Armed citizen saves life of Police officer

[bigrebnc1775]

Let us see you post Miller where it supports your claim. Then I will post Heller 1(F) that overrides that claim.

Get to it, buddy.

Exactly how many times have I posted Millers and still you ask for it again?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You haven't.

Heller 1(F) gives SCOTUS the right to regulate gun ownership and ban unusual and dangerous weapons.

Here is an interesting discussion on why lefties, if they think about it, should be sending bouquets to Justice Scalia on Constitution Day. Notice one of those worried about Heller is Larry Pratt.

Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control - NationalJournal.com

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You haven't.

Heller 1(F) gives SCOTUS the ride to regulate gun ownership and ban unusual and dangerous weapons.

Here is an interesting discussion on why lefties, if they think about it, should be sending bouquets to Justice Scalia on Constitution Day. Notice one of those worried about Heller is Larry Pratt.

Why Liberals Should Thank Justice Scalia for Gun Control - NationalJournal.com

You haven't.

You are lying I most certainly have
Still waiting on your proof that heller overrides Miller?

 

[JakeStarkey]

And bigderp

I posted it above in #102 where it discusses how liberals love Scalia's whittling down of Miller in Heller.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And bigderp

I posted it above in #102 where it discusses how liberals love Scalia's whittling down of Miller in Heller.

What court document did you post too support your position?
NONE.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't have to because it is an interp of your hero, Scalia, and his writing. And you have posted nothing to support your assertion.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't have to because it is an interp of your hero, Scalia, and his writing. And you have posted nothing to support your assertion.

Wrong you made a claim that heller over ruled Miller, what court document specially says that

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't have to because it is an interp of your hero, Scalia, and his writing. And you have posted nothing to support your assertion.

Wrong you made a claim that heller over ruled Miller, what court document specially says that

Heller 1(F) (this is common knowledge) recognizes SCOTUS can regulate gun ownership and ban unusual and dangerous weapons, and that is what the article refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 18, 2008
Decided June 26, 2008


Full case name
District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller

Docket nos.
07-290

Citations
554 U.S. 570 (more)
128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497


Prior history
Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

Procedural history
Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Argument
Oral argument

Opinion Announcement
Opinion announcement

Holding

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

Court membership



Chief Justice
John G. Roberts



Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito



Case opinions


Majority
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Dissent
Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent
Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504, 7–2507.02

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is some good reading from the ABA Journal on dangerous and unusual weapons in terms of recent SCOTUS decisions.

Quoting Scalia, ABA president says Second Amendment rights have limits

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Don't have to because it is an interp of your hero, Scalia, and his writing. And you have posted nothing to support your assertion.

Wrong you made a claim that heller over ruled Miller, what court document specially says that

Heller 1(F) (this is common knowledge) recognizes SCOTUS can regulate gun ownership and ban unusual and dangerous weapons, and that is what the article refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 18, 2008
Decided June 26, 2008


Full case name
District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller

Docket nos.
07-290

Citations
554 U.S. 570 (more)
128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497


Prior history
Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

Procedural history
Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Argument
Oral argument

Opinion Announcement
Opinion announcement

Holding

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

Court membership



Chief Justice
John G. Roberts



Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito



Case opinions


Majority
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Dissent
Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent
Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504, 7–2507.02

What court of law is Wikipedia from?

 

[zeke]

Back to the Keller feller eh?

biggie, I have to ask; did you get your meds adjusted? Your responses don't read like spittle is flying all over your screen when you type now.
Good for us eh? Or you just getting tired. It's been a long battle, hasn't it?
The end is near though. Not enough guilt to overcome the gun nuts money and influence.
I am not surprised. When nothing happened on legislation in the first 30 days after the killing in Con., I pretty much knew nothing would change.
And it won't. Hell us Americans only pull out guns and shoot each other a few hundred times a day.
What's the problem. Right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong you made a claim that heller over ruled Miller, what court document specially says that

Heller 1(F) (this is common knowledge) recognizes SCOTUS can regulate gun ownership and ban unusual and dangerous weapons, and that is what the article refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 18, 2008
Decided June 26, 2008


Full case name
District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller

Docket nos.
07-290

Citations
554 U.S. 570 (more)
128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497


Prior history
Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

Procedural history
Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Argument
Oral argument

Opinion Announcement
Opinion announcement

Holding

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

Court membership



Chief Justice
John G. Roberts



Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito



Case opinions


Majority
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Dissent
Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent
Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504, 7–2507.02

What court of law is Wikipedia from?

bigderp, your opinion is worthless. All of the other material I have posted tops your opinion. Scalia disagrees with you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Heller 1(F) (this is common knowledge) recognizes SCOTUS can regulate gun ownership and ban unusual and dangerous weapons, and that is what the article refers to.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 18, 2008
Decided June 26, 2008


Full case name
District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller

Docket nos.
07-290

Citations
554 U.S. 570 (more)
128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637; 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5268; 76 U.S.L.W. 4631; 21 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 497


Prior history
Provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 infringe an individual's right to bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.

Procedural history
Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Argument
Oral argument

Opinion Announcement
Opinion announcement

Holding

The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's 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. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.

Court membership



Chief Justice
John G. Roberts



Associate Justices
John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy · David Souter
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito



Case opinions


Majority
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito

Dissent
Stevens, joined by Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Dissent
Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg

Laws applied

U.S. Const. amend. II; D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504, 7–2507.02

What court of law is Wikipedia from?

bigderp, your opinion is worthless. All of the other material I have posted tops your opinion. Scalia disagrees with you.

Asking you What court of law is Wikipedia from? is not giving any opinion just asking you for a court document to support your claim.

 

[Desperado]

Defensive Gun Use by State
Armed Citizen Saves Police Officer from Violent Attacker - Rationality Rebooted: Stories of responsible gun use that do not fit the main stream media's agenda

 

[legaleagle_45]

The relevant language from Heller:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the SecondAmendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

At pages 52-53 of the slip opinion on the following link

http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf

 

[JakeStarkey]

What court of law is Wikipedia from?

bigderp, your opinion is worthless. All of the other material I have posted tops your opinion. Scalia disagrees with you.

Asking you What court of law is Wikipedia from? is not giving any opinion just asking you for a court document to support your claim.

Wikipedia, the American Bar Journal, and legal eagle in #115 ABOVE, and I have given you Heller. In particular, Heller 1(f).

You are trolling now and reported.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigderp, your opinion is worthless. All of the other material I have posted tops your opinion. Scalia disagrees with you.

Asking you What court of law is Wikipedia from? is not giving any opinion just asking you for a court document to support your claim.

Wikipedia, the American Bar Journal, and I have given you Heller. In particular, Heller 1(f).

You are trolling now and reported.

How am I trolling?
You made a claim and have yet too support that claim
Wiki is not court documents, and opinion piece is not court documents, and nothing from heller supports your claim that heller over ruled Miller.
When you make a claim you should support with a valid source it goes against board rules when you don't.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The relevant language from Heller:

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the SecondAmendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

At pages 52-53 of the slip opinion on the following link

http://www.guncite.com/Heller.pdf

Yet jake will not grasp what that means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigderp, your opinion is worthless. All of the other material I have posted tops your opinion. Scalia disagrees with you.

Asking you What court of law is Wikipedia from? is not giving any opinion just asking you for a court document to support your claim.

Wikipedia, the American Bar Journal, and legal eagle in #115 ABOVE, and I have given you Heller. In particular, Heller 1(f).

You are trolling now and reported.

^^^ bump bigrep fails to understand that SCOTUS can ban dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Asking you What court of law is Wikipedia from? is not giving any opinion just asking you for a court document to support your claim.

Wikipedia, the American Bar Journal, and legal eagle in #115 ABOVE, and I have given you Heller. In particular, Heller 1(f).

You are trolling now and reported.

^^^ bump bigrep fails to understand that SCOTUS can ban dangerous and unusual weapons.

What is dangerous about a militia weapon that are protected by the second amendment per miller?