Constitutional limits to gun control

[Uncensored2008]

The real significance of Heller vs DC is that the Supreme Court established the right to bear arms is an individual right and not the collective right gun control freaks claim it is.

True, but the idea that entire classes of weapons cannot be prohibited set a precedent that will hamper the attacks on civil liberties in places like California and New York.

I expect challenges in New York immediately.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

so did the chicken or the egg come first? fact is we have chickens and eggs. Fact is, states with strict gun laws have more murders, states with limited laws have less. which would you rather have? more murders or less?

I'd rather have less murders. But you've not shown that repealing gun laws would create that result. And you haven't shown that stricter gun laws cause more murders. You've only pointed out a correlation. It's like citing the 'fact' that people on tropical islands rarely wear parkas - and hey, it's nice and warm there! We should all quit wearing coats, eh?

... maybe if the states with the higher murder rates addressed their real issues instead of saying its the guns fault, they would have lower rates too.

Maybe. But it seems you aren't understanding my point. I'm likely to agree with you, in general, on the gun rights stuff. But "facts" don't prove anything. Logical argument does.

and logical argument is implementing an assult style weapons ban which has already been tried once and shown no positive results?

 

[The Rabbi]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Read it yourself. Look on pages 54-55.

Nothing here, or anywhere else in Heller, considers and then rules on:
-Banning assault weapons
-Banning hi-cap magazines
-Universal background checks

Disagree? Cite the text.

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

Translation: I can't because it isn't there. But Heller said some restrictions would be OK. So in my mind that translates to every restriction.

 

[The Rabbi]

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

He didnt concede. He told you to go do the work for yourself.

"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."

I dont see anything about AR15s, hi cap magazines or background checks. Maybe it's in the margin? Maybe Scalia X'd it out of the final draft? Maybe it's Bush's fault?
The truth is RatshitFan and you don't have the slightest clue.

 

[The Rabbi]

No need. You are free to live in your fantasy land if that makes you feel better.

I accept your concession of the point.

Fact of the matter is that none of these restrictions have been upheld by the SCotUS and so your statement that they have all "passed muster" is a lie.

If that makes you feel good, believe it. I see no point in arguing with someone who either won't read the decision or simply won't believe what he reads. That's your fantasy land, not mine.

Liar Liar pants on fire.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a key part of the Brady gun-control law, saying the federal government cannot compel local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.

In a 5-4 ruling that marked a huge victory for states' rights, the court appeared to leave intact a required waiting period of up to five days before someone can buy a handgun. There would be no requirement for the government to check a prospective purchaser's background during that period but local police could do it voluntarily.

That's irrelevant to this issue. The Supremes dealt with BG checks by local police, not the Feds.

 

[g5000]

Name me one that has considered the issue to begin with.

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a key part of the Brady gun-control law, saying the federal government cannot compel local police to determine if buyers were fit to own handguns.

In a 5-4 ruling that marked a huge victory for states' rights, the court appeared to leave intact a required waiting period of up to five days before someone can buy a handgun. There would be no requirement for the government to check a prospective purchaser's background during that period but local police could do it voluntarily.

That's irrelevant to this issue. The Supremes dealt with BG checks by local police, not the Feds.

Think about what you are saying.

Give us all an example of when a federal background check would be performed.

Guns are not purchased in a federal environment. They are purchased at local gun shops, out of someone's trunk, or at a gun show. So background checks are always in accordance with state and local laws.

There is no such thing as a "federal background check". There was a federal background check requirement, and that is what the Supremes found to be unconstitutional.

It follows, then, they did not find background checks themselves to be unconstitutional or they would have struck them down. Instead, the decision said they could be done voluntarily. Therefore, background checks are constitutional. You could not do them voluntarily if they weren't.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Guns are not purchased in a federal environment. They are purchased at local gun shops, out of someone's trunk, or at a gun show. So background checks are always in accordance with state and local laws.

You are waaaaaay out of your lane.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics

 

[eflatminor]

More nonsense.

That's about the quality of retort we've come to expect...devoid of logic, reason or evidence...just another ad hominem in a sea of emotionally based arguments.

It comes after you fail to reply to what I say

But I did reply. Are you retarded?

 

[The Rabbi]

Gun background checks ruled unconstitutional

That's irrelevant to this issue. The Supremes dealt with BG checks by local police, not the Feds.

Think about what you are saying.

Give us all an example of when a federal background check would be performed.

Guns are not purchased in a federal environment. They are purchased at local gun shops, out of someone's trunk, or at a gun show. So background checks are always in accordance with state and local laws.

There is no such thing as a "federal background check". There was a federal background check requirement, and that is what the Supremes found to be unconstitutional.

It follows, then, they did not find background checks themselves to be unconstitutional or they would have struck them down. Instead, the decision said they could be done voluntarily. Therefore, background checks are constitutional. You could not do them voluntarily if they weren't.

I am a firearms dealer. I perform background checks 6 days a week. The background check is a federal mandate under the 1968 Gun Control Act, amended subsequently in the Brady bills. A local gunshop is such pursuant to a license issued by the BATFE, a federal agency. Ergo it is a federal environment. Some states have additional state requirements, which they can.
A federal background check would be performed any time two people decided to transfer ownership of a gun. They would present themselves at a federally licensed dealer and the buyer would submit (their wording) to a background check. ATF already encourages us to facilitate this.
I think it sucks. I am opposed to it, even though I could charge for the service.

 

[dblack]

so did the chicken or the egg come first? fact is we have chickens and eggs. Fact is, states with strict gun laws have more murders, states with limited laws have less. which would you rather have? more murders or less?

I'd rather have less murders. But you've not shown that repealing gun laws would create that result. And you haven't shown that stricter gun laws cause more murders. You've only pointed out a correlation. It's like citing the 'fact' that people on tropical islands rarely wear parkas - and hey, it's nice and warm there! We should all quit wearing coats, eh?

... maybe if the states with the higher murder rates addressed their real issues instead of saying its the guns fault, they would have lower rates too.

Maybe. But it seems you aren't understanding my point. I'm likely to agree with you, in general, on the gun rights stuff. But "facts" don't prove anything. Logical argument does.

and logical argument is implementing an assult style weapons ban which has already been tried once and shown no positive results?

Probably not. Listen, I apologize. I think I've just been harassing you over a pet peeve of mine, namely people who post "facts" and act as though they constitute an argument. You're obviously doing more than that so my issue doesn't apply.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

Actually not a single one has.

Incorrect:

With regard to state gun laws, for instance, a recent Second Circuit decision upheld New York’s law limiting concealed carry licenses to persons showing “proper cause.”[10] In Hightower v. Boston, the First Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to Massachusetts provisions governing revocation of concealed-carry permits.[11] Another decision, by the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the constitutionality of a California county ordinance restricting firearms possession on county property.[12] Yet another, by the Eleventh Circuit, upheld a Georgia law banning arms-bearing in houses of worship.[13] Most interestingly, last year the D.C. Circuit deemed some handgun registration,[14] assault-weapons bans,[15] and prohibitions on “high-capacity” magazines[16] to be constitutional.

Many federal laws have also survived recent Second Amendment challenges. For instance, federal circuit courts have affirmed federal bans on juvenile gun ownership[17] and handgun sales to persons under 21.[18] Other decisions have upheld federal restrictions on interstate firearms transportation[19] and gun possession in national parks.[20] Still others have deemed possession of pipe bombs[21] and unmarked firearms[22] to be unprotected by the Second Amendment. No less than five circuit courts have affirmed federal restrictions on machine-gun ownership.[23]

Another body of case law has affirmed federal bans on gun possession by various categories of people. At least ten circuits, for instance, have upheld a federal provision banning firearms possession by convicted felons.[24] Five have affirmed a similar ban for those convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense.[25] Four have upheld such a ban for persons convicted of drug-possession offenses.[26] Three circuits have upheld a prohibition on gun possession by those subject to a restraining order;[27] another set of three has also affirmed such a ban on illegal alien gun possession.[28] Finally, two circuits have rejected constitutional challenges to similar ban for drug traffickers.[29]

Lower Courts and the Second Amendment « Alexandria

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

We already have that law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The constitution says "shall not be infringed" and that means all federal gun laws are unconstitutional. Gun laws are a state issue and states need to assert that.

Nonsense:

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, notes that “the right
secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”14 By this, the Court means
that the right to keep and carry arms is not absolute, but allows at least some
government regulation.15 For example, the Court writes:

[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions
on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.16


SCOPE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT—POSTHELLER
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Ivan E. Bodensteiner

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

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

The Supreme Court does not alone determine constitutionality of a given law; indeed, only a small percentage of Federal courts of appeals cases reach the High Court, as they develop much of the case law. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Hull, 957 P.2d 984 (Ariz. 1998), where the Arizona Supreme Court struck down that state’s ‘English as official language’ law as un-Constitutional. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert as the issue under review became moot. English as the official language laws are consequently un-Constitutional, and will remain so until a judicial conflict arises.

 

[The Rabbi]

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

Actually not a single one has.

Incorrect:

With regard to state gun laws, for instance, a recent Second Circuit decision upheld New York’s law limiting concealed carry licenses to persons showing “proper cause.”[10] In Hightower v. Boston, the First Circuit rejected a constitutional challenge to Massachusetts provisions governing revocation of concealed-carry permits.[11] Another decision, by the Ninth Circuit, affirmed the constitutionality of a California county ordinance restricting firearms possession on county property.[12] Yet another, by the Eleventh Circuit, upheld a Georgia law banning arms-bearing in houses of worship.[13] Most interestingly, last year the D.C. Circuit deemed some handgun registration,[14] assault-weapons bans,[15] and prohibitions on “high-capacity” magazines[16] to be constitutional.

Many federal laws have also survived recent Second Amendment challenges. For instance, federal circuit courts have affirmed federal bans on juvenile gun ownership[17] and handgun sales to persons under 21.[18] Other decisions have upheld federal restrictions on interstate firearms transportation[19] and gun possession in national parks.[20] Still others have deemed possession of pipe bombs[21] and unmarked firearms[22] to be unprotected by the Second Amendment. No less than five circuit courts have affirmed federal restrictions on machine-gun ownership.[23]

Another body of case law has affirmed federal bans on gun possession by various categories of people. At least ten circuits, for instance, have upheld a federal provision banning firearms possession by convicted felons.[24] Five have affirmed a similar ban for those convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence offense.[25] Four have upheld such a ban for persons convicted of drug-possession offenses.[26] Three circuits have upheld a prohibition on gun possession by those subject to a restraining order;[27] another set of three has also affirmed such a ban on illegal alien gun possession.[28] Finally, two circuits have rejected constitutional challenges to similar ban for drug traffickers.[29]

Lower Courts and the Second Amendment « Alexandria

Your command of English is poor. Your response does not refute anything I wrote.
No court has ruled on the policies currently being discussed. That was explicit in what I wrote.

 

[GuyPinestra]

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?

That law ALREADY exists, fool...

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

That law ALREADY exists, fool...

In case you hadn't noticed, about half the 'nuts around here are saying that law is unconstitutional.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

We already have that law.

I was replying to the guy who says that law is unconstitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actualy, just about every proposal made so far has already passed muster.

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

The Supreme Court does not alone determine constitutionality of a given law; indeed, only a small percentage of Federal courts of appeals cases reach the High Court, as they develop much of the case law. See, e.g., Ruiz v. Hull, 957 P.2d 984 (Ariz. 1998), where the Arizona Supreme Court struck down that state’s ‘English as official language’ law as un-Constitutional. The Supreme Court refused to grant cert as the issue under review became moot. English as the official language laws are consequently un-Constitutional, and will remain so until a judicial conflict arises.

Translation:
There are no cases where the SCotuS uhpeld:
-'Assault weapon' bans
-"hi-cap' magazine bans
-Universal background checks
Thank you.