Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
I guess I have to repeat myself. It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
Very well
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
Oath
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America
From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript
Now
Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?
Do let me know when you can show me where it is in the Constitution. I'll just wait for it.
Do you need direction to tell you what you can and cannot do?
I guess I have to repeat myself. It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision
Very well
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
Ok. Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming. Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon. I've already shown you one where it said they could.
As I said, it actually has to be there
Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
I guess I have to repeat myself. It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
Very well
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
Ok. Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming. Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon. I've already shown you one where it said they could.
As I said, it actually has to be there
Here's what you said you even said you had to repeat yourself.
But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
I guess I have to repeat myself. It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision
I gave you TWO Supreme Court decision's what more do you want?
Ok. Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming. Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon. I've already shown you one where it said they could.
As I said, it actually has to be there
Here's what you said you even said you had to repeat yourself.
I guess I have to repeat myself. It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision
I gave you TWO Supreme Court decision's what more do you want?
You can give me a hundred decisions. It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim. Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon. Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment. They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.
Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
Here's what you said you even said you had to repeat yourself.
I gave you TWO Supreme Court decision's what more do you want?
You can give me a hundred decisions. It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim. Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon. Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment. They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.
Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
My claim is, states cannot ban any type of firearm that it chooses too. Firearms that are protected by U.S. Constitution should be a militia-type arm
Lewis vs US and Miller vs US support me. You were saying?
The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).
Its quite simple, really:Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?
Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
You can give me a hundred decisions. It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim. Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon. Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment. They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.
Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
My claim is, states cannot ban any type of firearm that it chooses too. Firearms that are protected by U.S. Constitution should be a militia-type arm
Lewis vs US and Miller vs US support me. You were saying?
I was saying your were wrong. Nothing in either of those decisions say that.
Its quite simple, really:Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
Heller:Ok. Now I would like to see a SC ruling which actually applies to what you are claiming. Show me a decision which actually states that the government, either the state or the feds, cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.
Handguns cannot be banned.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
This is a lie.I've already shown you one where it said they could.
I do, but this is a clean board and questioning a posters intellectual honesty is against the rules.Its quite simple, really:But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
I do, but this is a clean board and questioning a posters intellectual honesty is against the rules.Its quite simple, really:
-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
What exactly IS an assault weapon?
If I understand it correctly, it is a term used for military weapons something that civilians can not legally obtain (without special permits).
I think folks mistakenly call rifles such as AR-15s, and military styled rifles, assault weapons.
This is a mistake, because it causes people to use terms incorrectly but then again the agenda of gun control would not be able to drive the conversation without using the terminology.
Just thought it wise to interject some rationality into the subject.
Carry on now .
That applies to the anti gun crowd.I think folks mistakenly call rifles such as AR-15s, and military styled rifles, assault weapons.
I do, but this is a clean board and questioning a posters intellectual honesty is against the rules.I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.
Its a way to bait you into telling the other debater what you really think about their idiotic so called friendly debate.
Its a joke!
The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).
I agree with the first sentence. You are pretty much in error on the second. While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government. The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify. Do you think that was an accident?
CorrectThe SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).
I agree with the first sentence. You are pretty much in error on the second. While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government. The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify. Do you think that was an accident?
"You are pretty much in error on the second."
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
"extremely broad" is your opinion.
"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.
Its quite simple, really:Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.
But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?
-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.
