CDZ Gun law proposals, I oppose all of them, tell me how they actually would work.

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by 2aguy, Jun 14, 2019.

  1. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    25,274
    Thanks Received:
    2,361
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,795
    Non Seq.
    Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

    You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
    Silly, right?
    Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
    The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

    Thus, your statement:
    A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
    Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion. Freedom of religion, like the 2nd amendment, is not unlimited.

    As to you other point, you make a good argument. Let me mull that over.
     
  3. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    I re-read Heller and I am going to concede to your point. Scalia clearly considered the "to bear" as to physically carry. I have always seen that from a military point of view. To bear arms was to serve. Since this is about law rather than personal definitions, you are clearly right on this and I was wrong.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Cellblock2429
    Online

    Cellblock2429 Gold Member Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2016
    Messages:
    20,688
    Thanks Received:
    3,047
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +18,590
    /——/ “common sense gun laws” A bad policy with a nice sounding name is still bad policy.
    Other examples: Affordable Care Act, a Police Action, and Woman’s right to choose. Feel free to add your favorites.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    20,049
    Thanks Received:
    6,025
    Trophy Points:
    390
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +48,389
    I guarantee you that when we get a decisive majority of Conservatives on the Court (God bless Trump) you will see the cases.

    The real problem with gun control cases is most often it is connected with another crime so the infringement issue is never challenged. For instance, I really think the NFA law is unconstitutional. I think the government has no right requiring a tax on a fully automatic firearm and has no right to restrict the number that can be on the register. That infringement is anti constitutional oppression.

    What I could do is get a hold of a fully automatic weapon and shoot it and get arrested by the assholes who are the thugs of the shitheads that have taken away my Liberty.

    However, I risk imprisonment and fines and it would cost me hundreds of thousands in legal fees. I am not willing to do that so the Supreme Court will not have the opportunity to hear a clean infringement case.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    25,274
    Thanks Received:
    2,361
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,795
    False.
    Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
    Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
    Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. M14 Shooter
    Offline

    M14 Shooter The Light of Truth

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    Messages:
    25,274
    Thanks Received:
    2,361
    Trophy Points:
    275
    Location:
    Where I can see you, but you can't see me
    Ratings:
    +7,795
    Thank you
     
  8. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.
     
  9. 2aguy
    Offline

    2aguy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2014
    Messages:
    76,430
    Thanks Received:
    14,026
    Trophy Points:
    2,180
    Ratings:
    +57,686

    Human sacrifice is not protected....murder is not protected by Freedom of Religion.

    Scalia stated....all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is protected by name. That was in Heller, and specifically stated in Friedman v Highland Park......
     
  10. diver52
    Offline

    diver52 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    707
    Thanks Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +200
    I didn't say it was protected. It obviously isn't because that is a restriction of the 1st amendment. OTOH, the use of peyote is also against the law but is protected under the 1st as religious. A religious expression which is not protected represents a restriction of the 1st amendment. Calling it something different does not change that.

    Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected. There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.

    Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
     

Share This Page