'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.

 

[PratchettFan]

In other words they can't?

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

No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.

No, that is not a fact. The fact is that they are doing it. What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.

 

[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.

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.

Actually, they swear to defend the Constitution, not the Country. They also swear to obey the orders of the President and the officers appointed over them.

As to the Court, I never said otherwise. What I said is that court has held the purpose of the amendment is to support a militia:

"The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved."

The Heller decision does not state that any given weapon is protected. What is protected is the right of the citizenry to keep and bear arms. The Heller decision clearly states that this right is not unlimited and that the state has the right to prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual". It does not define what is "dangerous and unusual". As in most situations of this nature, it leaves that up to the various states and the federal government.

All Heller says is that there cannot be a complete ban on all weapons. It does not say there cannot be a ban on any given type of weapon. There are indeed numerous such bans and none of them have been overturned by the courts. In order to argue that such bans cannot happen requires one to simply refuse to accept reality.

 

[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.

Or perhaps you are just wrong.

Once again, the Constitution defines treason. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.

 

[PratchettFan]

(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



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.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government. Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government. Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.

Two question's
Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?
The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

Once again, the Constitution defines treason. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.

Can the government commit a treasonous act?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.

No, that is not a fact. The fact is that they are doing it. What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.

Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?

 

[PratchettFan]

Or perhaps you are just wrong.

Once again, the Constitution defines treason. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.

Can the government commit a treasonous act?

How would the government levy war against the United States?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Once again, the Constitution defines treason. I'm sorry if you find that inconvenient.

Can the government commit a treasonous act?

How would the government levy war against the United States?

The government can levy war against the people

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government. Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.

Two question's
Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?
The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.

 

[PratchettFan]

No state can ban firearms that the supreme court had already said was protected by the second amendment. And that is a fact.

No, that is not a fact. The fact is that they are doing it. What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.

Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?

Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.

 

[PratchettFan]

Can the government commit a treasonous act?

How would the government levy war against the United States?

The government can levy war against the people

Uh huh. The definition of treason is leving war against the United States. How would the government do that?

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government. Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.

Two question's
Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?
The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Yes. I've seen a couple in my time. And there you sit, fat and happy, saying anything you please about people who have lots and lots of guns, comfortable in the knowledge that absolutely nothing is going to happen to you. Not even slightly worried about it. You are so incredibly spoiled that you think tyranny is just not getting your way all the time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government. Show me where it says that in the Constitution.

No. It isn't to be used in defense of a tyrannical government.

Two question's
Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?
The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now

Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, that is not a fact. The fact is that they are doing it. What you stated was an utterly unsupported opinion with no basis in reality.

Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?

Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.

But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?

 

[PratchettFan]

Two question's
Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?
The public service announcement is brought to you by Thomas Jefferson

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now

Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?

Do let me know when you can show me where it is in the Constitution. I'll just wait for it.

 

[PratchettFan]

Here's your favorite question show me in the Constitution where state law trumps the Constitution or supreme court ruling?

Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.

But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?

I guess I have to repeat myself. It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision - not just in your head.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nothing trumps the Constitution and the SC is the ultimate arbiter of that. However, it actually does have to be in the Constitution or in a SC decision - not just in your head.

But you're saying a state can ban any firearm it chooses to.
How can that be when it cannot create any laws that supersede the Constitution or Supreme Court ruling?

I guess I have to repeat myself. It has to be in the Constituion or in a SC decision - not just in your head.

Very well

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, you can't show me in the Constitution where it says that.

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office - U.S. Army Center of Military History
Oath

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
USCIS - Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America

From the Declaration of Independence. Not only do you have the right to overthrow your government, it is a responsibility placed on us by a founding fathers. If our government betrays us, acts other then in accordance to our wishes or we feel changes need to be made it is our obligation to do so.
Declaration of Independence - Text Transcript

Now

Where are you from?
Do you know what a Tyrannical government is?

Do let me know when you can show me where it is in the Constitution. I'll just wait for it.

Do you need direction to tell you what you can and cannot do?