2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,334
- 52,581
- 2,290
When we discuss the Right to own and carry guns, the anti gunners chirp up and say that according to Scalia, in the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, he said that they get to ban every single gun they want as long as they let us have guns in movies......or something like that......
The say that the opinion he wrote allows them to ban AR-15 civilian rifles....and they are lying.....
I just started listneing to NRA.tv podcasts...and the very first one they mention the Friedman v. Highland Park Supreme court dissent by Scalia and Justice Thomas when the nuts on the Supreme Court refused to hear the case...allowing the ban on AR-15 civilian rifles to stand....and in this dissent Scalia rejects the AR-15 civilian rifle ban....(clayton, this goes out to you...)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment āguarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.ā Heller, supra, at 592; see also McDonald, supra, at 767ā 769. We excluded from protection only āthose weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.ā Heller, 554 U. S., at 625. And we stressed that ā[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of governmentāeven the Third Branch of Governmentā the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.ā
---------
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: āConstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.ā
------
The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms āwere common at the time of ratificationā in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that āthe Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.ā 554 U. S., at 582.
-----
But that ignores Hellerās fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627ā629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that āCongress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,ā not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizensānot state governmentsāit was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
------
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purposeāregardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627ā629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624ā625.
The Cityās ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767ā768; Heller, supra, at 628ā629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendmentās ācore protection . . . to a freestanding āinterestbalancingā approach.ā Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III
Americans now own over 8 million AR-15 rifles.......
The say that the opinion he wrote allows them to ban AR-15 civilian rifles....and they are lying.....
I just started listneing to NRA.tv podcasts...and the very first one they mention the Friedman v. Highland Park Supreme court dissent by Scalia and Justice Thomas when the nuts on the Supreme Court refused to hear the case...allowing the ban on AR-15 civilian rifles to stand....and in this dissent Scalia rejects the AR-15 civilian rifle ban....(clayton, this goes out to you...)
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment āguarantee
We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: āConstitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.ā
------
The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms āwere common at the time of ratificationā in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that āthe Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.ā 554 U. S., at 582.
-----
But that ignores Hellerās fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627ā629. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that āCongress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,ā not States. Id., at 600 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizensānot state governmentsāit was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.
------
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purposeāregardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627ā629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624ā625.
The Cityās ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767ā768; Heller, supra, at 628ā629.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendmentās ācore protection . . . to a freestanding āinterestbalancingā approach.ā Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III
Americans now own over 8 million AR-15 rifles.......
Last edited: