'Assault weapon' bans: Constitutional?

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

He's right you have not countered any argument against your claim.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

If challenged any laws would be striped away.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

He's right you have not countered any argument against your claim.

Or offered meaningful, explicit support for his own claims.

 

[Staidhup]

Legislating restraints on the possession of weapons or guns is pathetic, the key is a set of harsh laws that punish those using these weapons in the commission of a crime. The next thing you will hear is these pantie waste liberal pukes will be pushing for legislating the sale of knives in the hope of reducing stabbings? Can you legislate and prohibit a nut case or criminal from obtaining a weapon, yes, however a law and regulations has never been proven to deter a criminal or nut case from securing a weapon. So who do you really want to punish, a responsible citizen, or a criminal / nut case. New York City has the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and I don't see the criminal element being deterred one bit. I for one think it's time to see these criminals fried, injected, or hung, and feel this will force criminals to pause a little before they pull out a gun and commit a crime.

 

[westwall]

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.

And what type of weapon would be used in a militia?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Onlt because I didnt see this earlier... not like I have any thought that it will garner an honest response...

How do "assault weapons" not fit this description, as argued in the OP?

So a sawed off shotgun was not protected.

Why, excactly, was that the case?

Lewis dealt with an individual with a criminal background. Again, because such a person would not be in a militia, not protected.

False. This is a right-removed-by-due-process case and has nothing to do with the 2nd or the militia. Nothng inherently prohibits a felon from being in the militia.

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.

False. Nothing in any of those cases supports this point.
One question tho: If you're right, why did the court grant Miller standing to invoke the 2nd in his defense?

Standing: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/standing

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.

False. Heller says nothing of the sort

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.

False. Nothing in Heller says this.

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.

Again, false. Nothing in Heller says this.

Given this and just about all your other posts, one of two things is clearly the case here:
-You have no idea what you're talking about
-You're lying.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

And there is that statement again: dangerous and unusual. I have not seen anyone here claim that states cannot regulate dangerous and unusual weapons. What the OP is talking about is assault weapon bans. Tell me, do you consider these bans constitutional because they fit that description? I cannot see for the life of me how an ‘assault’ weapon (never really clearly defined) fits into the category of unusual. In fact, they are some of the most common types of weapons around. The bans fail the test given because they are not target at ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons. Typically, they are targeted at weapons that look scary TBH but that is beside the point. If I am off base here then please tell me why you believe the rulings support the bans and how those weapons fit into them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

And there is that statement again: dangerous and unusual. I have not seen anyone here claim that states cannot regulate dangerous and unusual weapons. What the OP is talking about is assault weapon bans. Tell me, do you consider these bans constitutional because they fit that description? I cannot see for the life of me how an ‘assault’ weapon (never really clearly defined) fits into the category of unusual. In fact, they are some of the most common types of weapons around. The bans fail the test given because they are not target at ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons. Typically, they are targeted at weapons that look scary TBH but that is beside the point. If I am off base here then please tell me why you believe the rulings support the bans and how those weapons fit into them.

The argument in the the OP -precludes- 'assault weapons' from being 'damgerous and unusual' weapons because of the SC rulings to that effect.

This is the elephant in the room that a certain someone keeps trying to dance around.