Armed citizen saves life of Police officer

[legaleagle_45]

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

The language is conjunctive, not disjunctive. A weapon must both be dangerous and unusal. Being on or the other is insufficient.

If it makes you feel better, I believe both Miller and Heller got it wrong, although Heller comes closest to the postion I would advocate. The "common use" and "unusal" portions of the test advocated by Scalia, create a catch 22 for the development of new arms and also prevents a careful analysis of weapons that have long been strictly controlled by the NFA of 1934. Full auto weapons are not in "common use" now, but that is because of a law that restricted them back in 1934... creating a catch 22.

The postion I would advocate is what I term a "duality test". But to understand where I come up with that, you must understand a case cited by Miller, to wit: Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840). Specifically, Miller relied upon Aymette to assert protection for "militarily useful weapons". But that is not what Aymette held. Instead, Aymette found that weapons which are useful only for the rogue or the assassin could be banned.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

The language is conjunctive, not disjunctive. A weapon must both be dangerous and unusal. Being on or the other is insufficient.

If it makes you feel better, I believe both Miller and Heller got it wrong, although Heller comes closest to the postion I would advocate. The "common use" and "unusal" portions of the test advocated by Scalia, create a catch 22 for the development of new arms and also prevents a careful analysis of weapons that have long been strictly controlled by the NFA of 1934. Full auto weapons are not in "common use" now, but that is because of a law that restricted them back in 1934... creating a catch 22.

The postion I would advocate is what I term a "duality test". But to understand where I come up with that, you must understand a case cited by Miller, to wit: Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840). Specifically, Miller relied upon Aymette to assert protection for "militarily useful weapons". But that is not what Aymette held. Instead, Aymette found that weapons which are useful only for the rogue or the assassin could be banned.

That's to much information for jake to comprehend. He won't get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

End the thread. bigderp fails again.

SCOTUS, despite Miller, can regulate dangerous and unusual weapons unassociated with the militia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

The language is conjunctive, not disjunctive. A weapon must both be dangerous and unusal. Being on or the other is insufficient.

If it makes you feel better, I believe both Miller and Heller got it wrong, although Heller comes closest to the postion I would advocate. The "common use" and "unusal" portions of the test advocated by Scalia, create a catch 22 for the development of new arms and also prevents a careful analysis of weapons that have long been strictly controlled by the NFA of 1934. Full auto weapons are not in "common use" now, but that is because of a law that restricted them back in 1934... creating a catch 22.

The postion I would advocate is what I term a "duality test". But to understand where I come up with that, you must understand a case cited by Miller, to wit: Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, 156 (1840). Specifically, Miller relied upon Aymette to assert protection for "militarily useful weapons". But that is not what Aymette held. Instead, Aymette found that weapons which are useful only for the rogue or the assassin could be banned.

Thanks for the assessment. Neither bigreb nor I are even mediocre on case law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

End the thread. bigderp fails again.

SCOTUS, despite Miller, can regulate dangerous and unusual weapons unassociated with the militia.

If something is in common use that would not make it unusual

 

[JakeStarkey]

End the thread. bigderp fails again.

SCOTUS, despite Miller, can regulate dangerous and unusual weapons unassociated with the militia.

If something is in common use that would not make it unusual

Only your opinion. Show that SCOTUS decision can't remove the 'common use' concept.

You can't.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This will help bigreb understand his problem better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0

 

[bigrebnc1775]

End the thread. bigderp fails again.

SCOTUS, despite Miller, can regulate dangerous and unusual weapons unassociated with the militia.

If something is in common use that would not make it unusual

Only your opinion. Show that SCOTUS decision can't remove the 'common use' concept.

You can't.

Not my opinion but Millers ruling. So when are you going to stop giving opinions and some court documents from Heller?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Answered and Answered. Heller controls Miller. SCOTUS has the power to regulate and restrict.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Read this again. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0

I cracked up when you trolled your own thread.

That you actually get paid to post this crap is mind boggling.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This will help bigreb understand his problem better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0

New York Times is not a court document.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It explains to simple minds like yours.

 

[JakeStarkey]

When bigreb trolls his own threads, he knows he has blown it, but, hey, he gets paid for posting in bulk not quality. Understandable.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Answered and Answered. Heller controls Miller. SCOTUS has the power to regulate and restrict.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Read this again. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gun-plans-dont-conflict-with-justices-08-ruling.html?_r=0

I cracked up when you trolled your own thread.

That you actually get paid to post this crap is mind boggling.

In the fine print from your new york times non court record

A version of this article appeared in print on December 19, 2012, on page A32 of the New York edition with the headline: Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls, Experts Say.

You're using a source that says something about what the experts say? Who are those experts?
I'm an expert marksman.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When bigreb trolls his own threads, he knows he has blown it, but, hey, he gets paid for posting in bulk not quality. Understandable.

Jake doesn't understand two things what trolling is, and newspapers are not court documents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb continues to troll. Reported.

Edited, since bigrebnc does not know how to open links.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Supreme Court of the United States

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

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Jun 26, 2008 – HELLER. Opinion of the Court. Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police ..... 2008), online at What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson :: SSRN ...

by BA Neil - 2009 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
The Heller Decision and Its Possible Implications for Right-to-Carry Laws Nationally ... The decision by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. ... article is cited · Alert me if a correction is posted · Similar articles in this journal · Download to citation manager ... Print ISSN: 1043-9862; Online ISSN: 1552-5406.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb continues to troll. Reported.


District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller


Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United ... The decision did not address the question of whether the Second ...... Opening Shots, Jennifer Rubin, National Review Online, March 29, 2007 ...

Scarborough: Why is Ted Cruz ignoring the Heller decision in his ... hotair.com/.../scarborough-why-is-ted-cruz-ignoring-the-heller-decisi...

Scarborough: Why is Ted Cruz ignoring the Heller decision in his Second Amendment arguments? posted at 2:41 pm on March 15, 2013 by Allahpundit ...

Heller Decision Continues to Ripple across - National Review Online www.nationalreview.com/.../ihelleri-decision-continues-ripple-across-...
Heller Decision Continues to Ripple across the Fruited Plain. By Michael James Barton · December 11, 2012 2:59 P.M. ...

Don't forget about the Heller decision - The Herald Palladium ... www.heraldpalladium.com/opinion/...the-heller-decision/article_f545...

Don't forget about the Heller decision. Second Amendment is tangential to ... Posted: Sunday, February 3, 2013 5:00 am. Don't forget about the Heller decision ...

Post-Newtown gun legislation will hinge on 'Heller' Law.com | Legal News, Technology, In-House Counsel, & Small Firms Legal Resources › NLJ Home › News


by BA Neil - 2009 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
The Heller Decision and Its Possible Implications for Right-to-Carry Laws Nationally ... The decision by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. ... article is cited · Alert me if a correction is posted · Similar articles in this journal · Download to citation manager ... Print ISSN: 1043-9862; Online ISSN: 1552-5406.

Galis: Second Amendment now defined by Heller case | Online Athens

onlineathens.com/opinion/.../galis-second-amendment-now-defined-...

MSNBC Calls Ted Cruz Ignorant of Heller Decision - Political Pistachio
AR15.Com - Your Firearm Resource. (AR-15, AR-10, M4 Carbine, M16, H&K, SIG, FNH, FAL, AK-47, 50 Cal, M1/M1A, Handgun, Pistol, Training, Hunting, and More!) › General › General Discussion

District of Columbia v. Heller - Supreme Court of the United States

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

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
Jun 26, 2008 – HELLER. Opinion of the Court. Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police ..... 2008), online at What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton Cramer, Joseph Olson :: SSRN ...

ccj.sagepub.com/content/25/1/113.short

by BA Neil - 2009 - Cited by 1 - Related articles
The Heller Decision and Its Possible Implications for Right-to-Carry Laws Nationally ... The decision by the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. ... article is cited · Alert me if a correction is posted · Similar articles in this journal · Download to citation manager ... Print ISSN: 1043-9862; Online ISSN: 1552-5406.

most of your links were either 404 error or article not found
AR-15 is a discussion board
and heller vs. U.S. is the court document but none of that supports your claim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of the links open, including the Heller decision.

Another OP fail by bigrebnc.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

All of the links open, including the Heller decision.

Another OP fail by bigrebnc.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Jake... the primary problem is that you are relying upon other people's interpretations of Heller and not Heller itself. I find some of the observations quite absurd espescially those criticizing Cruz and asserting that he does not understand Heller. I assure you, Cruz knows Heller quite well, having authored an amicus brief on behalf of 31 states which was submitted in support of the respondent Heller in the Heller case. Said brief in fact was cited by Scalia in his opinion.

I do have some respect for Adam Winkler as he is a Con Law Prof at UCLA Law School. He buts heads with another Con Law Prof at UCLA Law School, Eugene Volokh, who is in basic agreement with Cruz.

Winkler also filed an amicus brief in Heller... in support of the District of Columbia. In the intersts of full disclosure, Volokh also filed an amicus brief in Heller... in support of Heller.

Winkler's Brief was not cited by either the majority or the dissent although a law review article written by Winkler was cited once by Breyer's dissent. Volokh brief was cited by Scalia and law review articles penned by Volokh was cited 3 times by Scalia's opinion. ...

So what can we learn from this?

VOLOKH IS 3 TIMES BETTER THAN WINKLER!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

legaleagle_45, in your opinion, does Heller recognize the authority of SCOTUS to regulate gun ownership and to restrict or ban certain types of weapons deemed "unusual and dangerous"?