Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[Kilroy2]

The "militia" issue was put to rest in the Heller case and reaffirmed with McDonald and Bruen.

The right to keep and bear arms is NOT dependent upon membership to any organization. It is an individual right protected under the Consititon the same as rights like freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

M14 Shooter doesn't have to justify to anit gun nuts like you why he has an AR-15. The right to have it is protected under the Constitution, can't be infringed and is an individual right.

If you don't like living in a country where good citizens like M14 Shooter can legally have an AR-15 (or even the more lethal M-14 that he seems to like) then there are plenty of other countries on earth for your consideration.

Its not put to rest as it was a 5 - 4 verdict. It just means majority wins in this instance. The issue will always be self defense. Rights for self defense are not unlimited. Convicts or mentally ill people do not have a unlimited right to bear arms under the constitution. Fire arms are prohibited in certain buildings. the list goes on.

Its is not unlimited. There are limitations.

Does a murder have unlimited rights to own a gun for self defense under the militia argument of the constitution.

What gives the current rights to gun owners are based on the laws that are passed The states and the feds ban weapons to convicts. Despite what it says in the constitution .

 

[Concerned American]

Its not put to rest as it was a 5 - 4 verdict.

How is this any different ^^^ from claiming it was a fake election. Hypocrite.
BTW, he was referring to you false assertion that he must be part of a militia which you are trying your best to circumvent.

 

[Flash]

Its not put to rest as it was a 5 - 4 verdict. It just means majority wins in this instance. The issue will always be self defense. Rights for self defense are not unlimited. Convicts or mentally ill people do not have a unlimited right to bear arms under the constitution. Fire arms are prohibited in certain buildings. the list goes on.

Its is not unlimited. There are limitations.

Does a murder have unlimited rights to own a gun for self defense under the militia argument of the constitution.

What gives the current rights to gun owners are based on the laws that are passed The states and the feds ban weapons to convicts. Despite what it says in the constitution .

You don't understand that a majority win in the Supreme Court is the law of the land, do you?

The Bruen decision put really big constraints on what the Feds, States and Locals can do to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. No more willy nilly gun laws. Now there has to be a significant reason to do away with a citizen's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms just like free speech and freedom of religion.

 

[cnm]

That shows why owning any firearm is a privilege and not a right.

 

[2aguy]

That shows why owning any firearm is a privilege and not a right.

No...it doesn't.....the Constitution, Bill of Rights and now Supreme Court rulings show it is a Right...

 

[M14 Shooter]

That shows why owning any firearm is a privilege and not a right.

It does not matter ow many times you repeat this lie - it remains a lie.

 

[Kilroy2]

You don't understand that a majority win in the Supreme Court is the law of the land, do you?

The Bruen decision put really big constraints on what the Feds, States and Locals can do to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. No more willy nilly gun laws. Now there has to be a significant reason to do away with a citizen's Constitutional right to keep and bear arms just like free speech and freedom of religion.

You do understand that the government and the state do regulate gun ownership. Also you somewhat misinterpret what the ruling actually means.

Still interpret why a convict or the mentally ill cannot own a gun even when it says that they can based on the 2nd amendment.

Definition of militia

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   "creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
   • HISTORICAL
     (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.
     
     Still do you believe that the US government does not have enough weapons to arm a militia if one is needed?
     
     “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
     
     JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008
     
     
     
     
     
     
     The right misinterprets this as a right. It is only a right when the government says so based on any laws that are passed. I am sure your aware of gun laws and how they vary by state to state. The right tries to interpret this as unlimited but it is limited and Scalia said it correctly.

 

[Flash]

You do understand that the government and the state do regulate gun ownership. Also you somewhat misinterpret what the ruling actually means.

Still interpret why a convict or the mentally ill cannot own a gun even when it says that they can based on the 2nd amendment.

Definition of militia

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   "creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
   • HISTORICAL
     (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.
     
     Still do you believe that the US government does not have enough weapons to arm a militia if one is needed?
     
     “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
     
     JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008
     
     
     
     
     
     
     The right misinterprets this as a right. It is only a right when the government says so based on any laws that are passed. I am sure your aware of gun laws and how they vary by state to state. The right tries to interpret this as unlimited but it is limited and Scalia said it correctly.

You idiot. Are you really this confused?

It has been explained to you and the other stupid Moon Bats dozens of times that because of Heller and affirmed by McDonald and Bruen the Second Amendment is an individual right NOT connected to any membership h in any organizations like a militia. That is settled law. You can take your stupid militia bullshit and cram it up your Moon Bat ass. It don't mean jackshit.

The Bruen decision put tremendous restrictions on the anti gun nut's ability to infringe upon what the Constitution says cannot be infringed.

You idiot anti gun nuts may not want to adhere to the Bill of Rights but the law is the law and because of Bruen if any of the shitheads want to infringe upon the right they need a lot better reason than we have seen in the past. I suspect it be a cold day in hell before the anti gun nuts win another case in court with their filthy ass gun restrictions.

By the way Moon Bat. Judge Scalia is not around now to tell us what restrictions he would deem appropriate but I can guarantee you shitheads that it is a lot different than what you stupid Libtard jackasses want it to be. Bruen says that it has to be a lot less restrictive than what you assholes want it to be.

Hell, you little turds wanted to prevent Dick Heller from even having a firearm in his own home. You didn't want Otis McDonald to have a permit to carry one outside of his home. In New York you dipshits tried to pass a law saying nobody could carry a firearm outside their home. Those are examples of how batshit crazy you assholes are when it comes to gun control and Scalia would tell you to go pound sand. You don't get to invoke his name to justify being anti gun crazy.

 

[Flash]

Here is an example of how Bruen is going to affect the anti gun nut's ability to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights.




Federal judge blocks Illinois' gun and magazine ban while case continues - The Heartlander


The Center Square) – Illinois’ gun and magazine ban is on hold after a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction.

The case could be appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where a similar challenge is pending.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted a ban on more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities on Jan. 10. A week later, lawsuits challenging the law were filed in state and federal courts. In the Southern District federal courts, four plaintiffs groups’ cases were consolidated and heard by Judge Stephen McGlynn in East St. Louis earlier this month.

On Friday, McGlynn granted a motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the law statewide.

“Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction,” McGlynn wrote. “They have shown irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance of harm weighs in their favor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction are GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA amended provisions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/24-1(a), including subparagraphs (11), (14), (15), and (16), statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court can address the merits.”

 

[2aguy]

You do understand that the government and the state do regulate gun ownership. Also you somewhat misinterpret what the ruling actually means.

Still interpret why a convict or the mentally ill cannot own a gun even when it says that they can based on the 2nd amendment.

Definition of militia

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
   "creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
   • a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
   • HISTORICAL
     (in the US) all able-bodied citizens eligible by law to be called on to provide military service supplementary to the regular armed forces.
     
     Still do you believe that the US government does not have enough weapons to arm a militia if one is needed?
     
     “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
     
     JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA
     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008
     
     
     
     
     
     
     The right misinterprets this as a right. It is only a right when the government says so based on any laws that are passed. I am sure your aware of gun laws and how they vary by state to state. The right tries to interpret this as unlimited but it is limited and Scalia said it correctly.

He also stated in Heller that all bearable arms
are protected by the 2nd amendmemt and in Friedmam v Highland Park he stated that AR-15s, by name are protected

Funny you fail to quote him when he supports AR-15s and states all bearable arms are
protected

 

[Concerned American]

Here is an example of how Bruen is going to affect the anti gun nut's ability to infringe upon our Constitutional Rights.




Federal judge blocks Illinois' gun and magazine ban while case continues - The Heartlander


The Center Square) – Illinois’ gun and magazine ban is on hold after a federal judge in the Southern District of Illinois ruled in favor of a preliminary injunction.

The case could be appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, where a similar challenge is pending.

Gov. J.B. Pritzker enacted a ban on more than 170 semi-automatic firearms and magazines over certain capacities on Jan. 10. A week later, lawsuits challenging the law were filed in state and federal courts. In the Southern District federal courts, four plaintiffs groups’ cases were consolidated and heard by Judge Stephen McGlynn in East St. Louis earlier this month.

On Friday, McGlynn granted a motion for a preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of the law statewide.

“Plaintiffs have satisfied their burden for a preliminary injunction,” McGlynn wrote. “They have shown irreparable harm with no adequate remedy at law, a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, that the public interest is in favor of the relief, and the balance of harm weighs in their favor. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction are GRANTED. Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing Illinois statutes 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(b) and (c), and 720 ILCS 5/24-1.10, along with the PICA amended provisions set forth in 735 ILCS 5/24-1(a), including subparagraphs (11), (14), (15), and (16), statewide during the pendency of this litigation until the Court can address the merits.”

Gun grabber Inslee and state AG Ferguson (WA), just passed a similar law to Pritzker's. Less than one hour later law suits were filed by the NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation and four other citizen plaintiffs. We are anxiously waiting the injunction.

 

[Flash]

Gun grabber Inslee and state AG Ferguson (WA), just passed a similar law to Pritzker's. Less than one hour later law suits were filed by the NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation and four other citizen plaintiffs. We are anxiously waiting the injunction.

Because of Bruen very few of these infringements will be upheld.

 

[2aguy]

Because of Bruen very few of these infringements will be upheld.

Unless they get rid of a conservative justice or two.....then they will replace them with gun grabbers or aimply pack the court and reverse bruen...

that is why elections are so important and voting against the democrats so vital

 

[Kilroy2]

He also stated in Heller that all bearable arms
are protected by the 2nd amendmemt and in Friedmam v Highland Park he stated that AR-15s, by name are protected

Funny you fail to quote him when he supports AR-15s and states all bearable arms are
protected

care to post a link

 

[M14 Shooter]

care to post a link

FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Flash]

Unless they get rid of a conservative justice or two.....then they will replace them with gun grabbers or aimply pack the court and reverse bruen...

that is why elections are so important and voting against the democrats so vital

You are of course right

But

More like how fucked up our country is in that our Constitutional Liberties are dependent upon whether stupid Libtards get power or not.

 

[2aguy]

care to post a link

Will do when i have time.....you could also look up all the other threads where I link to scalia and thoae quotes

 

[2aguy]

FRIEDMAN v. HIGHLAND PARK

www.law.cornell.edu

Thanks

 

[Kilroy2]

care to post a link

The 2nd amendment was held but it is not unlimited. Thus there are limits that can be imposed.

“1. 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. ” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, (2008)


(The court ruled in Heller’s favor, affirming an individual right to keep handguns in the home for self-defense.) as he was a policeman

You guys are just pointing to the obvious yet the case concerned handguns. The problem is interpretation and reading the fine print. Individual right to keep and bear arms is valid with limitations. It what the state allows.

Scalia also goes on to say
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” So yes as stated citizens can bear arms for service in the militia. As long as the rules are followed.

Yes they can use this to protect there home still the following was held to be valid

“Until the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes.” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576 n.2 (2008)



JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008

Thus is has limitations.


So they can be banned under certain conditions.

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, 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. Pp. 2816 – 2817.

District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 571 (2008)

Thus, whereas Scalia’s majority opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) found that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns was unconstitutional because the original meaning of the text of the Second Amendment protected an individual right to bear arms independent of service in a state militia, Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissenting opinion relied on a similar historical analysis to draw exactly the opposite conclusion. Scalia did not deny the validity of such critiques, but he argued that his approach was nevertheless superior to any other method at reducing inappropriate influences on judges’ decisions.

The only thing that he confirms is the militia clause in the 2nd. The government can regulate.

thus it is still unlawful to care an unregistered gun for example.
“Until the Fifth Circuit's decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (2001), every Court of Appeals to consider the question had understood Miller to hold that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to possess and use guns for purely private, civilian purposes. ” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 576 n.2 (2008)
AR 15 arguments
Illinois residents cannot purchase an AR 15 or assault weapon beginning January 11, 2023 unless subject to one of the narrow exemptions listed in section 720 ILCS 5/24-1.9(e) within the link above.
so there are exemptions and there is a law.

Under a law passed on January 10, 2023, Illinois has defined certain firearms as assault weapons. It is illegal to manufacture, deliver, sell, or purchase an assault weapon. Any assault weapons that are already owned by residents are legal to possess if registered with the state police by January 1, 2024.
They regulate and what was okay before now has been limited to what is already own.
Despite the Supreme Court ruling years ago
Now I do not know what other states have done but this is an issues that is waiting for the next mass shooting event.

The 10 states with laws restricting assault weapons after Washington enacted ban

Assault weapons have been linked to some of the deadliest mass shootings in the the U.S in the past decade.

www.axios.com

10 states have already banned it. It does appear that those who have the weapon are grandfather in.
Biden wants to ban them and I guess that is making some upset. All well, get them while you can. They are quite expensive but hey if you got the cash.

 

[MisterBeale]

That shows why owning any firearm is a privilege and not a right.

This doesn't even concern you. Why would you come onto an American political discussion forum, and put your two cents in, on something that is no concern of yours? Why should you care if Americans get to exercise this right or not? Does it bug you that the Swiss do?


Americans don't know, or care, about how your nation was settled, nor do they give a shit about the cultural attitude of guns and self-defense in your nation.

Thus? Your opinions about whether you believe owning a gun is a privilege or a right in America? That's completely irrelevant to us.

In NZ? Or in any other part of the Commonwealth? Sure, the King gets to tell his subjects what rights they have, and what rights they don't have. However, things have always been different here. We have a Bill of Rights, not a, "Bill of Privileges," which tell the government to back off, when it is thinking about violating any of our rights. We are citizens, not subjects.