'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[bigrebnc1775]

I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority. However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.

To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.

By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own. I believe I will stick with the supreme court. They agree with me. You can stick with "those who have knowledge on the subject."

I've given you two supreme court rulings and you scoffed at that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I seriously doubt your opinion is even considered by the majority. However, the purpose of a militia is spelled out in the Constitution and that is the only thing which matters.

To those who have knowledge on the subject would agree with him over you.

By "knowledge" you mean those whose opinions match your own. I believe I will stick with the supreme court. They agree with me. You can stick with "those who have knowledge on the subject."

What the Supreme Court HAS ruled. States may have Militias separate from the National Guard ( and some States in fact do). The 2nd Amendment confers to the States a right to form Militias and those militias do not count as troops during peace time. The Second Amendment specifically protects Military style weapons. The Second provides a right to the Individual to own , possess and carry a Military style firearm.

You were saying?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The fact that most owners of these or any other firearms are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.

Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?

To defend against the government if it created laws that would create a dictator.

 

[PratchettFan]

So... you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
Fair enough.

I shall then ask again:

According to whom?

According to the Supreme Court.

When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.

What you really mean to say here is that you cannot explain how the paragraph you cited supports your statement because you know that it doesn't.

Disagree? Provide your explanation.

Else, you're just copping out.

I've already provided the explanation. I have cited the Constitution and SC rulings. None of that is going to matter because it does not say what you want it to say. Believe as you wish. It matters not a whit because the SC has made its position abundantly clear. It is not going to overturn an issue which, at its heart, is a matter of state's rights.

 

[PratchettFan]

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are not appropriate?

Can't help you there. I guess you will just have to ask the states that do.

In other words they can't?

You do seem to have difficulty coming to grips with reality. Clearly they can because they are.

 

[OODA_Loop]

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?

I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.

 

[PratchettFan]

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?

I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.

Yes. That is what the SC said in Heller.

 

[PratchettFan]

Irrelevant -- the right, as protected by the 2nd, belongs to the individual, regardless of his association with any militia,

Please try again.

Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?

To defend against the government if it created laws that would create a dictator.

When the SC used the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they were just using that as an example. The case itself really dealt with a man who was handing out literature on the docks (of New Orleans as I recall) calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government. Which is pretty close to what you are doing.

I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. Edited.

 

[9thIDdoc]

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?

I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.

Yes. That is what the SC said in Heller.

No, the State does not have the authority to unreasonably infringe on an individual right and it will be up to the courts-not the State-to define "reasonable".
Attempting to ban whole classes of small arms is much the same as criminalizing the use of the word "fire" at any time or place and is unlikly to be considered reasonable.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "

There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.

 

[PratchettFan]

I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.

Yes. That is what the SC said in Heller.

No, the State does not have the authority to unreasonably infringe on an individual right and it will be up to the courts-not the State-to define "reasonable".
Attempting to ban whole classes of small arms is much the same as criminalizing the use of the word "fire" at any time or place and is unlikly to be considered reasonable.

That is what you say. That is not what the courts say. It is the courts which matter.

 

[PratchettFan]

"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "

There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.

Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason. Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with. The courts do not agree. Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "

There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.

Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason. Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with. The courts do not agree. Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.

Then why do the Military swear to defend the Country against foreign and domestic enemies? By the way the Court was clear the 2nd is a individual right, the 2nd protects military type weapons. You have been provided the links.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. "

There's nothing marvelous in acknowleging the posibility that members of the government can themselves commit treason or in trying to be prepared to handle the possibility. Simple prudence and part of the checks and balences that define our country.

Apparently, you are not familar with what constitutes treason. Perhaps you are one of those who consider treason as anything you disagree with. The courts do not agree. Simple prudence would be to insure that people do not change the defintion of treason for the purpose of banning opinion they do not like.

Or perhaps you are just wrong.

 

[FA_Q2]

Can't help you there.

So... you cannot explain how your citattion of Heller supports your claim that states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.
Fair enough.

I shall then ask again:

Originally Posted by PratchettFan
That is not what I said. I said you can't have a complete ban of weapons. The state cannot say that no one can own a weapon of any kind. However, states can ban those weapons it believes are not appropriate.

According to whom?

According to the Supreme Court. When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.

Edited If you believe the court agrees with your position then you should be able to explain why. If you can’t, then your point is entirely moot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to the Supreme Court.

When I said I can't help you, I meant I can't help you to understand a SC ruling.

What you really mean to say here is that you cannot explain how the paragraph you cited supports your statement because you know that it doesn't.

Disagree? Provide your explanation.

Else, you're just copping out.

I've already provided the explanation.

You have not.

I have cited the Constitution and SC rulings.

You have as yet to explain how these citations support your assertion; withough ttis explanation, your citations mean nothing. As such, you have not supported your assertion, which thus remains meaningless.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?

I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.

The Court has not ruled on any state/federal SW ban.
Given that AWs are the best example of what is protected by the 2nd (see OP), it is logically impossible for any such ban to pass muster.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So.... where in this does it say states can ban those weapons they believe are "not appropriate"?

I dont believe the State can totally ban access but can regulate what is suitable as such State bans on AW's has stood muster.

Yes. That is what the SC said in Heller.

This is false, at least as so far as you have been able to show.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes. That is what the SC said in Heller.

No, the State does not have the authority to unreasonably infringe on an individual right and it will be up to the courts-not the State-to define "reasonable".
Attempting to ban whole classes of small arms is much the same as criminalizing the use of the word "fire" at any time or place and is unlikly to be considered reasonable.

That is what you say. That is not what the courts say.

The court has also not said what YOU say it has said.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then why does the 2nd amendment specifically mention it? "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The founders didn't believe in standing armies. Each state had its own militia. Now we have a large standing Army, Reserves, and National Guard. The National Guard is the "well regulated militia" of today. Military troops are not allowed to carry their assigned weapons around town or even on military bases. What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

What business does Joe Blow, who is not in the Military, National Guard, or law enforcement have carrying or owning military grade weapons?

To defend against the government if it created laws that would create a dictator.

When the SC used the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theatre" they were just using that as an example. The case itself really dealt with a man who was handing out literature on the docks (of New Orleans as I recall) calling for the violent overthrow of the US Government. Which is pretty close to what you are doing.

I think it is a marvelous thing that someone can, on a public board, spout what almost any other nation on this planet would consider outright treason, and not have to worry about it. Edited.

Why do you anti gunner always talk about over throwing the government? The second amendment is to be used in defense of a tyrannical government not to over throw good government.