2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[Rumpole]

I don't believe YOU should own a gun.

Righto -- There should be a law that gun nutters are illegal to own them hah!

 

[Failzero]

Righto -- There should be a law that gun nutters are illegal to own them hah!

But turd Worlder Criminals of Color in America are kosher to own guns

 

[Rumpole]

You mean the rulings now being overturned?

I believe your question has an assumed premise. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your quote is not from any court ruling, so political slogans are irrelevant to law, that's how are country works. Moreover, you're missing the point; The Second Amendment, as construed in Heller, is no longer a militia-based provision; and because modern weapons vastly exceed founding-era weaponry, the text does not clearly define scope, so a modern amendment would be a better place to specify the right and its limits.

Good get to work on creating the amendment and getting it passed.

 

[Rumpole]

Good get to work on creating the amendment and getting it passed.

I put the idea up for discussion only. Comment is non sequitur.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I put the idea up for discussion only. Comment is non sequitur.

so you admit you cant actually get an amendment created or passed?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You cannot in any way demonstrate this is to be true.
You're talking out your ass.

Yeah, except that prisoners have the RKBA infringed upon when in prison and afterwards.

Are Criminals Allowed to Own Guns? Laws and Penalties

Federal law prohibits certain people from owning guns, and the penalties for illegal possession can be steep — but in some cases, rights can be restored.

legalclarity.org

"Federal law bars nine categories of people from possessing firearms, and a criminal conviction is only one of them. Anyone convicted of a crime carrying a potential sentence of more than one year in prison loses the right to own, buy, or carry a gun under federal law, with penalties reaching up to 15 years in prison for violations."

Well, will you look at that. I just demonstrated this to be true.

You really are a ******* moron, aren't you?

 

[frigidweirdo]

And now, you're openly lying.

Nope, I've posted the evidence. You haven't even tried to fight back.

All you do is "no, fake news" like you're a retarded goat.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yeah, except that prisoners have the RKBA infringed upon when in prison and afterwards.

Are Criminals Allowed to Own Guns? Laws and Penalties

Federal law prohibits certain people from owning guns, and the penalties for illegal possession can be steep — but in some cases, rights can be restored.

legalclarity.org

"Federal law bars nine categories of people from possessing firearms, and a criminal conviction is only one of them. Anyone convicted of a crime carrying a potential sentence of more than one year in prison loses the right to own, buy, or carry a gun under federal law, with penalties reaching up to 15 years in prison for violations."

Well, will you look at that. I just demonstrated this to be true.

You really are a ******* moron, aren't you?

anyone can appeal their barred status to the treasury secretary for it to be undone

 

[frigidweirdo]

anyone can appeal their barred status to the treasury secretary for it to be undone

Okay, and?

The point here is that the 2A says "shall not be infringed".

Is the US Federal govt taking away the right to keep and bear arms from an individual after due process "shall not be infringed".

The person I was replying to is a person who says everything I write is wrong, without even reading it. I proved them wrong.

 

[Leo123]

Righto -- There should be a law that gun nutters are illegal to own them hah!

Are you a ‘gun nutter?’ Perhaps you should be watched?

 

[Dante]

Are you a ‘gun nutter?’ Perhaps you should be watched?

Watched for more reasons that that one.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yeah, except that prisoners have the RKBA infringed upon when in prison and afterwards.

See?
You cannot in any way demonstrate your claim to be true.
You're talking out your ass.
Just like I said.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope, I've posted the evidence. You haven't even tried to fight back.

Still lying? Figures.
Well, congrats - you're again proven yourself a waste of time, and are headed back into the pit.

 

[Rumpole]

so you admit you cant actually get an amendment created or passed?

your comment has an assumed premise. Substantiate your premise, first, and then ask the question.

 

[Rumpole]

Are you a ‘gun nutter?’ Perhaps you should be watched?

No, just a peanut butter nutter, that's about it.

 

[Rumpole]

Right?
The 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use "all bearable arms", which includes all firearms in common use, and commonly chosen for use, for traditionally lawful purposes.

But it's not unlimited. Heller recognized that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and stated that "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned. However, the Court did not clearly define which weapons fall within that category, leaving substantial room for dispute in subsequent Second Amendment litigation.

 

[Robert W]

But it's not unlimited. Heller recognized that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and stated that "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned. However, the Court did not clearly define which weapons fall within that category, leaving substantial room for dispute in subsequent Second Amendment litigation.

I sold the Army Military Rifle I once owned and it sure was dangerous and an unusual weapon. It still is legal to own one.

 

[Rumpole]

I sold the Army Military Rifle I once owned and it sure was dangerous and an unusual weapon. It still is legal to own one.

Heller says Dangerous and Unusual weapons can be regulated. Yours isn't, so, so what?

 

[M14 Shooter]

But it's not unlimited. Heller recognized that the Second Amendment does not protect "dangerous and unusual weapons" and stated that "M-16 rifles and the like" may be banned.

The Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms - those in common use, or commonly chosen for use, for lawful purposes.
The AR15, and the like, are "commonly available"*, in common use, and commonly chosen for use, for lawful purposes, and are, therefore "bearable arms".
As such, they, by definition, cannot be dangerous and unusual, and, under the 2nd Amendment, cannot be banned.

However, the Court did not clearly define which weapons fall within that category,

It did. See above.


* "Commonly available", per Justice Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson in Cargill, dissent