What's new

CDZ Gun law proposals, I oppose all of them, tell me how they actually would work.

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
2,437
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
 

diver52

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
18
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion. Freedom of religion, like the 2nd amendment, is not unlimited.

As to you other point, you make a good argument. Let me mull that over.
 

diver52

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
18
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion. Freedom of religion, like the 2nd amendment, is not unlimited.

As to you other point, you make a good argument. Let me mull that over.
I re-read Heller and I am going to concede to your point. Scalia clearly considered the "to bear" as to physically carry. I have always seen that from a military point of view. To bear arms was to serve. Since this is about law rather than personal definitions, you are clearly right on this and I was wrong.
 

Cellblock2429

Gold Member
Gold Supporting Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2016
Messages
21,280
Reaction score
3,165
Points
290
Location
New York
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
/——/ “common sense gun laws” A bad policy with a nice sounding name is still bad policy.
Other examples: Affordable Care Act, a Police Action, and Woman’s right to choose. Feel free to add your favorites.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
36,111
Reaction score
6,788
Points
1,240
Location
Florida
[

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 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."

One can certainly disagree with the court's opinion. However, that does not change that, under the Constitution, it is SCOTUS that is the final word on the subject. So the fact remains that such laws are not unconstitutional.
Except for the examples he gave (which most people would find to be reasonable) we have no idea what limitations Scalia and the Court would have found acceptable.

Those examples do not cover the massive laws states like California and New York have imposed on the right to keep and bear arms. For example, in New York they passed the oppressive SAFE Act, which was touted by the Liberals as being "reasonable gun control". However, two weeks after it was passed a veteran was arrested for having an unloaded 30 rd AR magazine in the trunk of his car. No AR, only an unloaded magazine. A few months later a man went to see his doctor about a mild case of insomina. Under the SAFE Act the doctor reported him to the authorities and the jack booted thugs came to house and confiscated his firearms. A few months after that a lady from Texas was traveling through New York to Maine with her daughter. She had a pistol for protection. The pistol was perfectly legal in Texas. She was arrested under the SAFE Act for having the firearm.

The problem with the Courts is that it has not applied the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms as it has to other Constitutional rights and that is despicable. Hopefully we can get enough of a Conservative leaning majority in the Supreme Court while Trump is President to fix all the government oppression we have with the infringement of our Liberty.

You can't ever trust Liberals with defining limitations on personal Liberty because they don't believe in it. They believe in collectivism and that is in direct opposition to individual Liberty.
This is because the court only addresses issue brought before it.
I guarantee you that when we get a decisive majority of Conservatives on the Court (God bless Trump) you will see the cases.

The real problem with gun control cases is most often it is connected with another crime so the infringement issue is never challenged. For instance, I really think the NFA law is unconstitutional. I think the government has no right requiring a tax on a fully automatic firearm and has no right to restrict the number that can be on the register. That infringement is anti constitutional oppression.

What I could do is get a hold of a fully automatic weapon and shoot it and get arrested by the assholes who are the thugs of the shitheads that have taken away my Liberty.

However, I risk imprisonment and fines and it would cost me hundreds of thousands in legal fees. I am not willing to do that so the Supreme Court will not have the opportunity to hear a clean infringement case.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
2,437
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion.
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
2,437
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion. Freedom of religion, like the 2nd amendment, is not unlimited.

As to you other point, you make a good argument. Let me mull that over.
I re-read Heller and I am going to concede to your point. Scalia clearly considered the "to bear" as to physically carry. I have always seen that from a military point of view. To bear arms was to serve. Since this is about law rather than personal definitions, you are clearly right on this and I was wrong.
Thank you
 

diver52

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
18
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion.
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,096
Reaction score
14,554
Points
2,180
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion.
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.

Human sacrifice is not protected....murder is not protected by Freedom of Religion.

Scalia stated....all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is protected by name. That was in Heller, and specifically stated in Friedman v Highland Park......
 

diver52

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
18
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion.
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.

Human sacrifice is not protected....murder is not protected by Freedom of Religion.

Scalia stated....all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is protected by name. That was in Heller, and specifically stated in Friedman v Highland Park......
I didn't say it was protected. It obviously isn't because that is a restriction of the 1st amendment. OTOH, the use of peyote is also against the law but is protected under the 1st as religious. A religious expression which is not protected represents a restriction of the 1st amendment. Calling it something different does not change that.

Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected. There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.

Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,096
Reaction score
14,554
Points
2,180
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion.
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.

Human sacrifice is not protected....murder is not protected by Freedom of Religion.

Scalia stated....all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is protected by name. That was in Heller, and specifically stated in Friedman v Highland Park......
I didn't say it was protected. It obviously isn't because that is a restriction of the 1st amendment. OTOH, the use of peyote is also against the law but is protected under the 1st as religious. A religious expression which is not protected represents a restriction of the 1st amendment. Calling it something different does not change that.

Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected. There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.

Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
And you would be wrong...

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
 

diver52

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
18
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion.
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.

Human sacrifice is not protected....murder is not protected by Freedom of Religion.

Scalia stated....all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is protected by name. That was in Heller, and specifically stated in Friedman v Highland Park......
I didn't say it was protected. It obviously isn't because that is a restriction of the 1st amendment. OTOH, the use of peyote is also against the law but is protected under the 1st as religious. A religious expression which is not protected represents a restriction of the 1st amendment. Calling it something different does not change that.

Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected. There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.

Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
And you would be wrong...

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
I don't think so. The court giveth and the court taketh away:

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

Try buying military grade machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. All bearable arms. Even Texas bans those (46.04 of the penal code) unless you get special authorization from the feds.
 
OP
2aguy

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
78,096
Reaction score
14,554
Points
2,180
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.

Human sacrifice is not protected....murder is not protected by Freedom of Religion.

Scalia stated....all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is protected by name. That was in Heller, and specifically stated in Friedman v Highland Park......
I didn't say it was protected. It obviously isn't because that is a restriction of the 1st amendment. OTOH, the use of peyote is also against the law but is protected under the 1st as religious. A religious expression which is not protected represents a restriction of the 1st amendment. Calling it something different does not change that.

Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected. There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.

Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
And you would be wrong...

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
I don't think so. The court giveth and the court taketh away:

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

Try buying military grade machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. All bearable arms. Even Texas bans those (46.04 of the penal code) unless you get special authorization from the feds.

Machine guns and grenade launchers are not the same as "bearable arms." Machine guns require a crew to operate, making them out of the category of bearable arms, and grenade launchers are area effect weapons, not suitable for lawful purposes which Scalia names as being a requirement.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
2,437
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Of course Heller did not support the idea that sarin is protected. Heller made it clear that laws banning such weapons were acceptable under the constitution. The point is that if you accept that some restrictions are acceptable, then you cannot then argue that no restrictions are acceptable.
Non Seq.
Acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie outside the right (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....) in no way necessitates the acceptance of restrictions on particulars that lie within the right to (to keep and bear arms, free speech, freedom of religion....).

You argue that because we accept restrictions on the religious practice of human sacrifice, we must accept the restriction of, say, a state-issued permit to attend church.
Silly, right?
"Bearable" does not mean able to carry.
Bearable arms, as the term is used in the Heller ruling, means "commonly used at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
The protections of the 2nd, under Heller, extend to extends, "prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" - and a ban on any such arms, per Heller, "under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights... would fail constitutional muster."

Thus, your statement:
A law against possessing sarin gas is as much a restriction of 2nd amendment rights as a law saying you can't possess a glock.
Is utter, unsupportable nonsense.
On the church point, it would indeed be silly but that does not change the fact that outlawing human or animal sacrifice is a restriction on the free expression of religion.
False.
Human sacrifice is not part of the right to freely practice your relation, which is why a restriction on it does not restrict said right - or violate the 1st Amendment.
Similarly, the possession and use of sarin gas is not a part of the right to keep and bear arms, which is why a restriction of it doe snot restrict said right - or violate the 2nd.
Therefore, accepting a restriction of sarin gas in no way necessitates the acceptance of a restriction on the possession and use of a Glock.
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion.
It isn't, because human sacrifice isn't part of the free exercise of religion, just like libel and slander aren't free speech, and murdering some with a firearm isn't part of the right to keep and bear arms.
Restrictions on these things do not run afoul of the constitutional protections of the relevant rights, because they are not included in said rights.
See: Schenck v. United States - Wikipedia

And so, restrictions on sarin gas do not violate the 2nd because the right to keep and bear arms does not include the right to own and use sarin, and thus the acceptance of said restriction does not logically necessitate acceptance of a restriction on Glocks.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
2,437
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected.
He did.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.
Given Heller, what firearm "in common use at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes" is not protected by the 2nd?
Given Heller, how can the right to own and use any "bearable arm" - including the firearms specified, above - NOT be protected by the 2nd?
Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
They fear what they media tells them to fear.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,720
Reaction score
2,437
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
I don't think so.
Because you do not want to go where this logically leads you.
Try buying military grade machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. All bearable arms
Can you demonstrate these weapons are firearms "in common use at the time" for "traditionally lawful purposes"?
No?
Then, under Heller, they are not "bearable arms" and thus, the 2nd does not protect the right to own and use them.
 

diver52

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2019
Messages
707
Reaction score
37
Points
18
Not false. It is most definitely a restriction of the free exercise of religion. Denying it doesn't change it. Nor does it change the fact that SCOTUS has stated clearly (and did so in Heller) that no right is unlimited.

Human sacrifice is not protected....murder is not protected by Freedom of Religion.

Scalia stated....all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and the AR-15 is protected by name. That was in Heller, and specifically stated in Friedman v Highland Park......
I didn't say it was protected. It obviously isn't because that is a restriction of the 1st amendment. OTOH, the use of peyote is also against the law but is protected under the 1st as religious. A religious expression which is not protected represents a restriction of the 1st amendment. Calling it something different does not change that.

Scalia did not say all bearable arms were protected. There are any number of weapons bearable under that definition which are not protected.

Why do people keep bringing up the AR-15?
And you would be wrong...

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

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

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

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
I don't think so. The court giveth and the court taketh away:

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

Try buying military grade machine guns, grenade launchers, etc. All bearable arms. Even Texas bans those (46.04 of the penal code) unless you get special authorization from the feds.

Machine guns and grenade launchers are not the same as "bearable arms." Machine guns require a crew to operate, making them out of the category of bearable arms, and grenade launchers are area effect weapons, not suitable for lawful purposes which Scalia names as being a requirement.
I have carried both machine guns and grenade launchers. If bearable means able to carry, then they are bearable. They are restricted because the 2nd amendment is not unlimited, which Scalia clearly stated. The claim was that all bearable weapons are covered and that is simply not true.
 

xband

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
4,199
Reaction score
389
Points
140
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
If Obama knocked on your door wanting your gun, what is the ethical thing to do?
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
25,000
Reaction score
4,845
Points
290
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...

I have no problem with law abiding citizens of sound mind owning rifles or pistols.

I can also accept private ownership of automatic weapons.

However I would want all gun owners to be properly trained and licensed.
Do you carry a license to post on this forum? How about writing a letter to your editor of the local newspaper?

Do you present your license when you speak your opinion in any public square or arena?

A license is the government taking from you a precious freedom and then selling it back to you for a profit.
 

Darkwind

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2009
Messages
25,000
Reaction score
4,845
Points
290
We hear from those opposed to gun ownership that 2nd Amendment supporters will not support "common sense" gun control. This is inaccurate in that those of us who support the 2nd Amendment support locking up criminals who use guns for crime for long periods of time, I say 30 years for rape, robbery or murder using a gun....on top of any other penalty for the rape, robbery or murder. Do that, and you will see how fast criminals stop using guns for crimes.....

The above would be actual gun control, rather than gun control aimed at creating new taxes, fees, regulations aimed at making it harder and more legally intimidating for normal people to own guns.

And now, here is a group of new gun control laws proposed after the Virginia Beach shooting....I oppose all of them, not to simply oppose them, but because they don't do anything to stop criminals from getting guns....and more pointedly, would not have stopped the shooter ...... the alleged point in coming up with the new gun laws...

Please....if you can, explain how any of these new gun laws are "common sense" and how any of them would stop criminals or mass shooters, in particular, the shooter in Virginia....

ICYMI: Here Are The Virginia Democrats' Anti-Gun Proposals


Criminalization of the private transfer of firearms;

·A ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms;

·A ban on firearm suppressors;

·Firearms rationing (described by the governor’s office as “one-gun-a-month law,” as opposed to Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law that was repealed in 2012);

·Procedures to confiscate firearms from otherwise law-abiding individuals without due process;

·Mandatory firearm storage requirements;

·Mandatory lost or stolen firearm reporting; and

·A weakened Virginia firearms preemption statute that would empower local governments to create a complicated patchwork of gun laws.

None of the above laws would have stopped the shooter in Virginia.....not one.......also, none of these laws would stop criminals....

So.....explain how my opposition to laws that do nothing, is simply opposing "common sense" gun control...
If Obama knocked on your door wanting your gun, what is the ethical thing to do?
Close the door in his face.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top