Biden to tax away your guns

[Lesh]

If machine guns were legal today for anybody to buy, most people would not use them anyway.

Irrelevant. They were near universally understood to be a danger to society.

If somebody wants to kill a bunch of kids in a school, they're going to do it whether they have an AR or any semi-automatic handgun,

But like machine guns...assault rifles are so much more efficient at it

 

[justinacolmena]

Irrelevant. They were near universally understood to be a danger to society.

It's still not okay for some people to make decisions of what guns other people may or may not possess. Those are the good intentions that pave the way to hell and damnation.

 

[Winston]

First of all, I am not a big fan of the NFA. But I can see why something similar must be on the books. But I find the NFA way too specific in some areas and too vague in others.

Here are some of the points from that law.

1. No more manufacturing of the weapons, parts. Even replacement parts and Modifications and addons. The exception to that would be for Law Enforcement and Military Applications. I believe Colt already sees the handwriting on the wall on that one when they stopped manufacturing of their Model 750 and other AR-15 variants.

2. Voluntary Government Buy backs. Not mandantory.

3. Limits in the transportation of the ARs. You can still own them but you can't go to your favorite gun club and fire them. But you can still fire them on private property.

4. In order to purchase/trade/inherit these weapons, it's going to take an EFL or a FFL license. In other words, only a legally licensed person can obtain one. If you already have one, you are within the law. But if you die, you cannot pass it on to anyone without either the EFL or FFL License. Unless the weapon is totally disabled (i.e. leading in the barrel and disabling the firing mechanism making it a wall hangar).

That's just a thumbnail of it. For the first 10 years, there was almost zero effect in the Thompson Model 1921. But after that, they started to rapidly disappear. Are you going to go out and fire a firearm that you can't repair or get replacement parts for? We are talking about Law Abiding Citizens here, not criminals. But in the end, even the criminals won't have them either except as wall hangars.

Given the fact very few people get killed with AR's, what's the point of messing with them at all? I'll tell you why, the media.

Democrats could care less about the 20 or 30 people that get gunned down every week in the streets of Chicago with hand guns, they're more worried about 6 people getting killed once a year or so with an AR. So why is the left so focused on them? Because the MSM sensationalizes the mass killings and ignores your everyday murders with common handguns.

Can you explain where the government is going to get this money to buy back guns when we are 26 trillion dollars in debt and growing? Better still, what would they actually accomplish with that? Criminals? Do you think criminals will ever give up their guns?

Yes, we have those stupid buy back programs here. A friend of mine used to work at the steel mills. He melted those guns down a couple of times. Do we still have gun murders in the city? You bet. So the city wasted all that money to solve nothing. Typical liberal thinking.

The point in all this is to make getting or owning a gun such a problem many will just give up on it. Government allowing manufacturers and gun stores to be sued out of business is the dictator way. If people don't resist this, the next step will be you have to be psychologically evaluated before being allowed to own a gun, and that means your ability of gun ownership will lie in the hands of leftist shrinks.

I got to ask. Why do gun dealers and manufacturers need liability protection? I mean why are they so special. If a car company builds a car, and is willfully negligent, and people get killed, they can get sued. I believe you drive a truck, if, while driving that truck, you are willfully negligent, well you are probably going to get sued. I mean if you are a gun dealer, and you are willfully negligent and end up selling guns to felons who use those guns to commit crimes, why should you be protected? I mean lets say my neighbor is crazier than a shithouse rat. I mean certifiable. No way in hell he can get a license for a handgun, he is mentally ill. But he strolls into a gun shop, they sell him one anyway, and he kills one of my children. Why can I not sue the gun dealer? Why should he be protected for failing to meet his obligations?

 

[2aguy]

And let's remember here Machine guns are already taxed and regulated...because it became obvious that they were dangerous to society. (The St. Valentines Massacre was the impetus)

No one (including Scalia) says that is not Constitutional. Taxing assault rifles is no different given the history of their use in mass murders

AR-15s are not assault weapons, and handguns are the weapon of choice for mass public shootings....you doofus.

Knives kill over 1,500 people every single year.....do you want to ban them?

Total killed by rifles in mass public shootings in 2019....34.....

Can you tell which weapon is killing more people every year?

 

[justinacolmena]

I got to ask. Why do gun dealers and manufacturers need liability protection?

They probably don't need any special liability protection.
IF the gun functions as intended, and shoots as intended, with the intended ammunition, what can the manufacturer possibly be held responsible for? There's a standard warranty and a disclaimer as for any other product.
Surely it's not the job of a manufacturer or dealer to sell guns to some people and refuse to sell guns to others. If Tiffany & Co. got in trouble for refusing to sell a diamond ring to a black man, then why can't the gun manufacturers and dealers get in trouble for discrimination by insisting illegally on extended background checks which include mental health as a prohibiting factor, or allegations of petty crime that tend to be charged as felonies for black men?

 

[2aguy]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

You are totally full of shit.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Rye Catcher]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

You can lie all you want.......Scalia wrote the opinion and went into great detail to explain why you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about....

What am I lying about asshole? I'm giving MY opinion of SCALIA'S opinion...ya dope

No....you are lying about what Scalia wrote. So, shit stain.....you can lie about Heller and the other 2nd Amendment rulings, but that is what you are doing....lying.

I've read Heller, and in that long and tedious effort by Scalia to ass kiss the NRA he made one very important comment, a comment which repudiates the last phrase of the 2nd A. to wit:

"shall not be infringed":

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

 

[2aguy]

First of all, I am not a big fan of the NFA. But I can see why something similar must be on the books. But I find the NFA way too specific in some areas and too vague in others.

Here are some of the points from that law.

1. No more manufacturing of the weapons, parts. Even replacement parts and Modifications and addons. The exception to that would be for Law Enforcement and Military Applications. I believe Colt already sees the handwriting on the wall on that one when they stopped manufacturing of their Model 750 and other AR-15 variants.

2. Voluntary Government Buy backs. Not mandantory.

3. Limits in the transportation of the ARs. You can still own them but you can't go to your favorite gun club and fire them. But you can still fire them on private property.

4. In order to purchase/trade/inherit these weapons, it's going to take an EFL or a FFL license. In other words, only a legally licensed person can obtain one. If you already have one, you are within the law. But if you die, you cannot pass it on to anyone without either the EFL or FFL License. Unless the weapon is totally disabled (i.e. leading in the barrel and disabling the firing mechanism making it a wall hangar).

That's just a thumbnail of it. For the first 10 years, there was almost zero effect in the Thompson Model 1921. But after that, they started to rapidly disappear. Are you going to go out and fire a firearm that you can't repair or get replacement parts for? We are talking about Law Abiding Citizens here, not criminals. But in the end, even the criminals won't have them either except as wall hangars.

Given the fact very few people get killed with AR's, what's the point of messing with them at all? I'll tell you why, the media.

Democrats could care less about the 20 or 30 people that get gunned down every week in the streets of Chicago with hand guns, they're more worried about 6 people getting killed once a year or so with an AR. So why is the left so focused on them? Because the MSM sensationalizes the mass killings and ignores your everyday murders with common handguns.

Can you explain where the government is going to get this money to buy back guns when we are 26 trillion dollars in debt and growing? Better still, what would they actually accomplish with that? Criminals? Do you think criminals will ever give up their guns?

Yes, we have those stupid buy back programs here. A friend of mine used to work at the steel mills. He melted those guns down a couple of times. Do we still have gun murders in the city? You bet. So the city wasted all that money to solve nothing. Typical liberal thinking.

The point in all this is to make getting or owning a gun such a problem many will just give up on it. Government allowing manufacturers and gun stores to be sued out of business is the dictator way. If people don't resist this, the next step will be you have to be psychologically evaluated before being allowed to own a gun, and that means your ability of gun ownership will lie in the hands of leftist shrinks.

I got to ask. Why do gun dealers and manufacturers need liability protection? I mean why are they so special. If a car company builds a car, and is willfully negligent, and people get killed, they can get sued. I believe you drive a truck, if, while driving that truck, you are willfully negligent, well you are probably going to get sued. I mean if you are a gun dealer, and you are willfully negligent and end up selling guns to felons who use those guns to commit crimes, why should you be protected? I mean lets say my neighbor is crazier than a shithouse rat. I mean certifiable. No way in hell he can get a license for a handgun, he is mentally ill. But he strolls into a gun shop, they sell him one anyway, and he kills one of my children. Why can I not sue the gun dealer? Why should he be protected for failing to meet his obligations?

Because at this point cars don't have people who are trying to ban and confiscate them for no rational reason.

We have democrat party politicians who have stated they are going to use the law to sue gun makers out of business....and who will use the Dept. of Justice to force gun makers into consent decrees to obey gun control the democrats can't get passed through congress...that's why.

Moron.....gun stores follow the law, and the democrats still want to sue them out of business......that's why.

 

[2aguy]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

You can lie all you want.......Scalia wrote the opinion and went into great detail to explain why you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about....

What am I lying about asshole? I'm giving MY opinion of SCALIA'S opinion...ya dope

No....you are lying about what Scalia wrote. So, shit stain.....you can lie about Heller and the other 2nd Amendment rulings, but that is what you are doing....lying.

I've read Heller, and in that long and tedious effort by Scalia to ass kiss the NRA he made one very important comment, a comment which repudiates the last phrase of the 2nd A. to wit:

"shall not be infringed":

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

And you cherry pick and take that out of the context of the actual things Scalia stated........

The continuation of that quote states what is limited....he doesn't say anything about weapon type, you lying doofus.....

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.

 

[justinacolmena]

AR-15s are not assault weapons

And what if they are? Why should it matter to a reasonable person. What if a bear or wolverine or even a pack of wolves is assaulting me in my home? Why shouldn't I own or be prepared to use a so-called assault weapon?

and handguns are the weapon of choice for mass public shootings

They went Catholic, and they're holding mass for the funeral, before the alleged victim is even pronounced dead.
Meanwhile "the masses" of common folk aren't allowed to own weapons at all as per official Vatican propaganda under a liberal pope.

 

[Winston]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

You are totally full of shit.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

 

[2aguy]

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose,

And that purpose was to ensure the workings of a "well regulated militia". The 2A does not mention self defense...it does not mention hunting. It does not mention having fun at gun ranges.

Of course Scalia had to say something if he was going to engage in judicial activism...but there's no way his normal supposed "originalism" is in play here.

You can lie all you want.......Scalia wrote the opinion and went into great detail to explain why you are wrong and don't know what you are talking about....

What am I lying about asshole? I'm giving MY opinion of SCALIA'S opinion...ya dope

No....you are lying about what Scalia wrote. So, shit stain.....you can lie about Heller and the other 2nd Amendment rulings, but that is what you are doing....lying.

I've read Heller, and in that long and tedious effort by Scalia to ass kiss the NRA he made one very important comment, a comment which repudiates the last phrase of the 2nd A. to wit:

"shall not be infringed":

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

And you cherry pick and take that out of the context of the actual things Scalia stated........

The continuation of that quote states what is limited....he doesn't say anything about weapon type, you lying doofus.....

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.

And this is what he actually says about weapons that are protected...

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

You are totally full of shit.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

 

[Winston]

AR-15s are not assault weapons

And what if they are? Why should it matter to a reasonable person. What if a bear or wolverine or even a pack of wolves is assaulting me in my home? Why shouldn't I own or be prepared to use a so-called assault weapon?

and handguns are the weapon of choice for mass public shootings

They went Catholic, and they're holding mass for the funeral, before the alleged victim is even pronounced dead.
Meanwhile "the masses" of common folk aren't allowed to own weapons at all as per official Vatican propaganda under a liberal pope.

Well I hope to God you never try to defend yourself against a bear with a "modern sporting rifle" chambered in .223. Your ass is going to get mauled. The only thing that little peashooter is going to do is piss that bear off.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I got to ask. Why do gun dealers and manufacturers need liability protection? I mean why are they so special. If a car company builds a car, and is willfully negligent, and people get killed, they can get sued. I believe you drive a truck, if, while driving that truck, you are willfully negligent, well you are probably going to get sued. I mean if you are a gun dealer, and you are willfully negligent and end up selling guns to felons who use those guns to commit crimes, why should you be protected? I mean lets say my neighbor is crazier than a shithouse rat. I mean certifiable. No way in hell he can get a license for a handgun, he is mentally ill. But he strolls into a gun shop, they sell him one anyway, and he kills one of my children. Why can I not sue the gun dealer? Why should he be protected for failing to meet his obligations?

You can sue the gun dealer if he did not do his job by running a background check. It's against the law for any licensed dealer to sell the gun without it. If he did do a background check, then he had the permission of our government to sell him a gun even if the guy was goofy. Then no, you could not sue him thanks to this protection they currently have.

The point in liability protection is so people can't sue the dealer or manufacturer with frivolous lawsuits. Anybody in industry can tell you the loss is not in the settlement, your losses are in the defense. It's why malpractice insurance is so high. There are very few payouts, but defending the physician or nurse costs an arm and a leg.

Even our city entertained the possibility of suing all the gun manufacturers for the murders that take place here all the time.

FactChecking the Fourth Democratic Debate - FactCheck.org

Sunday showdown in South Carolina: Democrats highlight differences on health care, guns and more.

www.factcheck.org

 

[2aguy]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

You are totally full of shit.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

He misquotes Scalia........to make up his own decision. As I have pointed out.....Heller and Friedman specifically show what Scalia wrote about the 2nd Amendment......the lower courts are lying about the rulings, and have been hiding behind the split on the Supreme Court.

 

[Lesh]

I got to ask. Why do gun dealers and manufacturers need liability protection?

They probably don't need any special liability protection.
IF the gun functions as intended, and shoots as intended, with the intended ammunition, what can the manufacturer possibly be held responsible for? There's a standard warranty and a disclaimer as for any other product.
Surely it's not the job of a manufacturer or dealer to sell guns to some people and refuse to sell guns to others. If Tiffany & Co. got in trouble for refusing to sell a diamond ring to a black man, then why can't the gun manufacturers and dealers get in trouble for discrimination by insisting illegally on extended background checks which include mental health as a prohibiting factor, or allegations of petty crime that tend to be charged as felonies for black men?

What about the lawsuits regarding oxycontin? If used as intended, then there should be no liability to the makers...but there was

 

[Winston]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

You are totally full of shit.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

The 4th Circuit in Massachusetts is violating the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings........they have not been upheld in court, they were made up by the left wing, anti-gun extremists on the lower courts who are ignoring the Constitution and the Bill of Rights...

What is so hard for you, you doofus....to understand that you are wrong....

The SCOTUS has had that case on appeal for more than a year and they have refused to hear it. Get back to me when they actually agree to hear it, but I won't hold my breath. Pretty sure that ship has already sailed.

 

[Winston]

Report: Biden’s proposed gun control plan could hit gun owners with $34 billion in taxes

Get ready to pay up

www.theblaze.com

I reckon it is far easier than flat out banning them.

This can be appealed in court....it would be like taxing books and magazines or newspapers to the point you invalidate the 1st Amendment...

Not really, since it is already done. Even Scalia admitted jurisdictions have the authority to tax guns. And that includes the federal government. It is actually a great idea, just make those "modern sporting rifles", that still cracks me up, like automatic weapons. Eliminating selling new by preventing their production, and then taxing the ones that are in private hands. Not really seeing a case here. You can still own your pistols, shotguns, and real rifles.

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?

Winston? Where'd you go? Since you're OK with taxing Constitutionally protected rights, so ...

Cool. So you'd be behind that taxing free speech and the press as well as going to church are all perfectly valid as well?​

What about protection from illegal search and seizure only being available to people who pay their tax for it?​

I don't know what is so hard to understand. You do not, I repeat, DO NOT, have a constitutional guaranteed right to own a modern sporting rifle. Now, when the second amendment was a collective right based on the arming of a militia, you could make the argument that you did have a constitutional right to modern sporting rifles. A really good argument. But that ship sailed away with the judicial activism, and creationism, of Heller. Now the second amendment is an individual right based on self-protection. Do you need a modern sporting rifle for self-protection. Why no, no you don't. Not only can we tax modern sporting rifles, we can ban their production for private use, we can even ban owning them. Because that ban would not significantly "infringe" upon someone's ability to have another type of gun for self-defense.

So fifty, maybe sixty years from now, you won't be able to own much more than a taser and some pepper spray. Hunting will die off, like it almost has. I mean there is more small game roaming around in the woods than there was when the colonists got here. Squirrels, Raccoons, Rabbits--hell, if it weren't for the cats the rabbits would have already taken us over. I mean how many people do you know that run a pack of beagles for rabbit hunting? Not near as many that have that beagle to primp and prune for the Westminister Dog Show. Poor fellas.

I guess what I am saying is that you gun nuts overplayed your hand. When the second amendment was a collective right, well when the Stormtroopers got them some laser fueled disrupters, well you could get one too. Now, tough shit. Some of us in this country warned you guys. We killed our NRA memberships and joined other outfits, like the Sportsman's Alliance. The NRA became nothing more than a Ponzi scam lobbying for the gun manufacturers. They don't give two shits if you lose your collective right to participate in a militia, they pursue the mighty dollar. When modern sporting rifles are outlawed they will just sell you tasers.

Yes....we do....what part of the Heller decision do you not understand? What does Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller mean when he says that AR-15s are protected weapons....?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Tell me, what makes sawed off shotguns subject to regulation and bans and not modern sporting rifles? What you fail to realize is that if they can rationalize banning sawed off shotguns they can rationalize banning modern sporting rifles. And the fact that they can ban sawed off shotguns is a clear indicator that you and your friends are not constitutionally granted the right to own any damn weapon you want.

Notice what the Supreme Court stated in Miller.....

If any guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....it is the AR-15 rifle.....as well as fully automatic military rifles.....

United States v. Miller.........the government argued......

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.


What the Court ruled.......guns that are used by a military are protected by the 2nd Amendment.....

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That ruling is moot at this point. I have explained this already. That ruling was when the second amendment was a collective right, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Heller changed that, it is now an individual right based in self-defense. For instance, in Heller the problem was the requirement of trigger locks, that would in no way inhibit a militia force. So Scalia and his pals had to do some judicial creationism, history revisionism, and judicial activism, and they twisted the second amendment into a right based on self-defense.

And no where did Scalia say that assault weapons were "protected". Matter of fact, he did say that the ruling did not preclude local jurisdictions from legislating restrictions on arms as long as it did not impede that whole self-defense thing.

Yeah...nothing you just posted is true or accurate......Scalia went into great detail in legal precedent and British and American history....you are just wrong.

I just posted that AR-15s and rifles like it are mentioned by name by Scalia........they are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

He states that limiting gun selection by civilians based on "they have other options," doesn't hold Constitutional muster....

You are totally full of shit.

District of Columbia v. Heller :: 554 U.S. 570 (2008) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

Show me, show me where even "AR-15" is even in the opinion. But, you will find this in his opinion,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

And you lying sack of shit.....you don't include what he says as to what can be limited.....he states locations, felons and mentally ill....he states that the Right

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

and in Friedman v Highland Park, that came after Heller....Scalia, who wrote Heller....states........

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.
And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid.

Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

s
Quit posting bullshit from pro-gun nutjob sites. Read the damn opinion, from beginning to end, albeit I understand the historical revisionism is a little revolting. Like I said, there are assault weapons ban in dozens of jurisdictions throughout the country, Massachusetts jumps out there. And every one of those bans has been held up in court, many times the Judge actually quotes Scalia's opinion in Heller. Some have been appealed to the SCOTUS, and the SCOTUS has refused to hear a single one of them. Most telling, this nation did have an assault weapons ban, before Heller, and it was never successfully challenged in court. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

He misquotes Scalia........to make up his own decision. As I have pointed out.....Heller and Friedman specifically show what Scalia wrote about the 2nd Amendment......the lower courts are lying about the rulings, and have been hiding behind the split on the Supreme Court.

WTF you talking about misquote Scalia. I posted the opinion itself, written by Scalia. You are absolutely delusional

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What about the lawsuits regarding oxycontin? If used as intended, then there should be no liability to the makers...but there was

And that's what's wrong with our legal system. They should not be liable since it's not an over the counter drug, and you need to have it prescribed by a physician.