but of co-opting a large part of the U.S. armed forces to do the fighting.
You're so far gone that you really believe that ALL of our military would fight against their own citizens in a political coup? Not true and you know that I've never taken that position. You're now playing a detestable 'straw man' game. -- Have you no honor? And these unconstitutional prohibitions have been loudly protested by a large minority since 1934. --- Your support of them is detestable. You've come to the conclusion that the 2nd can be infringed by unconstitutional regulations, as you wrote again just above -- You should leave the USA for a socialist state.
[tpaine #61] Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and (some) State govts OUT OF CONTROL. I, nor other patriots, will never have to fight our military, because they will be with us, and against you gun control freaks. [tpaine #61] --- Yet you claim our govts have the power to prohibit our rights to semi-auto arms.. What in hell is wrong with you? I've read YOUR CONCLUSIONS about the opinion, and declared them 'a pile of shit'.
[tpaine #69] 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... Union soldiers, both during and long after the war, testified that they were fighting for the constitutional principles of the UNION. That you call Lincoln a "despot" explains a lot, Ms. Brady. Yep, the draft riots in NYC, mostly started by immigrants unwilling to fight for our constitution, were "short-lived rebellions - met with overwhelming force." --- So What? Babble on, nolu... You're rapidly using up the good will some here at LF have had for you. You never fooled me..
I'm saying, back then, the "arms" were the same. Arms in the home were the same as the arms used by the forces organized to protect the country. Then, it was the militia. Today it is the military. Those arms are protected from infringement by the second amendment.
Not "allowed". Protected by the second amendment. And it would include all weapons deemed necessary by a state to fulfill their duty to protect and defend the country. According to the second amendment as written.
... for the purpose of forming a state militia. Don't leave that out.
You are so full of shit, you might be yukon. Your next comment answered yourself. Dishonorable asshole! Are you channeling yukon? Are you really an 80-year old dishonorable asshole, or pajama boy posting from his mommie's basement? I accurately stated the law. You profess bullshit from the tpaine court of the imagination as the law. [tpaine #78] You've come to the conclusion that the 2nd can be infringed by unconstitutional regulations, as you wrote again just above -- You should leave the USA for a socialist state. I came to the conclusion that it is physically impossible for delusional assholes such as yourself can bear arms pursuant to the rights comprised by the 2nd Amendment RBKA to prevail against the armed forces. I invited you to declare your independence as a sovereign and try your brainfart and take on the U.S. Marines and Army. I wished you good luck in your delusional effort.
[tpaine #79] I, nor other patriots, will never have to fight our military, because they will be with us, and against you gun control freaks. Either they have confiscated your guns and it is too late, or nobody has confiscated your guns and you are just bullshitting. Being a delusional, lying asshole, does not make one a patriot. As you are certain the U.S. military will not fight your revolutionary overthrow of the government, and will join your patriotic effort, what are you waiting for? Just go ahead and restore the patriotic government now.
[tpaine #61] Yet you claim our govts have the power to prohibit our rights to semi-auto arms.. What in hell is wrong with you? [nc #76] I read the court opinion and saw that the thread article was a pile of shit. Of course, you would quote the parts of the court opinion that provide for mass confiscation of guns, if you could find them. Two reasons you do not do so is that you have not read the opinion, and the provisions are not there. [tpaine #79] I've read YOUR CONCLUSIONS about the opinion, and declared them 'a pile of shit'. The most casual reading shows that you cannot cite or quote the actual opinion to support your bullshit. I provided the entire opinion at #4. It has to be humiliating to have the whole thing and be unable to cite anything to support the delusions coming from the tpaine court of the imagination. HINT: it is an APPELLATE opinion, and it did NOT reverse the District Court opinion to uphold anything that the District Court had struck down. The Appellate Court reversed the District Court to strike down as unconstitutional, several provisions of law that the District Court had held to be constitutional. Before rendering your delusional opinion from your tpaine Court of the Imagination, you should try reading the Court opinion in question.
You are so full of shit. You must be referring to the constitutional principle of unlawfully suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus by the military. Or was it the constitutional principle of smashing printing presses? Or taking newspaper editors and holding them as political prisoners, not my term, the term in the official records. Perhaps they fought for the unapportioned income tax and the Internal Revenue Bureau (now IRS) to enforce the tax. The North won. If the Constitution and Union of the Founders and Framers was fought for and upheld, why did it result in a massive Federal government, a massive standing army? It was the Lincoln administration that took unconstitutional actions. He is the one who declared States to be little more than large Counties. President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress. - - - President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress. - - - This theoretical definition does not apply in practice, at least not without some alterations, to any existing confederation of states in the world today. It applies the least to the American Union of States. Most of these individual states never possessed any sovereignty whatsoever. They were gradually brought into the framework of the union as a whole. Therefore. the various states of the American Union constitute, in most instances smaller or larger territories that were formed for technical administrative reasons and their borders were frequently drawn with a ruler. These states never possessed any previous sovereignty of their own because that would have been impossible. These states did not come together to create the Union, but it was the Union that created these so-called states. The extensive rights of independence that were relinquished, or rather rights that were granted, to the different territories are in harmony with the whole character of this confederation of states and with the vastness of its area and overall size which is almost as large as a continent. So, in referring to the states of the American Union, one cannot speak of their state soverignty, but only of their constitutionally guaranteed rights, which we could more accurately designate as privileges. Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Uncensored Version, The Ford Translation, ISBN 978-0-9845361-3-9, p. 460 - - - President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981 = = = = = = = = = = [1] President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress. [2] President Lincoln's message of July 4, 1861 to the Special Session of Congress. [3] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Uncensored Version, The Ford Translation, ISBN 978-0-9845361-3-9, p. 460 [4] President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981 = = = = = = = = = = You obviously disagree with Reagan and adopt the position of Lincoln and Hitler. There is is. You're a Nazi!!
[tpaine #80] Yep, the draft riots in NYC, mostly started by immigrants unwilling to fight for our constitution, were "short-lived rebellions - met with overwhelming force." --- So What? Creative history at its finest. The NYC mayor proposed secession from the State and the union. EVERY attempt at rebellion has been met with overwhelming force. Open defiance is met with force. Yet you say that if you turn your delusional bullshit into a revolution aimed at overthrowing the government, the U.S. military will join in your delusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion [Excerpt] The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the will and the ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. http://chs.org/2007/12/shays-rebellion-in-connecticut/ [excerpt]
Not true and you know that I've never taken that position. You're now playing a detestable 'straw man' game. -- Have you no honor? You've lost control again, --- but in any case we're nearly done here, as you're simply repeating yourself and pasting up more non relevant 'legal' texts. I'll check your next couple of overextended remarks, but I doubt there'll be anything worth commenting on...
I, nor other patriots, will never have to fight our military, because they will be with us, and against you gun control freaks. We agree. You're right, but you need help...
YOu claim our govts have the power to prohibit our rights to semi-auto arms.. What in hell is wrong with you? I read the opinion earlier and agree, mass confiscation provisions are not there. -- Never said they were. However, --- I've read YOUR CONCLUSIONS about the opinion, and declared them 'a pile of prohibitive shit'.
[tpaine #80] Yep, the draft riots in NYC, mostly started by immigrants unwilling to fight for our constitution, were "short-lived rebellions - met with overwhelming force." --- So What? You're denying the NYC draft riots happened roughly as I posted? - -- But whatever, -- the fact remains, - you've exposed yourself as a gun prohibitionist, and you can't change that fact.
" 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. "
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
" Gun control proponents and media allies also continue to push for mass confiscation "
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
#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.
Before: Cabranes, Lohier, and Droney, Circuit Judges.
#5. To: nolu chan (#4)
" What the Court actually held: "
#6. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#4)
#7. To: Stoner (#5)
Please, if you can, give me a bottom line "what the court held."
#8. To: nolu chan (#7)
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?)
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
(Edited)
" it would not exactly disarm the masses. "
#10. To: tpaine (#8)
Is this what you meant to write?
#11. To: nolu chan, -- infringements are merely overreaches? (#10)
But it (this decision) would not exactly disarm the masses. (If upheld by the SCOTUS) --- nolu chan
#12. To: tpaine, Stoner (#11)
But it (this decision) would not exactly disarm the masses. (If upheld by the SCOTUS) --- nolu chan
I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt, but it would not exactly disarm the masses.
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
Low assault-weapon registration stats suggest low compliance with Gov. Cuomo’s landmark SAFE Act gun control law
New York Daily News
Updated: Tuesday, June 23, 2015, 2:26 PM Flouting The Law, Some New Yorkers Won't Register Guns
NPR
July 24, 2015 4:52 PM ET CGS 53–202
2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 53 - Crimes
Chapter 943 - Offenses Against Public Peace and Safety
Section 53-202 - Machine guns. SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2009
MCDONALD V. CHICAGO, 561 U.S. __ (2010) (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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2007
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (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.
#13. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, Y'ALL (#12)
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.
#14. To: tpaine (#13)
If upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would infringe upon the rights of (some) citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms.
#15. To: A K A Stone (#14)
"Why do you use lies and deception to try to "win" an argument?"
#16. To: A K A Stone (#14)
#17. To: tpaine (#16)
In my opinion, nolu chan approves such legalistic/unconstitutional tactics.
#18. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL h (#15)
#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."
#20. To: A K A Stone (#17)
Which word do you need help understanding?
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 upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would not disarm the United States.
#21. To: nolu chan (#12)
"Upholding the New York or Connecticut laws would not make that the law of any other jurisdiction, state or federal."
#22. To: Stoner (#9)
1st it would be a logistical impossibility, and 2nd they do not have the balls to try.
#23. To: nolu chan (#7)
"I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt"
#24. To: misterwhite (#15)
Because he (tpaine) can't "win" without doing so. (Using deception)
misterwhite: --- Prior to this ruling, every lower federal circuit court in every lower federal circuit court case (save one) has ruled a "collective" right - - ie., an individual RKBA as part of a state Militia. The second amendment was to protect the ability of the states to form state Militias from federal interference. ---- Your individual RKBA is protected by your state constitution. Which is why gun laws (eg., concealed carry) vary from state to state. ----- Think about it. If the second amendment protected that right, the laws would have to be the same in each state, would they not? ------- 14 posted on 03/20/2007 4:30:11 PM PDT by robertpaulsen/misterwhite
#25. To: misterwhite (#15)
Because he can't "win" without doing so.
#26. To: Roscoe, misterwhite, - constitutional scorpions (#25)
: misterwhite claims: (#15) ---- Because he (tpaine) can't "win" without doing so. (Using deception)
#27. To: tpaine, misterwhite, A K A Stone (#13)
If upheld by SCOTUS, the laws would infringe upon the rights of (some) citizens of the United States to keep and bear arms.
I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt, but it would not exactly disarm the masses.
What I said was....
I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt, but it would not exactly disarm the masses.
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.
#28. To: misterwhite (#23)
I think it is an overreach contrary to the 2nd Amdt"
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."
H. R. 3355
#29. To: misterwhite (#19)
" ... so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."
#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.
#31. To: nolu chan (#29)
The people cannot realistically bear arms which will permit them to prevail over the Federal forces.
#32. To: nolu chan (#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."
#33. To: nolu chan, tpaine, misterwhite, A K A Stone, Deckard, registration apologists, tools, *Bang List* (#27)
You can knock off the strawman bullshit. The ruling does not pave the way for mass confiscation of firearms in America.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#34. To: hondo68, Y'ALL (#33)
You've shot down your own assertion. Historically registration leads to confiscation. It may not say that they're going to confiscate, but there's little doubt that registration paves the way, as the title of the article suggests.
#35. To: hondo68 (#33)
(Edited)
"It may not say that they're going to confiscate, but there's little doubt that registration paves the way, as the title of the article suggests."
#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.
Arms. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.
#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.
#38. To: nolu chan (#28)
#39. To: misterwhite (#35)
---- since this action would be in the interest of the community, the government may use the "takings" power of Kelo to grab these weapons and provide "just compensation" for them.
#40. 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."
#41. To: misterwhite (#32)
But the second amendment protected all arms necessary to protect the security of a free state.
#42. To: A K A Stone (#37)
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.
#43. To: nolu chan (#41)
"But arms never applied to things that could not be picked up and carried."
#44. To: misterwhite (#43)
But the second amendment never limited arms to that category.
#45. To: nolu chan (#36)
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.
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.
#46. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#42)
, I think the govt cannot properly restrict the RKBA. But bearing automatic rifles is now irrelevant to the original purpose of a state or states resisting a usurping Federal government.
#47. To: Roscoe (#44)
"As it was an explicit declaratory restriction on the federal government, meant to prevent misconstruction or abuse of federal powers, rather than to be construed as the source of the right to keep and bear arms, or as a limitation upon the scope of that right."
#48. To: misterwhite (#38)
I'm looking to get the Beretta ARX-100 when the price comes down a little more.
#49. To: tpaine (#45)
Your defeatist opinion is noted, but this is not the issue. ---- You consider that the federal government to have the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." --- Your UNCONSTITUTIONAL beliefs are the issue.
I ran about with an M1 for the better part of 3 years in the army, and am well aware what a man with a rifle can accomplish. -- Obviously, you don't...
We don't necessarily need to have those arms in our possession, seeing that a man with a rifle can get them when needed.
In wars of rebellion, the rebels quickly acquire 'any weapons imaginable' from their foes,---- because they have the initial arms to do so. --- That's one reason the 2nd protects the individual right.
Your defeatism is noted. But modern guerrilla type tactics all over the world show us that you are wrong, and that they can fight organised armed forces to a standstill.
Of course we have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces."
I can only conclude that you've been brainwashed by govt propagandists.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....”
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. 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 Ore. 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.
In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense.
In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid.
III
[33] Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a by-gone era.
McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions.
(a) The term firearm means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
#50. To: tpaine (#46)
Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and State govts OUT OF CONTROL.
#51. To: misterwhite (#43)
The second amendment was written to protect state militias from federal infringement. That would include all arms used by the militia.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....”
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. 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 Ore. 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.
In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense.
In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid.
III
[33] Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a by-gone era.
McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions.
Back in 1792, all arms could be picked up and carried. But the second amendment never limited arms to that category.
#52. To: nolu chan (#51)
"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."
#53. To: nolu chan (#51)
"but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias."
#54. To: misterwhite (#53)
That part in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was just rambling and didn't mean anything.
#55. To: nolu chan (#51)
"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.”
#56. To: CZ82 (#48)
"I hope you know someone who can do some trigger work on it, I hear it's gritty and close to 12lbs..."
#57. To: buckeroo (#54)
#58. To: misterwhite (#57)
#59. To: nolu chan (#49)
The 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and beararms. It does not protect an individual "right" to any weaponry imaginable.
If you have not noticed, Federal military bases are not manned primarily by people of the place where they are at.
They are however STAFFED by local people, and of course many US military personnel would NOT co-operate with a federal/military takeover. You may imagine that you will quickly acquire your weapons from a military base and not be killed.
The U.S. are fought to a standstill by U.S. politicians. Our armed forces (and some others) have the power to reduce the guerrillas and the land about them to a pile of rubble.
You're so far gone that you really believe that ALL of our military would fight against their own citizens in a political coup? No, I come to the conclusion that the people are unable to bear arms that would permit them to prevail over the Federal forces. The power of the Federal armed forces has passed that point.
I can only conclude that you have been a pain in the ass, you are a pain in the ass, and you will continue to be a pain in the ass.
Pitiful of you to conclude in that silly personal way. Why do you imagine I would give a damn about your 'pain in the ass' opinions? --- You've proven yourself to be a big government apologist with anti-constitutional opinions about our rights to semi-auto arms. -- You're contemptible.
#60. To: tpaine (#59)
Pitiful of you to conclude in that silly personal way. Why do you imagine I would give a damn about your 'pain in the ass' opinions? --- You've proven yourself to be a big government apologist with anti-constitutional opinions about our rights to semi-auto arms. -- You're contemptible.
#61. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#50)
I think the govt cannot properly restrict the RKBA. But bearing automatic rifles is now irrelevant to the original purpose of a state or states resisting a usurping Federal government.
I am sorry to hear that the Fed and State govts are out of control,
--- and happy to hear you stand on guard to defeat the U.S. Armed Forces with your M-1. And you are prepared for the Zombie wars. --- A more likely scenario is an economic implosion with a general breakdown of law and order.
#62. To: GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#60)
So says the KOOKIFORNIA sheep, that willingly stays penned up in the KOOKIFORNIA sheep barn.
#63. To: tpaine (#62)
Rave on...
#64. To: GrandIsland (#63)
#65. To: tpaine (#64)
in your parents basement
#66. To: GrandIsland (#65)
#67. To: Stoner (#1)
#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.
#69. To: Stoner, a k a stone, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#68)
(Edited)
A K A Stone (#37)
#70. To: tpaine (#69)
" Nolu Chan has been brainwashed into believing that our military would blindly 'follow the orders' of our politicians. "
#71. To: misterwhite (#52)
[misterwhite #52] They [SCOTUS] read it wrong.
#72. To: misterwhite (#53)
[misterwhite #53] Right. That part in the second amendment about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" was just rambling and didn't mean anything.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
#73. To: misterwhite (#53)
[misterwhite #53] How convenient for you. Now you can rule that any weapon not commonly used for self-defense can be banned. And boy-oh-boy, that list is long.
#74. To: misterwhite (#55)
[misterwhite #55] Well, there you go. The "arms" protected by the second amendment today in defense of person and home are the same arms as used by the military.
THE MILITIA - 10 U.S.C. § 311 (2012)
May 02, 1788
JANUARY 25, 1788. The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions—1. The militia. 2. the navy—and 3. the regular troops—and the whole ought ever to be, and understood to be, in strict subordination to the civil authority; and that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity. Stipulations in the constitution to this effect, are perhaps, too general to be of much service, except merely to impress on the minds of the people and soldiery, that the military ought ever to be subject to the civil authority, &c. But particular attention, and many more definite stipulations, are highly necessary to render the military safe, and yet useful in a free government; and in a federal republic, where the people meet in distinct assemblies, many stipulations are necessary to keep a part from transgressing, which would be unnecessary checks against the whole met in one legislature, in one entire government.—A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. I am persuaded, I need not multiply words to convince you of the value and solidity of this principle, as it respects general liberty, and the duration of a free and mild govern-ment: having this principle well fixed by the constitution, then the federal head may prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and solely manage them, except when called into the service of the union, and when called into that service, they may be commanded and governed by the union. This arrangement combines energy and safety in it; it places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments: by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal plan, and called into the service, command, and government of the union, when necessary for the common defence and general tranquility. But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature.
#75. To: tpaine (#59)
[tpaine #59] You are so far gone that you really believe that ALL of our military would fight against their own citizens in a political coup?
[tpaine #59] We have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces."
#76. To: tpaine (#61)
[tpaine #61] Bearing automatic rifles (or semi-autos) has never been as RELEVANT to the original purpose of the PEOPLE of state or states resisting a usurping Federal government, --- as it is now, --- seeing we now have both Fed and (some) State govts OUT OF CONTROL.
[tpaine #61] You know that they are, yet you claim those govts have the power to prohibit our rights to semi-auto arms.. What in hell is wrong with you?
#77. To: tpaine, Stoner, A K A Stone (#69)
[tpaine #69] 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...
#78. To: nolu chan (#75)
Our armed forces (and some others) have the power to reduce the guerrillas and the land about them to a pile of rubble.
You are so deluded that you think yo can take on the U.S. Armed Forces and prevail.
You and a group of similar wingnuts are invited to attempt to overthrow the goverment by force, or to peacefully secede from your state and the federal union. I suppose the civil war proves to you that nobody will fight against you. -- "[tpaine #59] We have a right to keep and bear arms.. -- Yet you come to the weird conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would "permit them (the people) to prevail over the Federal forces." ---- The Federal government has been prohibiting and regulating certain arms since 1934.
I did not come to a conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would permit you and your fellow wingnuts to prevail over the Federal forces, I came to the conclusion that you could fully implement your right to keep and bear arms and be unable to prevail against the U.S. armed forces. --- You are, however, invited to declare your independence as a sovereign citizen and take on the U.S. Marines and Army. Good luck.
#79. To: nolu chan (#76)
I feel safer knowing you are on the job of taking on the U.S. armed forces. --- I am sure if an 80-year old runs around in the woods with his gun, that will scare the Fed and State govts INTO CONTROL. Hallelujah!
The 2nd Circuit court decision which is the topic of this thread should not get in your way is it effected no change to any law except to strike down a couple of existing provisions.
I read the court opinion and saw that the thread article was a pile of shit. Of course, you would quote the parts of the court opinion that provide for mass confiscation of guns, if you could find them. Two reasons you do not do so is that you have not read the opinion, and the provisions are not there.
#80. To: nolu chan, Y'ALL (#77)
They also believe in carrying out orders, as exemplified by the civil war
--- and more recent conflicts of dubious merit all over the world. They fought for Lincoln's despotic government.
In the largest civil disturbance in U.S. history, the Navy shelled lower Manhattan, and army troops went from Gettysburg to New York. They destroyed printing presses of newspapers, killed random civilians as retribution, and held political prisoners, and that is only some of the stuff documented in the official records.
Of course, with a significant military split, we are no longer talking about trambopaine taking on the U.S. armed forces, but of co-opting a large part of the U.S. armed forces to do the fighting.
#81. To: nolu chan (#74)
"You are sadly mistaken in conflating "the militia" with "the military."
#82. To: nolu chan (#73)
"If all weapons are allowed"
#83. To: nolu chan (#72)
It was a reason given for withholding authority from the Federal government from infringing upon the existing right to keep and bear arms ...
#84. To: tpaine (#78)
[tpaine #78] You're so far gone that you really believe that ALL of our military would fight against their own citizens in a political coup?
[tpaine #78] Not true and you know that I've never taken that position. You're now playing a detestable 'straw man' game. -- Have you no honor?
And these unconstitutional prohibitions have been loudly protested by a large minority since 1934. --- Your support of them is detestable.
[nc #75] I did not come to a conclusion that the federal government has the power to prohibit arms that would permit you and your fellow wingnuts to prevail over the Federal forces, I came to the conclusion that you could fully implement your right to keep and bear arms and be unable to prevail against the U.S. armed forces. --- You are, however, invited to declare your independence as a sovereign citizen and take on the U.S. Marines and Army. Good luck.
#85. To: tpaine (#79)
#86. To: tpaine (#79)
[nc #76] The 2nd Circuit court decision which is the topic of this thread should not get in your way is it effected no change to any law except to strike down a couple of existing provisions.
#87. To: tpaine (#80)
[tpaine #80] Union soldiers, both during and long after the war, testified that they were fighting for the constitutional principles of the UNION.
[tpaine #80] That you call Lincoln a "despot" explains a lot, Ms. Brady.
What is the particular sacredness of a State? I speak not of that position which is given to a State in and by the Constitution of the United States, for that all of us agree to—we abide by; but that position assumed, that a State can carry with it out of the Union that which it holds in sacredness by virtue of its connection with the Union. I am speaking of that assumed right of a State, as a primary principle, that the Constitution should rule all that is less than itself, and ruin all that is bigger than itself. But, I ask, wherein does consist that right? If a State, in one instance, and a county in another, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in the number of people, wherein is that State any better than the county?
The States have their status IN the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law, and by revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their independence, and their liberty. By conquest, or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence, and liberty, it has. The Union is older than any of the States; and, in fact, it created them as States.
What is a confederation of states? By a confederacy, we mean a group of sovereign states which come together of their own free will and, in virtue of their sovereignty, create a collective entity. In doing so, they assign selective sovereign rights to the national body that will allow it to safeguard the existence of the joint union.
All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.
#88. To: tpaine (#80)
[nc #77] In the largest civil disturbance in U.S. history, the Navy shelled lower Manhattan, and army troops went from Gettysburg to New York. They destroyed printing presses of newspapers, killed random civilians as retribution, and held political prisoners, and that is only some of the stuff documented in the official records.
Throughout counties in Western Pennsylvania, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. With 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. Most distillers in nearby Kentucky were found to be all but impossible to tax; in the next six years, over 175 distillers from Kentucky were convicted of violating the tax law. Numerous examples of resistance are recorded in court documents and newspaper accounts.
Shay’s rebellion was an armed uprising in western Massachusetts from 1786-1787. The rebels, led by farmer and former soldier Daniel Shays, were mostly small farmers angered by crushing debt and high land taxes. Congress, operating under the Articles of Confederation, called for armed troops to suppress the uprising but had no power to recruit the men or pay them. Massachusetts managed to mobilize a privately financed army and eventually defeated the rebels on February 3, 1787.
#89. To: nolu chan (#84)
You are so deluded that you think yo can take on the U.S. Armed Forces and prevail.
Dishonorable asshole! Are you channeling yukon? Are you really an 80-year old dishonorable asshole, or pajama boy posting from his mommie's basement?
#90. To: nolu chan (#85)
Being a delusional, lying asshole, does not make one a patriot.
#91. To: nolu chan (#87)
I read the court opinion and saw that the thread article was a pile of shit. Of course, you would quote the parts of the court opinion that provide for mass confiscation of guns, if you could find them. Two reasons you do not do so is that you have not read the opinion, and the provisions are not there.
#92. To: nolu chan (#88)
In the largest civil disturbance in U.S. history, the Navy shelled lower Manhattan, and army troops went from Gettysburg to New York. They destroyed printing presses of newspapers, killed random civilians as retribution, and held political prisoners, and that is only some of the stuff documented in the official records.
Creative history at its finest.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]