CDZ Can you vote democrat and support the 2nd Amendment?

[jon_berzerk]

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

For felons and the adjudicated mentally ill...got it.

Mentally ill, yes. Not sure why a felon can't have a gun once he reenters society. They used to be able to have their gun rights back but step by step, gun rights are taken away till we're like the europeans who sit unarmed and watch their country overrun by third world violent muslims.

It is wholly unconstitutional not to restore a person's Rights once a convicted person has fulfilled their sentence. Allow me an example:

If person A gets drunk as Hell, climbs in their car and kills someone, he can be charged with DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc. He does his time and once out there are NO legal impediments from stopping this guy from going to a bar, getting drunk, getting in a car and driving down the road.

If person B shoots someone, they do the time, get out and then are told they can't own a weapon any longer. WTH???

DUI incidents cost as many lives as firearms and there is NO Right to buy booze. Under the 14th Amendment we're supposed to be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. The government isn't living up to the guarantee.

they dont even have to shoot someone to lose the right

they could have passed enough bad checks to get a felony

then lose the right

 

[Humorme]

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

For felons and the adjudicated mentally ill...got it.

Mentally ill, yes. Not sure why a felon can't have a gun once he reenters society. They used to be able to have their gun rights back but step by step, gun rights are taken away till we're like the europeans who sit unarmed and watch their country overrun by third world violent muslims.

It is wholly unconstitutional not to restore a person's Rights once a convicted person has fulfilled their sentence. Allow me an example:

If person A gets drunk as Hell, climbs in their car and kills someone, he can be charged with DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc. He does his time and once out there are NO legal impediments from stopping this guy from going to a bar, getting drunk, getting in a car and driving down the road.

If person B shoots someone, they do the time, get out and then are told they can't own a weapon any longer. WTH???

DUI incidents cost as many lives as firearms and there is NO Right to buy booze. Under the 14th Amendment we're supposed to be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. The government isn't living up to the guarantee.

they dont even have to shoot someone to lose the right

they could have passed enough bad checks to get a felony

then lose the right

That reminded me of an incident in my neighborhood.

A guy gets in a tiff with his wife on the carport. Neighbor calls the cops and he goes to jail for a misdemeanor, but because his stepson witnessed the whole incident, this guy was charged with a felony in addition to the loud argument.

On top of all of that, the guy had to leave the house and he couldn't stay at my place. His attorney said he could not be in the same house a firearm was in. And, although the guy was found guilty (he actually never disputed the incident) he "lost" his Rights over a purely verbal confrontation. Wonder if we'll be reading about those Dems who like guns denouncing these kinds of laws?????

 

[jon_berzerk]

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

For felons and the adjudicated mentally ill...got it.

Mentally ill, yes. Not sure why a felon can't have a gun once he reenters society. They used to be able to have their gun rights back but step by step, gun rights are taken away till we're like the europeans who sit unarmed and watch their country overrun by third world violent muslims.

It is wholly unconstitutional not to restore a person's Rights once a convicted person has fulfilled their sentence. Allow me an example:

If person A gets drunk as Hell, climbs in their car and kills someone, he can be charged with DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc. He does his time and once out there are NO legal impediments from stopping this guy from going to a bar, getting drunk, getting in a car and driving down the road.

If person B shoots someone, they do the time, get out and then are told they can't own a weapon any longer. WTH???

DUI incidents cost as many lives as firearms and there is NO Right to buy booze. Under the 14th Amendment we're supposed to be guaranteed the equal protection of the laws. The government isn't living up to the guarantee.

they dont even have to shoot someone to lose the right

they could have passed enough bad checks to get a felony

then lose the right

That reminded me of an incident in my neighborhood.

A guy gets in a tiff with his wife on the carport. Neighbor calls the cops and he goes to jail for a misdemeanor, but because his stepson witnessed the whole incident, this guy was charged with a felony in addition to the loud argument.

On top of all of that, the guy had to leave the house and he couldn't stay at my place. His attorney said he could not be in the same house a firearm was in. And, although the guy was found guilty (he actually never disputed the incident) he "lost" his Rights over a purely verbal confrontation. Wonder if we'll be reading about those Dems who like guns denouncing these kinds of laws?????

I have to keep all of my father in laws firearms at my house

because he being a nice guy let his step son move in after being released from prison having felony

and having no other place to go

so Dave gets his rights pinched because someone could not live in civil society

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Some convicted felons can go through a process to have their civil rights restored, thus allowing them to once again have the right to posses a weapon they may have been banned from owning due to their conviction.
How Can A Convicted Felon Receive Firearm Rights?

How to Restore Gun Rights After a California Conviction- FAQ

 

[jon_berzerk]

Some convicted felons can go through a process to have their civil rights restored, thus allowing them to once again have the right to posses a weapon they may have been banned from owning due to their conviction.
How Can A Convicted Felon Receive Firearm Rights?

How to Restore Gun Rights After a California Conviction- FAQ

out here there is a process for that in certain cases

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Some convicted felons can go through a process to have their civil rights restored, thus allowing them to once again have the right to posses a weapon they may have been banned from owning due to their conviction.
How Can A Convicted Felon Receive Firearm Rights?

How to Restore Gun Rights After a California Conviction- FAQ

out here there is a process for that in certain cases

So then not all convicted felons should receive their right to posses or own a firearm once released from their sentence. Non-violent felons, once released can already apply to re-instate their civil rights, violent felons should never get those rights re-instated.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

That reminded me of an incident in my neighborhood.

A guy gets in a tiff with his wife on the carport. Neighbor calls the cops and he goes to jail for a misdemeanor, but because his stepson witnessed the whole incident, this guy was charged with a felony in addition to the loud argument.

On top of all of that, the guy had to leave the house and he couldn't stay at my place. His attorney said he could not be in the same house a firearm was in. And, although the guy was found guilty (he actually never disputed the incident) he "lost" his Rights over a purely verbal confrontation. Wonder if we'll be reading about those Dems who like guns denouncing these kinds of laws?????

The guy has the ability to apply to have his rights restored once he can show or prove he has been rehabilitated, it's already part of our laws. That is one of your spiels, is it not, if they get rehabilitated they should get their rights back. Whats to denounce about the laws already in place? Maybe you should do better research instead of trying to make everything about ideological idiocy on things you don't seem to understand, or you trying to pose as though it was your idea. SMFH

 

[2aguy]

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Chief Justice Joseph Story (appointed by founding father James Madison, second president of the United States)

and not binding law since our courts don't make rulings where there is no "case and controversy". Story's intent was also to support a strong federal government and show why it was much better than the articles of confederation. It should be noted that at the time story wrote, you'll find we had no standing army. all there were... were militias. that is why the 2nd is very clear that it applies to "Well regulated milita" and not to yahoo's with guns who want to fight off the government.

and if guns were to fight off "rulers", the only crime set forth in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

until scalia, the 2nd was never believed to be an individual right. in fact, chief justice warren laughed his butt off when such a thing was suggested.

fwiw, I don't believe he ever authored a 2nd amendment case, but his opinion when asked was that the representation of the 2nd as an individual right, and not the right of a well-regulated militia, was a fraud.

you might also want to read this.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.

Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)



Another court ruling went further in their ruling:



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:



According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia



In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.

Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.

The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:

"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.

The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

No....you didn't read the entire ruling.....

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





--------------



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.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

 

[2aguy]

and not binding law since our courts don't make rulings where there is no "case and controversy". Story's intent was also to support a strong federal government and show why it was much better than the articles of confederation. It should be noted that at the time story wrote, you'll find we had no standing army. all there were... were militias. that is why the 2nd is very clear that it applies to "Well regulated milita" and not to yahoo's with guns who want to fight off the government.

and if guns were to fight off "rulers", the only crime set forth in the constitution wouldn't be treason.

until scalia, the 2nd was never believed to be an individual right. in fact, chief justice warren laughed his butt off when such a thing was suggested.

fwiw, I don't believe he ever authored a 2nd amendment case, but his opinion when asked was that the representation of the 2nd as an individual right, and not the right of a well-regulated militia, was a fraud.

you might also want to read this.

How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.

Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)



Another court ruling went further in their ruling:



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:



According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia



In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.

Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.

The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:

"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.

The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

I'm not quite sure why they would think the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct when the first amendment has limitations such as defamation, obscenity and reasonable time place and manner restrictions on commercial speech. It even allows for limitations on religious rituals that endanger a child (e.g., not treating children for illness) or making men shave or cut their hair despite their religious beliefs if they are in prison.

Because each one of those things.....is infringed after the individual breaks the law.....there is no prior restraint. There is no Reasonable time and place restrictions for guns since you don't have multiple individuals trying to use the same public space.........you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.

Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)



Another court ruling went further in their ruling:



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:



According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia



In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.

Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.

The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:

"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.

The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

For felons and the adjudicated mentally ill...got it.

first of all, the NRA crowd doesn't even allow that. Second, nothing in Scalia's opinion indicates that. The sole limitation adjudicated in that case is that a total ban is unconstitutional. period. nothing more, nothing less.

how about for felons, for the mentally ill, and for the greatest indicia of mass killing.... domestic violence. how about we limit the number of rounds a weapon can hold and the number of shots they can fire?

Wrong.....please, before you comment you might want to actually read Heller, and Mcdonald, and Caetano, and Murdoch.....

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





Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



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.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

You are a dumb ass. Voting for someone who makes no bones about taking away your right to bear arms, is an idiot voting for his own end...

Hillary never said that.

And I’m a liberal with guns.

The very definition of liberal is pro- constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[2aguy]

First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.

Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)



Another court ruling went further in their ruling:



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:



According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia



In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.

Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.

The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:

"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.

The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

For felons and the adjudicated mentally ill...got it.

first of all, the NRA crowd doesn't even allow that. Second, nothing in Scalia's opinion indicates that. The sole limitation adjudicated in that case is that a total ban is unconstitutional. period. nothing more, nothing less.

how about for felons, for the mentally ill, and for the greatest indicia of mass killing.... domestic violence. how about we limit the number of rounds a weapon can hold and the number of shots they can fire?

There is no rational reason to limit law abiding people to certain magazines.....you have an emotion about it...but you have no rational reason. If you want to make it against the law to use a magazine in a gun to commit a crime...go for it...till then, leave normal people alone....

Here...try doing some research before you post about a topic....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.

Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:

“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)



Another court ruling went further in their ruling:



“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -

“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)



So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:



According to Wikipedia:



"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia



In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:

“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.

..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.

Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.

Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.

The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:

"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.

The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

I'm not quite sure why they would think the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct when the first amendment has limitations such as defamation, obscenity and reasonable time place and manner restrictions on commercial speech. It even allows for limitations on religious rituals that endanger a child (e.g., not treating children for illness) or making men shave or cut their hair despite their religious beliefs if they are in prison.

In every thread on gun control to which I posted, the argument on every point I made was the claim that "shall not infringe" included any argument to control guns. As far as I know, all Rights have limits, no one would support the sacrifice of a virgin for a good harvest as an infringement on religion (well maybe some members of the idiot fringe).

And you are lying.....every argument you have made has been dissected by other people and the silly things you want have been shown to be useless, and targeted at normal people.....and that they would not effect criminals in any way.....there isn't one thing you bring up that would do anything to lower the gun crime rate. They would, however, give you a greater ability to make criminals out of normal gun owners through criminalizing normal gun ownership.

 

[2aguy]

Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.

I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."

Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:

1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND

2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.

Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.

ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."

That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.

My point is quite simple, Scalia's comment above proved - until overruled in the future - that the 2nd A. is not sacrosanct and the right to infringe (arms) is legally acceptable.

I'm not quite sure why they would think the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct when the first amendment has limitations such as defamation, obscenity and reasonable time place and manner restrictions on commercial speech. It even allows for limitations on religious rituals that endanger a child (e.g., not treating children for illness) or making men shave or cut their hair despite their religious beliefs if they are in prison.

In every thread on gun control to which I posted, the argument on every point I made was the claim that "shall not infringe"{ included any argumenta to control guns. As far as I know, all Rights have limits, no one would support the sacrifice of a virgin for a good harvest as an infringement on religion (well maybe some members of the idiot fringe).

there is no right in the constitution, that does not have limitations. the NRA gun manufacturer propagandists have convinced a very small percentage of the public that you can't regulate weapons and the politicos who take their money won't act even though most of the public wants some basic controls.

We already regulate guns........if you use a gun to commit a crime you go to jail. If you buy, own or carry a gun as a felon, you go to jail.....

We already can do both of these actions........

Most of the public, like you, doesn't understand the issues involved in gun control......you show this with every post...

 

[2aguy]

The question asked was whether the shotgun was exclusively of use by and designed for the military. All guns CAN be useful to the military, even one which belonged to an enemy you just finished dispatching with your own issued weapon, if your issued weapon has suddenly jammed, or run out of ammo and more enemy soldiers are closing in on you.

But that wasn't the question as asked.

bs

miller was sent back to the lower courts

to find out if a sawed off shotgun was connected to the military

miller died the other guy disappeared

and the court never looked at the case again

still if the question was *exclusively * a military weapon

then you leftist assuredly would not want that question answered

since full auto would be protected class

That doesn't change the reason why, which as you just said, was to find out if it was connected to the military.
For that determination to be made, if they had gotten that far, one of the first questions asked would be:
"Is this sawed off shotgun even a military weapon in the first place?"
(The answer to that would be "NO" because the military normally does not use a significant number of shotguns, not in comparison to all the other types of firearms that they do use.)

As to whether a FULL AUTO style rifle would be protected class or not, it would be interesting to hear what you base that assertion on.

See Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

It is based on Heller....

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



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.

 

[2aguy]

I’m a liberal. I voted for Hillary Clinton. But I’m a strong Second Amendment supporter.”

You are a dumb ass. Voting for someone who makes no bones about taking away your right to bear arms, is an idiot voting for his own end...

Hillary never said that.

And I’m a liberal with guns.

The very definition of liberal is pro- constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

If you vote for democrats you are voting to end the 2nd Amendment......

 

[Wry Catcher]

The question asked was whether the shotgun was exclusively of use by and designed for the military. All guns CAN be useful to the military, even one which belonged to an enemy you just finished dispatching with your own issued weapon, if your issued weapon has suddenly jammed, or run out of ammo and more enemy soldiers are closing in on you.

But that wasn't the question as asked.

bs

miller was sent back to the lower courts

to find out if a sawed off shotgun was connected to the military

miller died the other guy disappeared

and the court never looked at the case again

still if the question was *exclusively * a military weapon

then you leftist assuredly would not want that question answered

since full auto would be protected class

That doesn't change the reason why, which as you just said, was to find out if it was connected to the military.
For that determination to be made, if they had gotten that far, one of the first questions asked would be:
"Is this sawed off shotgun even a military weapon in the first place?"
(The answer to that would be "NO" because the military normally does not use a significant number of shotguns, not in comparison to all the other types of firearms that they do use.)

As to whether a FULL AUTO style rifle would be protected class or not, it would be interesting to hear what you base that assertion on.

See Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

It is based on Heller....

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



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.

You proved how wrong you are, no where in the 2nd. A. is any mention made to "bearable arms".

BTW, I suggest you obtain an anti-personal grenade and take it into your local court house. While being cuffed claim your right to the 2nd A.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Can you vote for Democrats and support the Second Amendment.

Sure. I'm all for well-regulated militias.

On a serious note, Germany has very strict gun control, and very low crime, but yet there are 18 million privately owned guns in German hands.

Which shows it isn't gun ownership that drives the crime rate...it is the culture....and, by the way, their crime rate is going up as they imported more immigrants from countries that do not share German culture.....

And the US is all about gunning down each other.

That’s what’s wrong with the mental illness argument. There’s mental illness everywhere but there are not the number of mass killings that the US has.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[2aguy]

Can you vote for Democrats and support the Second Amendment.

Sure. I'm all for well-regulated militias.

On a serious note, Germany has very strict gun control, and very low crime, but yet there are 18 million privately owned guns in German hands.

Which shows it isn't gun ownership that drives the crime rate...it is the culture....and, by the way, their crime rate is going up as they imported more immigrants from countries that do not share German culture.....

And the US is all about gunning down each other.

That’s what’s wrong with the mental illness argument. There’s mental illness everywhere but there are not the number of mass killings that the US has.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Our gun murder rate is concentrated among criminals murdering each other....70-80% of gun murder victims are criminals, which means out of a country of over 320,000,000 people, about 1,200 people are innocent victims of gun murder...and of those, many of them are friends and family of criminals caught in the crossfire.

Our problem isn't law abiding gun owners who own and carry guns for self defense....our problem, as highlighted by San Francisco, is that violent criminals are released over and over again...they are the ones using guns for crime and murder...and you guys keep letting them back out to do it again and again...

 

[2aguy]

The question asked was whether the shotgun was exclusively of use by and designed for the military. All guns CAN be useful to the military, even one which belonged to an enemy you just finished dispatching with your own issued weapon, if your issued weapon has suddenly jammed, or run out of ammo and more enemy soldiers are closing in on you.

But that wasn't the question as asked.

bs

miller was sent back to the lower courts

to find out if a sawed off shotgun was connected to the military

miller died the other guy disappeared

and the court never looked at the case again

still if the question was *exclusively * a military weapon

then you leftist assuredly would not want that question answered

since full auto would be protected class

That doesn't change the reason why, which as you just said, was to find out if it was connected to the military.
For that determination to be made, if they had gotten that far, one of the first questions asked would be:
"Is this sawed off shotgun even a military weapon in the first place?"
(The answer to that would be "NO" because the military normally does not use a significant number of shotguns, not in comparison to all the other types of firearms that they do use.)

As to whether a FULL AUTO style rifle would be protected class or not, it would be interesting to hear what you base that assertion on.

See Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia

It is based on Heller....

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



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.

You proved how wrong you are, no where in the 2nd. A. is any mention made to "bearable arms".

BTW, I suggest you obtain an anti-personal grenade and take it into your local court house. While being cuffed claim your right to the 2nd A.

What do you think "Bear Arms is referring to? Even left wing nut job ruth bader ginsburg knows what that means...

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

In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I