It is unconstitutional to ban handguns...

[M14 Shooter]

No one?
Really?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Still no response....?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Zero meaningful responses.
Good that you know your limitations.

 

[2aguy]

Yep.....if they can't lie or drag dead bodies in front of cameras....they have nothing to say.

 

[Brain357]

[
Scalia is not around to fight for gun rights anymore, so it looks like Thomas will need to take up that torch -- which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights -- after all the post Civil War legislation and rulings which tried to deprive black men from keeping and bearing arms.

I too noticed the "popularity" criterion used by Scalia in his write-up of Heller.

However the other SCOTUS justices are NOT buying it apparently.

They recently "let stand" a decision by a lower court upholding an assault weapons ban.

So times are changing. Scalia has died. And we are running out of strict-constructionist justices on the SCOTUS. BHO and Billy C. did not appoint any, and GWB did not get to appoint enough.

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

And THIS is why Trump, not Hilary, must win the coming election.

This is #1 for me.....his support for the first amendment:

The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish. Why don't churches pay taxes?





Donald Trump: As President, I’ll Reverse the Law That Prevents Churches from Endorsing Candidates
Trump said near the end of his speech that he would rescind the IRS rule preventing churches from endorsing candidates.

That takes you and it makes you less powerful than a man or woman walking up and down the street. You actually have less power.”

And yet if you look at it, I was talking to someone, we probably have 250 million, maybe even more, in terms of people, so we have more Christians… than we have men or women in our country and we don’t have a lobby because they’re afraid to have a lobby because they don’t want to lose their tax status.

So I am going to work like hell to get rid of that prohibition and we’re going to have the strongest Christian lobby and it’s going to happen. This took place during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson and it has had a terrible chilling effect.

Donald Trump: As President, I’ll Reverse the Law That Prevents Churches from Endorsing Candidates

You are easily duped.

Guns Aren't Allowed on Many Trump Properties, Staff Says

 

[Uncensored2008]

You are easily duped.

Guns Aren't Allowed on Many Trump Properties, Staff Says

This is relevant HOW?

 

[Brain357]

You are easily duped.

Guns Aren't Allowed on Many Trump Properties, Staff Says

This is relevant HOW?

Trump has flip flopped regularly. His banning of guns at his own properties shows how pro gun he is not. You have been duped.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah...between Trump and clinton.....I'll take Trump......it is guaranteed hilary will attack gun rights from day one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

Had you bothered to read Heller you’d find the answer to your question:

‘It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
[…]
The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.’

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

The Second Amendment’s prohibition on the banning of handguns is predicated on the fact that it is the most popular weapon used by citizens for lawful self-defense, not a given level of judicial review.

Indeed, had the Heller Court determined that AR platform rifles were “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home,” then the prohibition of such weapons would likewise be invalid and un-Constitutional.

Last February the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals returned to the District Court for further review Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, with instructions to apply strict scrutiny; and should the District Court rule that the Act is un-Constitutional, and assuming that ruling is upheld on appeal, then we’ll have two conflicting decisions ripe for review by the Supreme Court.

And should the High Court rule that strict scrutiny is the appropriate level of judicial review, Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, New York’s Safe Act, and other similar measures would be struck down as un-Constitutional.

But until such time as the Court makes that ruling, measures banning AR and AK/M platform rifles remain Constitutional, regardless the level of judicial review.

 

[Political Junky]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

List the people who said they'll ban handguns.

 

[2aguy]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

List the people who said they'll ban handguns.

Say in public.....no......they talk about banning all semi auto weapons.....which would include pistols...then you have the magazine limits....which include whole categories of pistols.....banning by other means.

 

[Political Junky]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

List the people who said they'll ban handguns.

Say in public.....no......they talk about banning all semi auto weapons.....which would include pistols...then you have the magazine limits....which include whole categories of pistols.....banning by other means.

Do you belong to "a well regulated militia"?

 

[whitehall]

It's a well established and settled legal issue that the government can pass laws that restrict certain Constitutional freedoms including the right to posess firearms. The laws that restrict the freedoms of the Bill of Rights could (and do) fill a freaking law library. Never the less the people have the right to hire lobbyists and to protest new laws that further impact the Constitutional rights of lawful citizens. It's as simple as that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Had you bothered to read Heller you’d find the answer to your question:

I love how you re-posted my OP and then avoided the question in its entirety.
Well done. Worthless, but well done.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you belong to "a well regulated militia"?

Irrelevant.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[M14 Shooter]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; a 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. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

List the people who said they'll ban handguns.

Why?
Handguns were banned in certain places until overturned by Heller.

Now then... can you answer the question?
Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?