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.
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Trump.
I can't take these complaints too seriously by anyone that voted for that when Booker stands no chance at winning.
The filthy anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit is wrong no matter who does it. Just like debt and increased taxes are wrong no matter who does it.
We wouldn't have had any of the oppressive gun laws at the Federal level with some Republican support along the way . Just look at that idiot 1994 AWB as an example. The same on many state levels. Just look at the worthless oppressive bullshit legislation that was passed in Florida after Parkland and Florida had a Republican Legislature and Governor. Shame!
All of those Moon Bat clowns running for President in the Anti Cheeseburger Party are absolutely anti gun crazy. Fuck 'em all.
Again,
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Are you going to vote Trump?
Harris laughing at Biden because he pointed out that what she wants to do is clearly not constitutional is really all you need to know about where the democrats running for office stand on this.
They do not care what the constitution says.
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Trump.
I can't take these complaints too seriously by anyone that voted for that when Booker stands no chance at winning.
The filthy anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit is wrong no matter who does it. Just like debt and increased taxes are wrong no matter who does it.
We wouldn't have had any of the oppressive gun laws at the Federal level with some Republican support along the way . Just look at that idiot 1994 AWB as an example. The same on many state levels. Just look at the worthless oppressive bullshit legislation that was passed in Florida after Parkland and Florida had a Republican Legislature and Governor. Shame!
All of those Moon Bat clowns running for President in the Anti Cheeseburger Party are absolutely anti gun crazy. Fuck 'em all.
Again,
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Are you going to vote Trump?
Are you going to vote for one of the Democrat clowns?
Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public handsNobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choiceHe knows exactly what a Bill of Rights does...it limits his ability to force you to bend to his will....
Nobody is so dumb they don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
So even when dumbasses like this Booker Negro demands that the government infringes then we know he is just playing stupid to kiss the ass of the anti gun nuts.
No one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........
This is what is protected...from people like you......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Trump.
I can't take these complaints too seriously by anyone that voted for that when Booker stands no chance at winning.
The filthy anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit is wrong no matter who does it. Just like debt and increased taxes are wrong no matter who does it.
We wouldn't have had any of the oppressive gun laws at the Federal level with some Republican support along the way . Just look at that idiot 1994 AWB as an example. The same on many state levels. Just look at the worthless oppressive bullshit legislation that was passed in Florida after Parkland and Florida had a Republican Legislature and Governor. Shame!
All of those Moon Bat clowns running for President in the Anti Cheeseburger Party are absolutely anti gun crazy. Fuck 'em all.
Again,
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Are you going to vote Trump?
Are you going to vote for one of the Democrat clowns?
Here is how it works. I asked you a question. You answer and then you ask me a question in return.
Are you going to vote for Trump?
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Trump.
I can't take these complaints too seriously by anyone that voted for that when Booker stands no chance at winning.
The filthy anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit is wrong no matter who does it. Just like debt and increased taxes are wrong no matter who does it.
We wouldn't have had any of the oppressive gun laws at the Federal level with some Republican support along the way . Just look at that idiot 1994 AWB as an example. The same on many state levels. Just look at the worthless oppressive bullshit legislation that was passed in Florida after Parkland and Florida had a Republican Legislature and Governor. Shame!
All of those Moon Bat clowns running for President in the Anti Cheeseburger Party are absolutely anti gun crazy. Fuck 'em all.
Again,
"Take the guns first, go through due process second."
Are you going to vote Trump?
Are you going to vote for one of the Democrat clowns?
Here is how it works. I asked you a question. You answer and then you ask me a question in return.
Are you going to vote for Trump?
This is the way it really works Moon Bat.
You pay attention to the answer that is given to you. I told you I didn't vote for Trump and have no intention of doing so because he is a big government Liberal. Being better than the filthy Democrats is good but doesn't past the threshold of being good enough.
Now you answer my question.
Which Libtard shithead are you voting for?
You saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public handsNobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choiceNobody is so dumb they don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
So even when dumbasses like this Booker Negro demands that the government infringes then we know he is just playing stupid to kiss the ass of the anti gun nuts.
No one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........
This is what is protected...from people like you......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public handsNobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choiceNobody is so dumb they don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means.
So even when dumbasses like this Booker Negro demands that the government infringes then we know he is just playing stupid to kiss the ass of the anti gun nuts.
No one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........
This is what is protected...from people like you......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
Even Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public handsNobody is so dumb as to believe that means unlimited access to the weapon of your choice
No one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........
This is what is protected...from people like you......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
Even Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public handsNo one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........
This is what is protected...from people like you......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Even Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public handsNo one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........
This is what is protected...from people like you......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Even Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public handsNo one said it does....it does not mean, however, that you asshats get to determine which guns we get to own and carry........
This is what is protected...from people like you......
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the 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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. 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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
From Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.We the People get to decide what weapons are allowed in public hands
Gun owners are free to take any legislation about guns to the court and force the government there is a public interest in banning certain weapons and accessories
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
From Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
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, con- cealed 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 fire- arms 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.
Yes.From Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
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, con- cealed 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 fire- arms 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.
It is Scalias findingFrom Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that way
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
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, con- cealed 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 fire- arms 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.
Yes....felons, the dangerously mentally ill....and by leaving Miller in there you also leave in the fact that military weapons are protected...thanks....
And again...
That analysis misreads Heller.
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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
No one advocates that it is unlimited.It is Scalias findingFrom Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
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, con- cealed 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 fire- arms 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.
Yes....felons, the dangerously mentally ill....and by leaving Miller in there you also leave in the fact that military weapons are protected...thanks....
And again...
That analysis misreads Heller.
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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun rights are not unlimited
Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.It is Scalias findingFrom Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weapons
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
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, con- cealed 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 fire- arms 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.
Yes....felons, the dangerously mentally ill....and by leaving Miller in there you also leave in the fact that military weapons are protected...thanks....
And again...
That analysis misreads Heller.
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 purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. 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 624–625.
The City’s 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 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun rights are not unlimited
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
