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

[2aguy]

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.

Then they still clarified Heller, didn't they......they were both in the majority on Heller, so what they say about Heller in other opinions has weight and meaning......

 

[dudmuck]

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 ******* 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.

All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.

 

[meaner gene]

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

THOMAS, J., dissenting

Then they still clarified Heller, didn't they......they were both in the majority on Heller, so what they say about Heller in other opinions has weight and meaning......

Again, Thomas wrote the dissent, NOT Scalia.

Any claim of Scalias position in the case, other than stated in Heller is not supported by what Thomas said.

.....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.

Again, Scalia was silent on Friedman v Highland Park. He did not write the Thomas dissent.

So any claim of what Scalia wrote in Friedman was said out of complete ignorance of the case.

 

[Lesh]

Any claim that we have a need for a militia is blatantly bullshit

The 2A was written at a time when we did not want a standing Army. We currently HAVE the most expensive standing Army on the planet.

And oh yea..the militia was created to prevent the kinds of insurrections you idiots claim we need it for.

So yea...the 2A and Federal protection of "gun rights' is just stupid

 

[2aguy]

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

THOMAS, J., dissenting

Then they still clarified Heller, didn't they......they were both in the majority on Heller, so what they say about Heller in other opinions has weight and meaning......

Again, Thomas wrote the dissent, NOT Scalia.

Any claim of Scalias position in the case, other than stated in Heller is not supported by what Thomas said.

.....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.

Again, Scalia was silent on Friedman v Highland Park. He did not write the Thomas dissent.

So any claim of what Scalia wrote in Friedman was said out of complete ignorance of the case.

Scalia joined the dissent.......and Thomas was on the Majority in Heller....so again...what they say matters...... and they stated that the AR-15, by name, and other weapons are covered under the 2nd Amendment......

 

[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 ******* 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.

All members of the National Guard of the United States are also members of the Organized Militia of the United States as defined by 10 U.S.C. § 246. National Guard units are under the dual control of the state governments and the federal government.

Somebody chooses to call governmental military "organized militia". That is certainly not what the term "militia" historically refers to.

 

[meaner gene]

Scalia joined the dissent.......and Thomas was on the Majority in Heller....so again...what they say matters...... and they stated that the AR-15, by name, and other weapons are covered under the 2nd Amendment......

They didn't state anything. Thomas wrote the dissent, NOT Scalia.

The Supreme Court Database

The Supreme Court Database is the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Database contains over two hundred pieces of information about each case decided by the Court between the 1946 and 2012 terms. Examples include the...

scdb.wustl.edu

.

3. When a justice joins the substance of another justice's opinion, without any personal expression of views, that justice is listed as joining the other's opinion (see variables firstAgreement and secondAgreement) and not as an author unless he or she also writes an opinion.

4. When two or more justices jointly author an opinion, an entry will so indicate

Once again, Scalia did not write the Thomas dissent.

 

[Rigby5]

Any claim that we have a need for a militia is blatantly bullshit

The 2A was written at a time when we did not want a standing Army. We currently HAVE the most expensive standing Army on the planet.

And oh yea..the militia was created to prevent the kinds of insurrections you idiots claim we need it for.

So yea...the 2A and Federal protection of "gun rights' is just stupid

Wrong.
The Founders correctly understood that a standing military is the greatest threat any democratic republic faces.
A standing military is mercenary, and does what those who pay them tell them to, not what the people or tax payers want.
We should not have or want one.
It was a mistake to ever let one take over as it has, with things like its Iraqi WMD lies.
So no, the protection of gun rights from corrupt government is likely the single most important battle ever.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Actually not.

Not everyone was qualified to serve in the militia; absent service in a militia one could be prohibited from possessing a ‘weapon of war,’ such as an AR 15.

We see this illustrated in Justice Stevens’ dissent:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

The collective right argument, therefore, perceives the Second Amendment as preserving the states’ authority to maintain a militia, where the states are otherwise at liberty “to regulate private civilian uses of firearms” with impunity, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of firearms altogether – such as banning AR 15s.

Again, in order for Scalia to justify the Second Amendment right as an individual right, he had to eliminate the notion of militia service altogether; with militia service no longer in play, the collective right argument is rejected in favor of the individual right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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......

Wrong.

You are ridiculous trying to twist this into something it isn’t.

As already correctly noted: a dissenting justice’s opinion is devoid of authority as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of AWBs or magazine capacity restrictions.

Absent such a ruling, state bans on AR 15s and high-capacity magazines are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment.

This is a fact of law – settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Should the Court in the future hear a case concerning a state’s AWB, and invalidate that ban as un-Constitutional, it will be at that point only that an AWB violates the Second Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Actually not.

Not everyone was qualified to serve in the militia; absent service in a militia one could be prohibited from possessing a ‘weapon of war,’ such as an AR 15.

We see this illustrated in Justice Stevens’ dissent:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

The collective right argument, therefore, perceives the Second Amendment as preserving the states’ authority to maintain a militia, where the states are otherwise at liberty “to regulate private civilian uses of firearms” with impunity, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of firearms altogether – such as banning AR 15s.

Again, in order for Scalia to justify the Second Amendment right as an individual right, he had to eliminate the notion of militia service altogether; with militia service no longer in play, the collective right argument is rejected in favor of the individual right.

Collective rights can not possibly exist without individual rights existing first.
The authority of the government to have a militia, organized or not, comes from the right of defense of individuals.
Collective rights can't create a right that does not already exist before people create the collective mechanism.

If something is not an individual right but could be under state authority, so you want a federal prohibition so that it stays under state authority, that would better called a collective restriction against federal infringement, not a collective right. State jurisdiction is not a right, it is delegated authority that comes from individuals, and only individuals can EVER have any rights what so ever.

The fact we do then want states to restrict inherent individual rights to some degree is to be expected, with all rights.
No right can ever be unbounded because all rights need restrictions so that they do not collide and infringe upon the rights of other individuals. But it is NEVER a question of states rights, as states to not and never can have rights, since they are artificially constructed, and rights have to emanate from something permanent. To consider states to have rights would imply they existed before the state was even created, and that is not possible.

 

[danielpalos]

The authority of the government to have a militia, organized or not, comes from the right of defense of individuals.

The Common Defense.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Actually not.

Not everyone was qualified to serve in the militia; absent service in a militia one could be prohibited from possessing a ‘weapon of war,’ such as an AR 15.

We see this illustrated in Justice Stevens’ dissent:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

The collective right argument, therefore, perceives the Second Amendment as preserving the states’ authority to maintain a militia, where the states are otherwise at liberty “to regulate private civilian uses of firearms” with impunity, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of firearms altogether – such as banning AR 15s.

Again, in order for Scalia to justify the Second Amendment right as an individual right, he had to eliminate the notion of militia service altogether; with militia service no longer in play, the collective right argument is rejected in favor of the individual right.

Wrong.
While it is possible some people may not be qualified for owning weapons at all, their lack or service in the militia has nothing to do with it and can't have anything to do with it, since self defense is the main right involved, not the secondary one of defending the state.
Nor is an AR-15 remotely unusual, hazardous to others, or any other rational as to why it could be in any way restricted from average people.
While some people may not be qualified for owning any weapons, attempting to ban all people from ARs clearly would be illegal, as it really is just one of the least expensive rifles available for its quality.

 

[Rigby5]

The authority of the government to have a militia, organized or not, comes from the right of defense of individuals.

The Common Defense.

Common defense is a delegated authority based on the individual right of defense.
You can not write something into legislation without it being justified by and deriving from the inherent rights of individuals in some way.
People mistakenly think the Constitution is the source of law, and it isn't.
You can't just write what you want into the constitution.
The constitution can only contain that which is justified by inherent individual rights.
Otherwise we would be living in an arbitrary dictatorship instead of a democratic republic.
That is the difference.
Nothing in the constitution can be arbitrary.
You have to be able to justify anything you put into the constitution as being necessary in order to defend individual rights.
Providing for the Common Defense is how you protect individual rights, so that is legal.
But just being in the constitution is not what makes it legal.

 

[Rigby5]

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......

Wrong.

You are ridiculous trying to twist this into something it isn’t.

As already correctly noted: a dissenting justice’s opinion is devoid of authority as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of AWBs or magazine capacity restrictions.

Absent such a ruling, state bans on AR 15s and high-capacity magazines are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment.

This is a fact of law – settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Should the Court in the future hear a case concerning a state’s AWB, and invalidate that ban as un-Constitutional, it will be at that point only that an AWB violates the Second Amendment.

Wrong.
There has never been an AWB, ( Assault Weapons Ban ), as the 1994 federal legislation did not make ownership of any existing weapons illegal, and all it really did was to make manufacturers stop putting flash suppressors and bayonet lugs on ARs.
ARs were still sold in the millions during the time when the 1994 AWB was active.

Magazine capacity limits are a different matter and fairly irrelevant since anyone can easily modify them.

 

[2aguy]

Scalia joined the dissent.......and Thomas was on the Majority in Heller....so again...what they say matters...... and they stated that the AR-15, by name, and other weapons are covered under the 2nd Amendment......

They didn't state anything. Thomas wrote the dissent, NOT Scalia.

The Supreme Court Database

The Supreme Court Database is the definitive source for researchers, students, journalists, and citizens interested in the U.S. Supreme Court. The Database contains over two hundred pieces of information about each case decided by the Court between the 1946 and 2012 terms. Examples include the...

scdb.wustl.edu

.

3. When a justice joins the substance of another justice's opinion, without any personal expression of views, that justice is listed as joining the other's opinion (see variables firstAgreement and secondAgreement) and not as an author unless he or she also writes an opinion.

4. When two or more justices jointly author an opinion, an entry will so indicate

Once again, Scalia did not write the Thomas dissent.

He signed on to what Thomas wrote....both of them made up the majority in Heller, so what they say about Heller actually has weight.

It isn't in a vacuum......and they state the AR-15 rifle is covered by the 2nd Amendment as are all other weapons like it.......and the carrying of guns is constitutional............

Scalia did not write a concurring opinion, he signed on to what Thomas said in Friedman...he did not write a dissenting opinion on Friedman's merits, he signed on to what Thomas said.........

 

[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......

Wrong.

You are ridiculous trying to twist this into something it isn’t.

As already correctly noted: a dissenting justice’s opinion is devoid of authority as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of AWBs or magazine capacity restrictions.

Absent such a ruling, state bans on AR 15s and high-capacity magazines are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment.

This is a fact of law – settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Should the Court in the future hear a case concerning a state’s AWB, and invalidate that ban as un-Constitutional, it will be at that point only that an AWB violates the Second Amendment.

Wrong.
There has never been an AWB, ( Assault Weapons Ban ), as the 1994 federal legislation did not make ownership of any existing weapons illegal, and all it really did was to make manufacturers stop putting flash suppressors and bayonet lugs on ARs.
ARs were still sold in the millions during the time when the 1994 AWB was active.

Magazine capacity limits are a different matter and fairly irrelevant since anyone can easily modify them.

Excellent point.

Magazine limits are, actually, a big deal. Magazine limits are a back door ban for pistols.....

 

[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......

Wrong.

You are ridiculous trying to twist this into something it isn’t.

As already correctly noted: a dissenting justice’s opinion is devoid of authority as a matter of law.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of AWBs or magazine capacity restrictions.

Absent such a ruling, state bans on AR 15s and high-capacity magazines are perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment.

This is a fact of law – settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

Should the Court in the future hear a case concerning a state’s AWB, and invalidate that ban as un-Constitutional, it will be at that point only that an AWB violates the Second Amendment.

Moron......

Dissenting opinion in Friedman isn't about the merits of Friedman.....it was about the court simply hearing the case, as opposed to not hearing it.

The important point, dimwit, is that Thomas wrote the opinion, Scalia joined the opinion, and in that dissenting opinion they both explained Heller......they were both on the majority in the Heller decision, and Scalia wrote the Heller majority opinion..

So what Thomas says in the Friedman dissent and Scalia signed on to as well, has merit and weight since they explain Heller further.......and they do so to explain why the other morons on the court should hear the 2nd Amendment case of Friedman v Highland Park......

Their writings on Heller in Friedman explain finer points of Heller.....which, again, they were on the majority opinion, and Scalia wrote that opinion...

you doofus.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Actually not.

Not everyone was qualified to serve in the militia; absent service in a militia one could be prohibited from possessing a ‘weapon of war,’ such as an AR 15.

We see this illustrated in Justice Stevens’ dissent:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

The collective right argument, therefore, perceives the Second Amendment as preserving the states’ authority to maintain a militia, where the states are otherwise at liberty “to regulate private civilian uses of firearms” with impunity, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of firearms altogether – such as banning AR 15s.

Again, in order for Scalia to justify the Second Amendment right as an individual right, he had to eliminate the notion of militia service altogether; with militia service no longer in play, the collective right argument is rejected in favor of the individual right.

The AR-15 is not a weapon of war, it has never been used by the military. The "Weapon of War," lie, is the way anti-gunners such as yourself will justify banning guns.....

The pump action shotgun, and the bolt action rifle are actual "Weapons of War," in current use all over the world by the U.S. and foreign militaries......so if "Weapons of War," can be banned....that means all shotguns, pistols, and hunting rifles can be banned...which is the point to pushing the concept of "Weapons of War."


Moron.....Stevens was actually in the minority, so the BS he believes doesn't count.

And this?

there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

This is a lie.......he is lying here....as countless posters on U.S.messageboard have shown over and over by actually quoting the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the Constitution...the Right to keep and bear arms is an individual Right, and the meant it when they said "Shall not be infringed."

 

[9thIDdoc]

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.

Actually not.

Not everyone was qualified to serve in the militia; absent service in a militia one could be prohibited from possessing a ‘weapon of war,’ such as an AR 15.

We see this illustrated in Justice Stevens’ dissent:

“The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” Heller, ibid

The collective right argument, therefore, perceives the Second Amendment as preserving the states’ authority to maintain a militia, where the states are otherwise at liberty “to regulate private civilian uses of firearms” with impunity, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of firearms altogether – such as banning AR 15s.

Again, in order for Scalia to justify the Second Amendment right as an individual right, he had to eliminate the notion of militia service altogether; with militia service no longer in play, the collective right argument is rejected in favor of the individual right.

So? A decent is not a ruling. The SC ruling was that it is if fact an individual right as was intended by the FF. Rights "of the people" are rights of individual people.