Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.It is Scalias findingFrom Scalia’s positionWrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
2. 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, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Yes....felons, the dangerously mentally ill....and by leaving Miller in there you also leave in the fact that military weapons are protected...thanks....
And again...
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun rights are not unlimited
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.It is Scalias findingFrom Scalia’s position
2. 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, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Yes....felons, the dangerously mentally ill....and by leaving Miller in there you also leave in the fact that military weapons are protected...thanks....
And again...
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun rights are not unlimited
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
So your point is bullshit and you have to deflect.Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.It is Scalias findingYes....felons, the dangerously mentally ill....and by leaving Miller in there you also leave in the fact that military weapons are protected...thanks....
And again...
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun rights are not unlimited
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
They are amazed at our access to guns and willingness to accept ten thousand murders a year
ROFLMFAOWhen you think that the stupid candidates of the Anti Cheeseburger Party (previously known as the Democrat Party) couldn't come up with anything more stupid than you already heard now the clowns are saying that you must get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Our Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
If you have to get government permission to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it? We are just another Banana Republic, aren't we?
Then these Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.
New Bill Would Require Gun Owners to get 5 year Federal License
“If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and possess a gun,” said U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a Presidential candidate, and the bill’s author.
The measure, dubbed the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, would require individuals who want to buy or receive a firearm to first get vetted by and be issued a license from the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to an extensive background check, applicants would have to complete firearms training “which must include a written test and hands-on training to ensure safe use and accuracy,” and submit fingerprints. Further, the licensee would have to report to DOJ the make, model, and the serial number of the gun being transferred.
The license would have to be renewed every five years, to include refresher training and a subsequent background check. No license, no guns.
According to Booker’s office, the bill would also mandate that DOJ “regularly conduct checks to ensure that individuals are in compliance with the federal license requirements,” and stipulates that the licenses could be revoked if it is felt a gun owner is a threat.
10,000 murders a year is hardly bullshitSo your point is bullshit and you have to deflect.Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.It is Scalias finding
Gun rights are not unlimited
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
They are amazed at our access to guns and willingness to accept ten thousand murders a year
I'm not surprised that this dumbass doesn't understand what a right is.When you think that the stupid candidates of the Anti Cheeseburger Party (previously known as the Democrat Party) couldn't come up with anything more stupid than you already heard now the clowns are saying that you must get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Our Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
If you have to get government permission to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it? We are just another Banana Republic, aren't we?
Then these Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.
New Bill Would Require Gun Owners to get 5 year Federal License
“If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and possess a gun,” said U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a Presidential candidate, and the bill’s author.
The measure, dubbed the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, would require individuals who want to buy or receive a firearm to first get vetted by and be issued a license from the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to an extensive background check, applicants would have to complete firearms training “which must include a written test and hands-on training to ensure safe use and accuracy,” and submit fingerprints. Further, the licensee would have to report to DOJ the make, model, and the serial number of the gun being transferred.
The license would have to be renewed every five years, to include refresher training and a subsequent background check. No license, no guns.
According to Booker’s office, the bill would also mandate that DOJ “regularly conduct checks to ensure that individuals are in compliance with the federal license requirements,” and stipulates that the licenses could be revoked if it is felt a gun owner is a threat.
Booker's - and other Democrats - continue campaigning against the U. S. Constitution and our Democracy can no longer be blamed on 'stupidity'...When you think that the stupid candidates of the Anti Cheeseburger Party (previously known as the Democrat Party) couldn't come up with anything more stupid than you already heard now the clowns are saying that you must get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Our Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
If you have to get government permission to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it? We are just another Banana Republic, aren't we?
Then these Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.
New Bill Would Require Gun Owners to get 5 year Federal License
“If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and possess a gun,” said U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a Presidential candidate, and the bill’s author.
The measure, dubbed the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, would require individuals who want to buy or receive a firearm to first get vetted by and be issued a license from the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to an extensive background check, applicants would have to complete firearms training “which must include a written test and hands-on training to ensure safe use and accuracy,” and submit fingerprints. Further, the licensee would have to report to DOJ the make, model, and the serial number of the gun being transferred.
The license would have to be renewed every five years, to include refresher training and a subsequent background check. No license, no guns.
According to Booker’s office, the bill would also mandate that DOJ “regularly conduct checks to ensure that individuals are in compliance with the federal license requirements,” and stipulates that the licenses could be revoked if it is felt a gun owner is a threat.
Booker's - and other Democrats - continue campaigning against the U. S. Constitution and our Democracy can no longer be blamed on 'stupidity'...When you think that the stupid candidates of the Anti Cheeseburger Party (previously known as the Democrat Party) couldn't come up with anything more stupid than you already heard now the clowns are saying that you must get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Our Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
If you have to get government permission to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it? We are just another Banana Republic, aren't we?
Then these Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.
New Bill Would Require Gun Owners to get 5 year Federal License
“If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and possess a gun,” said U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a Presidential candidate, and the bill’s author.
The measure, dubbed the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, would require individuals who want to buy or receive a firearm to first get vetted by and be issued a license from the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to an extensive background check, applicants would have to complete firearms training “which must include a written test and hands-on training to ensure safe use and accuracy,” and submit fingerprints. Further, the licensee would have to report to DOJ the make, model, and the serial number of the gun being transferred.
The license would have to be renewed every five years, to include refresher training and a subsequent background check. No license, no guns.
According to Booker’s office, the bill would also mandate that DOJ “regularly conduct checks to ensure that individuals are in compliance with the federal license requirements,” and stipulates that the licenses could be revoked if it is felt a gun owner is a threat.
.
That was not your point. You cant even remember what your own point was now?10,000 murders a year is hardly bullshitSo your point is bullshit and you have to deflect.Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
They are amazed at our access to guns and willingness to accept ten thousand murders a year
The rest of the world looks in amazement as we do nothing
Booker's - and other Democrats - continue campaigning against the U. S. Constitution and our Democracy can no longer be blamed on 'stupidity'...When you think that the stupid candidates of the Anti Cheeseburger Party (previously known as the Democrat Party) couldn't come up with anything more stupid than you already heard now the clowns are saying that you must get a license to enjoy the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
Our Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves.
If you have to get government permission to enjoy a right guaranteed in the Bill of Rights then the BORs isn't worth the parchment it is written on, is it? We are just another Banana Republic, aren't we?
Then these Moon Bats wonder why we ridicule them so much.
New Bill Would Require Gun Owners to get 5 year Federal License
“If you need a license to drive a car, you should need a license to buy and possess a gun,” said U.S. Sen. Cory Booker, a Presidential candidate, and the bill’s author.
The measure, dubbed the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, would require individuals who want to buy or receive a firearm to first get vetted by and be issued a license from the U.S. Department of Justice. In addition to an extensive background check, applicants would have to complete firearms training “which must include a written test and hands-on training to ensure safe use and accuracy,” and submit fingerprints. Further, the licensee would have to report to DOJ the make, model, and the serial number of the gun being transferred.
The license would have to be renewed every five years, to include refresher training and a subsequent background check. No license, no guns.
According to Booker’s office, the bill would also mandate that DOJ “regularly conduct checks to ensure that individuals are in compliance with the federal license requirements,” and stipulates that the licenses could be revoked if it is felt a gun owner is a threat.
.
“in common use at the time”From Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that wayNo, you don't. The constitution does not work that way. You want that to be the case, all you have to do is pass an amendment.
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
2. 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, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
Finnish it. You loons conveniently forget the rest.A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.....
Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.It is Scalias findingYes....felons, the dangerously mentally ill....and by leaving Miller in there you also leave in the fact that military weapons are protected...thanks....
And again...
That analysis misreads Heller.
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
Gun rights are not unlimited
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
They are amazed at our access to guns and willingness to accept ten thousand murders a year
10,000 murders a year is hardly bullshitSo your point is bullshit and you have to deflect.Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
They are amazed at our access to guns and willingness to accept ten thousand murders a year
The rest of the world looks in amazement as we do nothing
10,000 murders a year is hardly bullshitSo your point is bullshit and you have to deflect.Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimitedNo one advocates that it is unlimited.
Not being unlimited does not equate to being able to ignore it outright. Just as it is not unlimited, it is also not meaningless.
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
They are amazed at our access to guns and willingness to accept ten thousand murders a year
The rest of the world looks in amazement as we do nothing
AR 15s have been banned in the past and it was not found unconstitutional“in common use at the time”From Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.Afraid it does work that way
The Second Amendment is not a blank check to buy any weapon you wish
Go buy an RPG
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
2. 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, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles sold in America so it indisputably falls within the “in common use at the time”
so any effort to confiscate and or ban is unconstitutional
10,000 murders a year is hardly bullshitSo your point is bullshit and you have to deflect.Compared to the rest of the civilized world, we are not heavily regulatedNo they do not and that is evidenced by the FACT that guns are regulated RIGHT NOW. Very heavily regulated for that matter. Almost no one is advocating for rolling back regulations for automatic weaponry for instance.Gun nuts constantly argue that “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed” is unlimited
The courts disagree
You want to make the gun advocates extremists. Sorry, that bullshit does not fly.
They are amazed at our access to guns and willingness to accept ten thousand murders a year
The rest of the world looks in amazement as we do nothing
Europe.... 12 million men, women and children murdered....2 World Wars
Russia....25 million murdered
China....70 million murdered
Japan...3 millio murdered....
Yeah, again, they don't have anything to tell us about murder...
your ignorance never fails to amuse meAR 15s have been banned in the past and it was not found unconstitutional“in common use at the time”From Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weaponsYou saying so does not negate Heller. That you think it does is rather telling. The government can and does regulate arms. It does not have the power to simply ban a common use firearm. Attempting to do so is only going to see the court throw it out.
The fact you use an appeal to extremes shows you do not even have a logical framework for your claims.
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
2. 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, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles sold in America so it indisputably falls within the “in common use at the time”
so any effort to confiscate and or ban is unconstitutional
Doesn’t matteryour ignorance never fails to amuse meAR 15s have been banned in the past and it was not found unconstitutional“in common use at the time”From Scalia’s positionEven Heller accepts the Governments power to control weapons
They can ban firearms if they can demonstrate a public interest to do so
Wrong.....this is Justice Alito writing an opinion in a case right after Heller...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.
2. 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, con- cealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of fire- arms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles sold in America so it indisputably falls within the “in common use at the time”
so any effort to confiscate and or ban is unconstitutional
that ban you are referring to was done in 1994 and it expired in 2004 and was never challenged in the courts
the Heller V DC supreme court decision was made in 2008
you know if you would just do some basic research you wouldn't be made a fool of so easily and often
