So, anti gunners who say no one wants to take our guns...what about the 4th circuit gun ban?

[Auld Phart]

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

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.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

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.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the fucking decision. Read fucking Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.

12-14 hours, maybe.

But I want you to state what YOUR 'opinion' is.

Dont' you have one?

 

[2aguy]

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" From hazlnut's link above

The term "weapons of war" needs to be considered in terms of the 2nd and what that means to America.

Moron....the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the possession of weapons of war.....not hunting pieces.....

 

[2aguy]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

How did it ignore Heller?

District of Columbia v Heller - Justice Scalia


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. 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 firearms 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.

And this from Heller...again...


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.

We are talking "bearable arms" so rifles and pistols, even ones not present at the time of the founding are protected dipshit....

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Assault weapons and facsimiles, are for the common offense, not defense of self and property.

Wrong.....rifles with detachable magazines are the most common rifles in this country...and those are specifially protected by Heller....weapons in common use....and you can't get more common use than these rifles....

 

[2aguy]

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

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.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

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.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

Moron....that qoute doesn't support anything you stated.........

the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179.

Rifles with detachable magazines are the most common rifles in use today.....and according to your own quote are protected by the 2nd specifically.....moron.

And before you go to Dangerous and unusual as an excuse......knives murder more people than all rifle types combined every single year....as do empty hands and clubs...so these rifles are not more dangerous than knives and they are not unusual...since they are the most common types of rifle in use by civilians today......

 

[bodecea]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

From what I've read, I doubt that ruling will stand if it goes to the Supreme Court.

 

[Winston]

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi
NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

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.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the fucking decision. Read fucking Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.

12-14 hours, maybe.

But I want you to state what YOUR 'opinion' is.

Dont' you have one?

I believe the second amendment is a collective right based on common defense, not an individual right based on self-defense.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

See, the founders even tell us why they adopted the second amendment. They were against a standing army. And without a standing army they needed a citizen's militia to defend the nation's borders as well as defend against, now get this, an INSURRECTION .

You see, when the second amendment was proposed this new nation had just defeated, not the world's primary military power, but a domestic insurrection, Shays' Rebellion. You might want to look it up. But the government response to that insurrection revealed a weak Articles of Confederation and necessitated the reforms incorporated in the Constitution. Truth is, had the governor of Massachusetts not illegally seized the FEDERAL ARMORY before the rebels, using those very weapons to arm a PRIVATE ARMY, this nation never would have made it in to the 19th century.

This whole attempt to tie the second amendment to the Revolution is nothing but historical revisionism that makes no sense. The second amendment was passed a full decade and a half AFTER the start of the Revolutionary War. General Washington had already retired to Mount Vernon and was more worried about raising donkeys than having any part of government. It was Shay's rebellion that spurred his return to political life.

Ironically, it was only a matter of years before that second amendment's purpose was vividly highlighted. The Whiskey Rebellion. Four states, just four states called up militias, and the total number of ARMED soldiers, many of them DRAFTED--was greater than Washington's Continental Army at ANYTIME during the American Revolution.

The Constitutional Convention was initiated by insurrection. The second amendment was directed toward defending against domestic insurrection, not enabling it. And the second amendment has never, ever, worked as a defense against insurrection while at the same time being used, not infrequently, to suppress insurrection.

 

[Auld Phart]

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

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.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the fucking decision. Read fucking Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.

12-14 hours, maybe.

But I want you to state what YOUR 'opinion' is.

Dont' you have one?

I believe the second amendment is a collective right based on common defense, not an individual right based on self-defense.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

See, the founders even tell us why they adopted the second amendment. They were against a standing army. And without a standing army they needed a citizen's militia to defend the nation's borders as well as defend against, now get this, an INSURRECTION .

You see, when the second amendment was proposed this new nation had just defeated, not the world's primary military power, but a domestic insurrection, Shays' Rebellion. You might want to look it up. But the government response to that insurrection revealed a weak Articles of Confederation and necessitated the reforms incorporated in the Constitution. Truth is, had the governor of Massachusetts not illegally seized the FEDERAL ARMORY before the rebels, using those very weapons to arm a PRIVATE ARMY, this nation never would have made it in to the 19th century.

This whole attempt to tie the second amendment to the Revolution is nothing but historical revisionism that makes no sense. The second amendment was passed a full decade and a half AFTER the start of the Revolutionary War. General Washington had already retired to Mount Vernon and was more worried about raising donkeys than having any part of government. It was Shay's rebellion that spurred his return to political life.

Ironically, it was only a matter of years before that second amendment's purpose was vividly highlighted. The Whiskey Rebellion. Four states, just four states called up militias, and the total number of ARMED soldiers, many of them DRAFTED--was greater than Washington's Continental Army at ANYTIME during the American Revolution.

The Constitutional Convention was initiated by insurrection. The second amendment was directed toward defending against domestic insurrection, not enabling it. And the second amendment has never, ever, worked as a defense against insurrection while at the same time being used, not infrequently, to suppress insurrection.

That's all well and good, but...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

You seem to dismiss, for some reason, that the right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, NOT the militia.

Militia ONLY covered MALES between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

By YOUR reckoning, boys under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, had no self defense via firearms.

Women, none at all.

 

[Winston]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

From what I've read, I doubt that ruling will stand if it goes to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court won't even bother to hear an appeal. The Fourth Circuit confirms the rulings of two other Federal Appeals courts, including the DC Court of Appeals

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The "other Heller".

Then there is this one, from the Second Circuit of Appeals

http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2015/20151019_shewvmalloy_secondcircuit.pdf

Ruh Ro--that one has already been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

 

[MisterBeale]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

From what I've read, I doubt that ruling will stand if it goes to the Supreme Court.

. . . and most of us doubted Trump would be elected.

 

[Winston]

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the fucking decision. Read fucking Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.

12-14 hours, maybe.

But I want you to state what YOUR 'opinion' is.

Dont' you have one?

I believe the second amendment is a collective right based on common defense, not an individual right based on self-defense.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

See, the founders even tell us why they adopted the second amendment. They were against a standing army. And without a standing army they needed a citizen's militia to defend the nation's borders as well as defend against, now get this, an INSURRECTION .

You see, when the second amendment was proposed this new nation had just defeated, not the world's primary military power, but a domestic insurrection, Shays' Rebellion. You might want to look it up. But the government response to that insurrection revealed a weak Articles of Confederation and necessitated the reforms incorporated in the Constitution. Truth is, had the governor of Massachusetts not illegally seized the FEDERAL ARMORY before the rebels, using those very weapons to arm a PRIVATE ARMY, this nation never would have made it in to the 19th century.

This whole attempt to tie the second amendment to the Revolution is nothing but historical revisionism that makes no sense. The second amendment was passed a full decade and a half AFTER the start of the Revolutionary War. General Washington had already retired to Mount Vernon and was more worried about raising donkeys than having any part of government. It was Shay's rebellion that spurred his return to political life.

Ironically, it was only a matter of years before that second amendment's purpose was vividly highlighted. The Whiskey Rebellion. Four states, just four states called up militias, and the total number of ARMED soldiers, many of them DRAFTED--was greater than Washington's Continental Army at ANYTIME during the American Revolution.

The Constitutional Convention was initiated by insurrection. The second amendment was directed toward defending against domestic insurrection, not enabling it. And the second amendment has never, ever, worked as a defense against insurrection while at the same time being used, not infrequently, to suppress insurrection.

That's all well and good, but...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

You seem to dismiss, for some reason, that the right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, NOT the militia.

Militia ONLY covered MALES between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

By YOUR reckoning, boys under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, had no self defense via firearms.

Women, none at all.

Did you not miss my first sentence, the one where I said that I believe the second amendment is collective right about common defense and not an individual right to self-defense? You have a common law right to self defense, you can pick up anything handy and use it. That doesn't mean you have a right to a gun anymore than a commoner had the right to a sword.

 

[Auld Phart]

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the fucking decision. Read fucking Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.

12-14 hours, maybe.

But I want you to state what YOUR 'opinion' is.

Dont' you have one?

I believe the second amendment is a collective right based on common defense, not an individual right based on self-defense.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

See, the founders even tell us why they adopted the second amendment. They were against a standing army. And without a standing army they needed a citizen's militia to defend the nation's borders as well as defend against, now get this, an INSURRECTION .

You see, when the second amendment was proposed this new nation had just defeated, not the world's primary military power, but a domestic insurrection, Shays' Rebellion. You might want to look it up. But the government response to that insurrection revealed a weak Articles of Confederation and necessitated the reforms incorporated in the Constitution. Truth is, had the governor of Massachusetts not illegally seized the FEDERAL ARMORY before the rebels, using those very weapons to arm a PRIVATE ARMY, this nation never would have made it in to the 19th century.

This whole attempt to tie the second amendment to the Revolution is nothing but historical revisionism that makes no sense. The second amendment was passed a full decade and a half AFTER the start of the Revolutionary War. General Washington had already retired to Mount Vernon and was more worried about raising donkeys than having any part of government. It was Shay's rebellion that spurred his return to political life.

Ironically, it was only a matter of years before that second amendment's purpose was vividly highlighted. The Whiskey Rebellion. Four states, just four states called up militias, and the total number of ARMED soldiers, many of them DRAFTED--was greater than Washington's Continental Army at ANYTIME during the American Revolution.

The Constitutional Convention was initiated by insurrection. The second amendment was directed toward defending against domestic insurrection, not enabling it. And the second amendment has never, ever, worked as a defense against insurrection while at the same time being used, not infrequently, to suppress insurrection.

That's all well and good, but...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

You seem to dismiss, for some reason, that the right to keep and bear arms was given to the people, NOT the militia.

Militia ONLY covered MALES between the ages of 16-45, (57 in some areas).

By YOUR reckoning, boys under the age of 16, or over the age of 45, had no self defense via firearms.

Women, none at all.

Did you not miss my first sentence, the one where I said that I believe the second amendment is collective right about common defense and not an individual right to self-defense? You have a common law right to self defense, you can pick up anything handy and use it. That doesn't mean you have a right to a gun anymore than a commoner had the right to a sword.

Didn't miss a thing.

But you seem to have missed the part about the right being for the people, not the militia.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller..... One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

The AR-15 is a single shot weapon, so it is NOT useful in the military which demands multiple shot capable weapons.

This is why gun enthusiasts are so contemptuous of liberals when they spout off on gun issues; you people are completely ignorant on these topics and you wallow in your ignorance.

The AR-15 is NOT a military weapon simply because it has the same over-all design and look as a military weapon. That it can be modified to fire full automatic is irrelevant because untill it is it is not full auto and it is also somewhat unreliable unless the modification was done by a gun smith. And that is all ILLEGAL which means we dont need yet MORE laws to give legality to seizing them since WE ALREADY HAVE THAT LEGAL RECOURSE.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Did you not miss my first sentence, the one where I said that I believe the second amendment is collective right about common defense and not an individual right to self-defense? You have a common law right to self defense, you can pick up anything handy and use it. That doesn't mean you have a right to a gun anymore than a commoner had the right to a sword.

Post-14th Amendment expansion to include all individuals, the 2nd is now ALSO an individual mandate, not just some vague collective notion about the need to shoot squirrels in hillbillyville.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Most useful while you carried is not most useful in military service. First I can't imagine why that would be the case. Well any good reason. What, were you an MP? Second, I doubt that is the case for most soldiers. Hell, there were a good many WWII vets that would tell you their shovel was the most useful piece of equipment, does that mean a shovel is most useful in military service?

Silly liberal, making arguments against your own claims does nothing to support them, lol.

 

[Iceweasel]

Did you not miss my first sentence, the one where I said that I believe the second amendment is collective right about common defense and not an individual right to self-defense? You have a common law right to self defense, you can pick up anything handy and use it. That doesn't mean you have a right to a gun anymore than a commoner had the right to a sword.

How the hell is a collective going to defend you from harm? And we don't need your post modern revisionist thoughts on the subject, we can do better:


Gun Quotations of the Founding Fathers | Buckeye Firearms Association

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

 

[JakeStarkey]

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" From hazlnut's link above

The term "weapons of war" needs to be considered in terms of the 2nd and what that means to America.

Moron....the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the possession of weapons of war.....not hunting pieces.....

So you admit you are failing here. The courts, not you, will make that decision. No, you don't get your definition of a "weapons of war." That's not how it works. You are on ignore for the remainder of the thread.

 

[2aguy]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

From what I've read, I doubt that ruling will stand if it goes to the Supreme Court.

Yeah.....and we didnt' think obamacare would stand either...and then Roberts rewrote the law to make it pass......leaving these decisions to 9, politically appointed lawyers is insane....

 

[2aguy]

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

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.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should 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 firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the fucking decision. Read fucking Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.

12-14 hours, maybe.

But I want you to state what YOUR 'opinion' is.

Dont' you have one?

I believe the second amendment is a collective right based on common defense, not an individual right based on self-defense.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

See, the founders even tell us why they adopted the second amendment. They were against a standing army. And without a standing army they needed a citizen's militia to defend the nation's borders as well as defend against, now get this, an INSURRECTION .

You see, when the second amendment was proposed this new nation had just defeated, not the world's primary military power, but a domestic insurrection, Shays' Rebellion. You might want to look it up. But the government response to that insurrection revealed a weak Articles of Confederation and necessitated the reforms incorporated in the Constitution. Truth is, had the governor of Massachusetts not illegally seized the FEDERAL ARMORY before the rebels, using those very weapons to arm a PRIVATE ARMY, this nation never would have made it in to the 19th century.

This whole attempt to tie the second amendment to the Revolution is nothing but historical revisionism that makes no sense. The second amendment was passed a full decade and a half AFTER the start of the Revolutionary War. General Washington had already retired to Mount Vernon and was more worried about raising donkeys than having any part of government. It was Shay's rebellion that spurred his return to political life.

Ironically, it was only a matter of years before that second amendment's purpose was vividly highlighted. The Whiskey Rebellion. Four states, just four states called up militias, and the total number of ARMED soldiers, many of them DRAFTED--was greater than Washington's Continental Army at ANYTIME during the American Revolution.

The Constitutional Convention was initiated by insurrection. The second amendment was directed toward defending against domestic insurrection, not enabling it. And the second amendment has never, ever, worked as a defense against insurrection while at the same time being used, not infrequently, to suppress insurrection.

Sorry......you are wrong...and even the Supreme Court says you are wrong...and they broke down the Amendment and discussed it at length in Heller.....The entire Bill of Rights was based on the outcome of the Revolutionary war....dip stick....

 

[2aguy]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

From what I've read, I doubt that ruling will stand if it goes to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court won't even bother to hear an appeal. The Fourth Circuit confirms the rulings of two other Federal Appeals courts, including the DC Court of Appeals

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The "other Heller".

Then there is this one, from the Second Circuit of Appeals

http://www.ct.gov/ag/lib/ag/press_releases/2015/20151019_shewvmalloy_secondcircuit.pdf

Ruh Ro--that one has already been confirmed by the SCOTUS.

Because you need 4 Justices to vote to hear a case.....and you have 4 left wing activists in robes and then Kennedy who goes where ever the voices in his head tell him to go........and even then, they wait till an issue is deep enough to handle the most aspects involved......that is obviously fast approaching with the 4th defying the Supreme Court and making shit up all on their own.....