Constitutional limits to gun control

[Wry Catcher]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

An Op-Ed, really Rabbi? Even you're not dumb enough to believe and Op-Ed is anything more than an opinion. Whatever is decided by the USSC, if they decide in the future on some form of gun control/regulation, it will be a binding Op-Ed. And likely several Op-Ed's supporting or differing in the majority opinion.

 

[NoNukes]

Not only unconstitutional, these so called 'gun control' laws only serve to ensure law abiding citizens would be put at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about their regulations.

But hey, those 'gun free' zones are sure doing the trick...

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

 

[tjvh]

how come none of you acknowledge heller vs. dc? your ass friend scalia has made it clear that no one is coming for your guns. so how come you guys hate reality so much?

Reality? New York is already going after ammunition magazines, so I really don't understand how you came to that conclusion. As far as I'm concerned, an ammunition feeding device is part of the gun, and it is specific to that gun. Nowhere in New York's new Unconstitutional legislation do they make any mention of reimbursing people who already acquired these magazines legally in the past.

 

[The Rabbi]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

An Op-Ed, really Rabbi? Even you're not dumb enough to believe and Op-Ed is anything more than an opinion. Whatever is decided by the USSC, if they decide in the future on some form of gun control/regulation will be a binding Op-Ed (or several). We know now how Scalia, Thomas and Alito will vote - the open question is how will Kennedy and the Chief Justice vote?

Yes, it's an Op-ed. Yes, it's an opinion. Everything posted on this board is an opinion, if you couldn't tell. Some opinions are more informed than others. The authors are pretty well informed and make great arguments. Your opinions are those of a worthless goose-stepping cock sucker. Guess who we'll believe.

 

[Spoonman]

Great op ed in this AM's WSJ ,laying out why virtually every gun control proposal made will not pass constitutional muster. Of course lolberals don't care about the Constitution. But courts do.

David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman: Gun Control and the Constitution - WSJ.com

An Op-Ed, really Rabbi? Even you're not dumb enough to believe and Op-Ed is anything more than an opinion. Whatever is decided by the USSC, if they decide in the future on some form of gun control/regulation, it will be a binding Op-Ed. And likely several Op-Ed's supporting or differing in the majority opinion.

i think they will vote corporations are people

 

[Spoonman]

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

gee, I didn't know automatice weapons were allowed? why can't libs ever get a fact straight? or do they just love to spin?

 

[tjvh]

Stop using the phrase "law-abiding citizens". No such animal as everybody speeds and drives drunk on the highways - two super violent crimes that kill people every day.

and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?

You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.

Until driving becomes a Right and not merely the privilege that it IS, I'd hardly say it's a very good comparison.

 

[Spoonman]

and are cars banned? do we physically limit how fast they can go? I mean whay aren't Porsche and lamborghini's banned and everyone driving a k car? why don't people have to go through universal background checks to get a license? why don't we make it illegal for one person to see his car to another person? why don't we require a permit to buy gasoline a track every gallon someone buys?

You won't get a license to drive if you've been disqualified from doing so.

Until driving becomes a Right and not merely the privilege that it IS, I'd hardly say it's a very good comparison.

and they give drivers license to illegal immigrants, but they don't give them guns.


well eric holder does, but that's another story all together.

 

[eflatminor]

How does a law that prohibits a convicted armed robber from legally buying a machine gun fit into your view above?

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

 

[Spoonman]

facts are such nasty little devils

 

[Wry Catcher]

Well, lets take a look at the most famous incident of machine guns used in a crime. That would be the North Hollywood shootout, carried out by Larry Phillips Jr and Emil Mătăsăreanu in 1997.

Now wait a darn second! Those two guys were not able to legally own a fully automatic weapon. Are you saying criminals didn't obey the law?

Shocking...

But thanks for proving my point. No matter how "tough" the gun control law (and there are none more restrictive than those related to fully automatic machine guns), it will not deter criminals from obtain that which you hope to ban. These laws therefore only put law abiding citizens (and in the case of North Hollywood, the police) at a disadvantage.

Now that's insane.

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?

 

[Spoonman]

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?

pretty much, especially on a highway. 65mph speed limit they aren't touching you under 80. lots of time under 85 if there is little traffic. out town has a posted 30 mph speed limit. 45-50 is the speed traffic flows at.

 

[The Rabbi]

Allowing more automatic weapons because some criminals have the does not even make good nonsense.

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?

Apples and oranges. Driving is not a right. Additionally the state can show that having limits will reduce accidents.
Next.

 

[martybegan]

Well that's the point, isn't it? No matter what you intend to disallow, criminals by their definition don't obey the law, so you're only giving them an advantage against the good guys.

Crazy.

How about you focus on punishing people that actually hurt another or take what doesn't belong to them? So called "preventative" laws only hurt those that care to follow the law. Can you not see the irony in your 'feel good' legislation? Obviously not.

So by you logic speed limits are "feel good" laws?

pretty much, especially on a highway. 65mph speed limit they aren't touching you under 80. lots of time under 85 if there is little traffic. out town has a posted 30 mph speed limit. 45-50 is the speed traffic flows at.

Which also leads to the issue of selective enforcement. If they want you going under 80, they should make the limit under 80. Most places out of NYC in new york have a posted speed limit of 65. Unless you are swerving or unlucky, they are not touching you if you are under 75.

 

[dblack]

facts are such nasty little devils

Bare facts are useless.

For example, the statistic cited in the graphic is a correlation, not proof of anything regarding the wisdom of gun regulation. It may be the case that what your post implies is true, that legal gun ownership makes society safer, and that's why those states who allow it have less crime. But it could also be the case that the reason legal gun ownership is viable in in those states is because they have less crime, and repealing gun regulations in the crime ridden states would be a disaster.

Facts are inert. It's sorting out the cause and effect that gets tricky.

 

[PratchettFan]

Actually not a single one has.

You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.

No, the big issue is requiring the private individual to perform a background check. Dealers are already required to perform background checks.

It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.

Yes. It will be very interesting. Now please cite a single court decision which says that is unconstitutional. Cite a single court decision which says limiting the nature of weapons or magazines is unconstitutional. And please don't bother to cite Heller, as the article mistakenly did. Heller is quite clear that your position is false. This is from the majority opinion in Heller written by Justice Scallia:

"The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned."

So what, exactly, is the basis of your claim - other than wishful thinking?

 

[M14 Shooter]

You seem to be out of touch. One of the big proposals is background checks. Name me a single court decision which has found that unconstitutional.

No, the big issue is requiring the private individual to perform a background check. Dealers are already required to perform background checks.

It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.

Yes. It will be very interesting. Now please cite a single court decision which says that is unconstitutional.

I'm sorry - YOU claimed that "just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster."

Please cite the case(s) where the SCotUS uhpeld:
-'Assault weapon' bans
-"hi-cap' magazine bans
-Universal background checks

 

[PratchettFan]

If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.

And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.

Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.

Perhaps you can direct me to where the NRA has ever taken any approach to either one...

I was using the same very same argument you were using. Was that unfair of me? Only you get to do that?

 

[PratchettFan]

If the gun grabbers would apply the same standards to the 2nd Amendment as they do to Freedom of Speech and Right to abortions, there would be no problems.

And the ACLU's hypocrisy on this issue is blinding.

Conversely, if the NRA were to take the same approach to the 1st amendment and abortion rights as they do the 2nd amendment, then we could each say anything we liked any time we liked and abortions would be allowed up to age 18. Perhaps there is a middle road on both sides.

Lets look at the standard comparison used when looking at the 1st and the 2nd amendment. Yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre.

Now, that is not covered under freedom of speech, and like shooting someone, it is very dangerous. However lets look at how one would prevent somone from yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theatre, considering first that both shooting someone without cause (self defense) and yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre without cause (no fire) are both illegal.

Applying current gun control.

In order to enter a theatre run by a federally liscenced theatre owner, you have to wait outside while the usher checked your background for any felonies. In some states you would need to be registered prior to entering the theatre. In other states if the show was outside in public, you would need a Outside speaker permit (OSP). Some states only issue these to police officers and retired police officers. One state doesnt require it at all.

People could run thier own theatre, but if they let in someone who is not allowed to watch the movies, they could be found liable. Furthermore, fast talking people (auctioneers) need to have a special permit to enter the theatre, and can only do so with the permission of the local theatre security guard. They also have to pay a tax for being able to talk so fast. This all depends on the state the theatre is in.

Now in some states as well, to prevent people from talking, gags have to be worn, with the gag only removed in case of emergency.

Currently there are movements to restrict even more fast talkers from entering the theatre. People allowed would only be those known to speak less than one word per 5 seconds, and are only allowed 10 words (or 7) at a time, before having to breathe in again"

People with funny accents would also be banned from the theatre.

If you wish to make this an accurate comparison then you should at least use the correct comparison. The "fire in a crowded theatre" was merely a metaphor used in the Schenck case. Schenck was not shouting fire when he was arrested. He was handing out political pamphlets calling for the overthrow of the US. Quite like a lot of posts on this very board. This case was overturned in the Brandenburg decision in 1969. However, the concept is the same. The idea is that this right is not unlimited, just as the 2nd amendment right is not unlimited (as supported in the Heller case). What you can't have is an outright ban.

The NRA, OTOH, is currently opposed to any limitations at all. So, to make this an accurate comparison (and we do want to be accurate, don't we) then if one is unlimited the other is as well. I can shout fire to my hearts delight. Though I wasn't the person who decided to bring in the abortion issue, it is now in the discussion, so an accurate comparison would be that any woman could have an abortion whenever she chose with no restrictions of any kind.

That is, of course, if we actually do wish to be accurate.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

It would be interesting to see how a court would rule since it would be the first time ever a private transaction between two individuals would be subject to Federal Law.

HAHAHA. So there's no federal law restricting me selling cocaine to another person? Can you think at all? Don't answer that.

The product you are selling is illegal, that is why your sale would be illegal.

HAHAHA. Changing the subject i see. You said the feds never involve themselves in private transactions between individuals when in fact, they do it a lot.,