jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,369
- 1,130
Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.
I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."
Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:
1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND
2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.
Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.
ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:
"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."
That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.
My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.
For felons and the adjudicated mentally ill...got it.
Mentally ill, yes. Not sure why a felon can't have a gun once he reenters society. They used to be able to have their gun rights back but step by step, gun rights are taken away till we're like the europeans who sit unarmed and watch their country overrun by third world violent muslims.
It is wholly unconstitutional not to restore a person's Rights once a convicted person has fulfilled their sentence. Allow me an example:
If person A gets drunk as Hell, climbs in their car and kills someone, he can be charged with DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc. He does his time and once out there are NO legal impediments from stopping this guy from going to a bar, getting drunk, getting in a car and driving down the road.
If person B shoots someone, they do the time, get out and then are told they can't own a weapon any longer. WTH???
DUI incidents cost as many lives as firearms and there is NO Right to buy booze. Under the 14th Amendment we're supposed to be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. The government isn't living up to the guarantee.
they dont even have to shoot someone to lose the right
they could have passed enough bad checks to get a felony
then lose the right