Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.

And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?

lol

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

 

[meaner gene]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

Do you really think they care about rule of law?

I always thought the NRA was going too far when they didn't place any limits on the weapons they thought should be in civilian hands.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.

And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?

What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

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.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't

You left out the last part.... care to address?

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.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power

Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi

Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your side

I answered your questions. If you have another one, ask it. You're square back into bickering now

I did ask a question and your responded with this....

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Yes, you said that to have an opinion on the Constitution is to say we must blindly believe the SCOTUS. That was flaming hypocrisy and stupid as hell. We can't have our own views, we have to blindly believe what the government tells us.

That's just stupid.

Your question?

You're at liberty to have any view you want, provided you understand it's not constitutionally valid.

 

[meaner gene]

You're at liberty to have any view you want, provided you understand it's not constitutionally valid.

Actually that's a false position. There are many examples of people having differences of opinion to constitutionally. Like when the USSC said "Plessy v Ferguson" and Thurgood Marshall said "Brown v Board of Ed"

I'm wondering if you would have said that to Marshall?

 

[kaz]

Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.

And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?

lol

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Yes, of course. Clearly the Bill of Rights is to protect government from the people. You're totally right about that. Sure it is

 

[kaz]

Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.

And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?

What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

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.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't

You left out the last part.... care to address?

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.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power

Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi

Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your side

I answered your questions. If you have another one, ask it. You're square back into bickering now

I did ask a question and your responded with this....

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Yes, you said that to have an opinion on the Constitution is to say we must blindly believe the SCOTUS. That was flaming hypocrisy and stupid as hell. We can't have our own views, we have to blindly believe what the government tells us.

That's just stupid.

Your question?

You're at liberty to have any view you want, provided you understand it's not constitutionally valid.

Tell us again how the Bill of Rights is to protect government, fascist

 

[Slade3200]

Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.

And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?

lol

At least you're consistent at being wrong.

Yes, of course. Clearly the Bill of Rights is to protect government from the people. You're totally right about that. Sure it is

there you go again lying and saying other people are saying things that they didn't say. Your regurgitation of reality is distorted and not worthy of respect

 

[9thIDdoc]

They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.

Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.

By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.

The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".

Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.

A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.

Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Heller did not define the militia. If you think I am wrong, please provide exact paragraph where they did.

History has defined militias long since. "Militia" simply means armed group of civilians that have usually come together for a common goal. There have been all different sorts of militias including town county city territory State and Federal as well as militias gathered by individuals, groups/organizations and religious entities.

 

[9thIDdoc]

They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.

Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.

By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

The 1st Article of the U.S. Constitution

SECTION. 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

constitutioncenter.org

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.

The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".

Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.

A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.

Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.

Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.

Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.

The National Guard is NOT a militia because it is a part of the regular military recruited trained equipped and paid by the Federal government.

 

[BlindBoo]

The National Guard is NOT a militia because it is a part of the regular military recruited trained equipped and paid by the Federal government.

aka States National Guard, For example:

The Texas Militia are the militia forces of the State of Texas. It currently consists of the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Texas Militia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[basquebromance]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many in this very thread are making the case that any regulations are unconstitutional.

And those trying to make such a case are in fact wrong.

Because of course you realize that "not infringed" means that it's up to government

Clayton: You see, kaz, the bill of rights is actually a list of powers so sacred to government that the people can never infringe on them.

Ever read a history book? Not so much, huh?

What are your thoughts about Scalias dissent when he said...

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.

The term "absolute right" is moronic and I've always said that because the way the left always use it is to trample over rights, which isn't what it means. Saying you can shoot someone because gun rights are "absolute" is just stupid. It violates the rights of others.

For his specific examples:

Concealed weapons: You don't have a right to take concealed weapons onto someone else's property without their permission. However, the government has no legitimate power to blanket ban concealed weapons

Felons and the mentally ill: The fifth amendment clearly states you can limit Constitutional rights with and only with due process.

Felons by definition had their rights limited with due process. The mentally ill don't always get due process, and it is flagrantly Unconstitutionally when they don't

You left out the last part.... care to address?

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.

Schools: Government schools, part of government buildings, next section. Private schools, no, government don't have a legitimate power to regulate guns. The private schools do.

Government buildings: yes, government has the right to ban guns. They don't have the power on all public land, but just where government conducts government business. Courts, prisons, schools, ... I disagree with banning guns in government schools, it turns them into shooting galleries. That's why shooters go there. But they have the legitimate power. It's totally moronic to say government can't set the rules in government buildings.

"laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." -This is not a separate government power unless there is another Constitutional power

Apparently you know the constitution better than Justice Scalia, were you formally trained or self taught?

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Hypocrisy has just reached fatal levels, run, do not walk to the nearest exit and scream like a banchi

Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your side

I answered your questions. If you have another one, ask it. You're square back into bickering now

I did ask a question and your responded with this....

Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert. Danger, danger, hypocrisy alert.

Yes, you said that to have an opinion on the Constitution is to say we must blindly believe the SCOTUS. That was flaming hypocrisy and stupid as hell. We can't have our own views, we have to blindly believe what the government tells us.

That's just stupid.

Your question?

You're at liberty to have any view you want, provided you understand it's not constitutionally valid.

Tell us again how the Bill of Rights is to protect government, fascist

It’s the doctrine of a presumption of constitutionality:

“It is but a decent respect to the wisdom, integrity, and patriotism of the legislative body, by which any law is passed to presume in favor of its validity, until its violation of the Constitution is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Ogden v. Saunders (1827)

Acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise, out of deference for the will of the people – as the people have the ultimate authority.

The doctrine was reaffirmed by the Court in US v. Morrison (2000):

“Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds.”

That’s why firearm regulatory measures not subject to judicial review are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Back to the subject captain random. Want to explain more about how Scalia was wrong about what the constitution says about the second amendment?? And what you have to back up your perspective?? Because history and law is certainly not on your side

Scalia did a wonderful legal dance over the definition of "the people" meaning different things, in different parts of the constitution. And how rights given to "the people" can be either individual or collective.
Scalia also put and end to the notion of the militia being at the root of that right, hence also ending the right to the people to possess military grade arms, and instead gave them the right to arms commonly in use.

exactly so. The militia clause is irrelevant to citizens having a right to own and use firearms, and citizens have a right to self defense and other legal recreational uses of firearms.

The OP is sort of an oxymoron. And as Scalia was careful to dance around, if our right to arms was based on the militia clause, we'd not have much of a right since state militas largely are things of the past.

Correct.

The individual right to possess a firearm is predicated on the right to self-defense, unconnected with militia service.

Indeed, Scalia could only codify the Second Amendment as an individual right – not a collective right – by abandoning the notion of ‘militia service’ altogether.

 

[meaner gene]

Indeed, Scalia could only codify the Second Amendment as an individual right – not a collective right – by abandoning the notion of ‘militia service’ altogether.

And in so doing, Scalia upheld laws regulating the types of weapons the federal government deemed appropriate for civilian use for those purposes.

In short, you don't need a machine gun for hunting or self defense. Yet you would need one, if you were a member of the state militia.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Indeed, Scalia could only codify the Second Amendment as an individual right – not a collective right – by abandoning the notion of ‘militia service’ altogether.

And in so doing, Scalia upheld laws regulating the types of weapons the federal government deemed appropriate for civilian use for those purposes.

In short, you don't need a machine gun for hunting or self defense. Yet you would need one, if you were a member of the state militia.

The collective right argument held that certain firearms should be the sole purview of the military, such as a state’s national guard – firearms such as the AR 15; banning AR 15s and like rifles and carbines would be Constitutional under the collective right interpretation.

The constitutionality of possessing an AR 15 wasn’t at issue in Heller, of course, but Scalia was clearly looking ahead to likely challenges to states’ AWBs, where such bans could be invalidated only in the context of an individual right to possess a firearm.

 

[meaner gene]

The collective right argument held that certain firearms should be the sole purview of the military, such as a state’s national guard – firearms such as the AR 15; banning AR 15s and like rifles and carbines would be Constitutional under the collective right interpretation.

Just the opposite. Going back to the minutemen. The very idea was for the militia to be familiar with the weapons used in war. In fact the minutemen were required to be so equipped with them.

So as a collective right, you could not prohibit those in the militia ie. able bodied men (and by extension women too) from owning them.

 

[2aguy]

Indeed, Scalia could only codify the Second Amendment as an individual right – not a collective right – by abandoning the notion of ‘militia service’ altogether.

And in so doing, Scalia upheld laws regulating the types of weapons the federal government deemed appropriate for civilian use for those purposes.

In short, you don't need a machine gun for hunting or self defense. Yet you would need one, if you were a member of the state militia.

No...he didn't.....you guys keep saying that but you are pulling that out of your ass.....in Friedman v Highland Park, Scalia states the AR-15, by name, and other weapons like it are protected by the 2nd Amendment......

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[meaner gene]

No...he didn't.....you guys keep saying that but you are pulling that out of your ass.....in Friedman v Highland Park, Scalia states the AR-15, by name, and other weapons like it are protected by the 2nd Amendment......

You don't know what you are talking about.

1) You're citing a dissenting opinion.
2) The dissenting opinion wasn't from Scalia
3) You know these are absolutely meaningless, and the conviction, along with the opinion of the per curium of the circuit court were final.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15–133.
Decided December 7, 2015
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

THOMAS, J., dissenting

 

[2aguy]

No...he didn't.....you guys keep saying that but you are pulling that out of your ass.....in Friedman v Highland Park, Scalia states the AR-15, by name, and other weapons like it are protected by the 2nd Amendment......

You don't know what you are talking about.

1) You're citing a dissenting opinion.
2) The dissenting opinion wasn't from Scalia
3) You know these are absolutely meaningless, and the conviction, along with the opinion of the per curium of the circuit court were final.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 15–133.
Decided December 7, 2015
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.
JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

THOMAS, J., dissenting

Again...Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller....then went on to state why the court should hear Friedman, and while he did that, he expanded his points on Heller........that means more than just a dissent in that case......So Thomas joined in the dissenting opinion......again...he wrote the majority opinion in Heller......

 

[meaner gene]

1) You're citing a dissenting opinion.
2) The dissenting opinion wasn't from Scalia

THOMAS, J., dissenting

Again...Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller....then went on to state why the court should hear Friedman, and while he did that, he expanded his points on Heller........that means more than just a dissent in that case......So Thomas joined in the dissenting opinion......again...he wrote the majority opinion in Heller......

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Scalia did not write anything in the Thomas dissent.

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins, dissenting from the denial of certiorari.

This is like a congressman writing a bill, and another congressman becomes a co-sponsor. Not a co-writer.