'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Its quite simple, really:

-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.

So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?

So when the SC said the only firearms that were protected by the second amendment were those suitable for military use we're they wrong?

 

[PratchettFan]

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?

Its quite simple, really:

-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.

I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.

I have no problem comprehending it. What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true. It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise. We are back to it being only in your head.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Its quite simple, really:

-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.

I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.

I have no problem comprehending it. What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true. It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise. We are back to it being only in your head.

No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

Its quite simple, really:

-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.

So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?

The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.

 

[PratchettFan]

The SC states that the 2nd amendment has limits.
The SC also states that there are limits to a State's authority to restrict weapons and that those limits will be defined in the courts (not the State).

I agree with the first sentence. You are pretty much in error on the second. While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government. The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify. Do you think that was an accident?

"You are pretty much in error on the second."
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
"extremely broad" is your opinion.

"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.

I think I did express it. You are correct that the courts can define it. You are incorrect that the state's can't. The states can and the states do. Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality. You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.

The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws. That is their authority under the Constitution. Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority. The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.

 

[westwall]

You can give me a hundred decisions. It doesn't matter unless they are pertinent to your claim. Neither of those decisions said the state could not prohibit a particular type of weapon. Both of those decisions were about why someone could not use the 2nd amendment. They both restricted the application to citizens, not the states.

Show me a decision which says the states cannot prohibit a particular type of weapon.

My claim is, states cannot ban any type of firearm that it chooses too. Firearms that are protected by U.S. Constitution should be a militia-type arm
Lewis vs US and Miller vs US support me. You were saying?

I was saying your were wrong. Nothing in either of those decisions say that.

Then you are being intellectually dishonest.

 

[PratchettFan]

Its quite simple, really:

-States cannot ban fireams protected by the Constitution w/o violating the Constitution.
-The court has created a test to see if a firearm is of the kind protected by the Constitutiom.
-All classes of firearms pass this test.
-Thus, the states cannot ban any class of firearm w/o violating the Constitution.

So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?

The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.

Ok. Once again:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[westwall]

I agree with the first sentence. You are pretty much in error on the second. While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government. The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify. Do you think that was an accident?

"You are pretty much in error on the second."
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
"extremely broad" is your opinion.

"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.

I think I did express it. You are correct that the courts can define it. You are incorrect that the state's can't. The states can and the states do. Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality. You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.

The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws. That is their authority under the Constitution. Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority. The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.

So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't understand why he's failing to comprehend that.

I have no problem comprehending it. What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true. It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise. We are back to it being only in your head.

No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes you did. He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.

The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.

 

[westwall]

So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?

The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.

Ok. Once again:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Yes, and how about that little part about the militia that you have excised. How about that little part. Hmmmm?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So, when the SC said they can prohibit firearms they were wrong?

The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.

Ok. Once again:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Please explain how this supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I agree with the first sentence. You are pretty much in error on the second. While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government. The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify. Do you think that was an accident?

"You are pretty much in error on the second."
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
"extremely broad" is your opinion.

"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.

I think I did express it. You are correct that the courts can define it. You are incorrect that the state's can't. The states can and the states do. Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality. You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.

The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws. That is their authority under the Constitution. Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority. The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.

Here's the problem you cannot not get around. No state in the 50 U.S. sates can create a law that will violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice the only firearms protected by the Second Amendment are those suitable for military use.

 

[PratchettFan]

"You are pretty much in error on the second."
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
"extremely broad" is your opinion.

"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.

I think I did express it. You are correct that the courts can define it. You are incorrect that the state's can't. The states can and the states do. Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality. You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.

The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws. That is their authority under the Constitution. Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority. The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.

So you tell us, what EXACTLY do the two referenced SC rulings mean to you.

Both cases were limitations of the 2nd amendment. Miller indicated that the only class of weapon which could be protected under the 2nd amendment would be one of a militia-type. So a sawed off shotgun was not protected. Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background. Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected. Both decisions were predicated upon the position of the SC that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to allow citizens to own any weapon they wished but rather for the state to maintain a well regulated militia. Neither of those decisions in any way restricted the authority of the state or federal governments in regulating those weapons. Both of those decisions were, in fact, affirmations of that authority.

In Heller, the SC actually did something of a reversal from previous rulings by indicating that while the purpose of the 2nd amendment was the militia, the state could not restrict the ownership of weapons to only the militia. However, the court was very careful in Heller to state that this did not mean the government did not have the right to prohibit that ownership in terms of weapons deemed dangerous and unusual. It was mute on what that meant and thus left that to the states to determine.

The only decision which in any way restricted the authority of the state to regulate was Heller, and in that case only to the extent that there could not be a complete ban of all weapons. Any interpretation beyond that requires reading language in those decisions which simply is not there.

 

[PratchettFan]

"You are pretty much in error on the second."
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
"extremely broad" is your opinion.

"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.

I think I did express it. You are correct that the courts can define it. You are incorrect that the state's can't. The states can and the states do. Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality. You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.

The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws. That is their authority under the Constitution. Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority. The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.

Here's the problem you cannot not get around. No state in the 50 U.S. sates can create a law that will violate the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled twice the only firearms protected by the Second Amendment are those suitable for military use.

I don't need to get around anything. I don't think there is a state in the union which is not doing precisely that to some extent and the SC has yet to say they can't.

 

[PratchettFan]

The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.

Ok. Once again:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Please explain how this supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.

The SC does not have to say they can. All it has to do is say nothing at all.

 

[PratchettFan]

The SC said no such thing, and you cannot provide a citation to that effect.

Ok. Once again:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Yes, and how about that little part about the militia that you have excised. How about that little part. Hmmmm?

Which part is that?

 

[PratchettFan]

I have no problem comprehending it. What I don't understand is why you are having trouble comprehending that what he said is not true. It is so obviously untrue that you must exist in a state of utter credulity to think otherwise. We are back to it being only in your head.

No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes you did. He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.

The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.

I have done nothing? I see. Well.... you all enjoy your circle jerk.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Ok. Once again:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

Please explain how this supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.

The SC does not have to say they can.

You made the positive assertion that the SC said states could ban assault weapons.

Show this to be true.

When you cite Heller in response, be sure to explain how that citation supports your assertion that the SC said states can prohibit 'assault weapons'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No we are back to it's only in your head. I gave you 2 supreme court rulings that ruled the only weapons the second amendment protects are those suitable for military use. A state cannot create laws that will violate the constitution or go beyond the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Yes you did. He has done nothing to counter your citattions or their support for your statement.

The premise of the OP stands, that 'assault weapons' are the best example of the sort of 'arms' protected by the constitution, and as such any ban in them is necessarily constitutional.

I have done nothing? I see. Well.... you all enjoy your circle jerk.

Run along now. Be sure to tuck that tail nice and tight.

 

[9thIDdoc]

I agree with the first sentence. You are pretty much in error on the second. While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government. The SC has stated that the states and the feds can prohibit weapons which are "dangerous and unusual" which is an extremely broad definition which the Court did not choose to further specify. Do you think that was an accident?

"You are pretty much in error on the second."
Either I'm in error or I'm not and you list restrictions. The idea that those restrictions are
"extremely broad" is your opinion.

"While the courts could establish such a limit, they haven't. So long as they haven't, that definition is in the hands of the states and the federal government."
The courts have the obligation define the Constitutionality of State and Fed. laws. The fact that an issue has not been addressed does not indicate that a given law is Constitutional.
Ca.'s gun laws could be ruled unconstitutional tomorrow and so might any other law they pass.

I think I did express it. You are correct that the courts can define it. You are incorrect that the state's can't. The states can and the states do. Until such time as the courts say they can't, claiming they cannot is denying reality. You are free to do that if you wish, but that changes absolutely nothing.

The legislatures of the federal and state governments have the obligation to formulate laws. That is their authority under the Constitution. Unless and until the courts rule that a given law is unconstitutional, it is still under their authority. The courts have held that restricting weapons is within that authority.

Government is required to pass laws that are Constitutional. Passing a law that is unconstitutional exceeds it's authority, is a violation of the public trust, and is probably a violation of civil rights (as it is with firearms). Illegal action certainly doesn't define anything.