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

[2aguy]

Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Its like fireworks on the fourth of July. We had laws against them in the city limits yet, every Independence Day, you heard nothing but fireworks going off as soon as the sun went down. People would just drive out to the unincorporated areas and buy them and bring them back.

The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro. Its time we do the same thing here. Meanwhile…if you’re in need of a means of aggressive defense—firearms—you should be able to purchase them. Do you need a gun on Wacker St. in Chicago? No. Do you need one in rural Nebraska? Yep. It would be, in my view, irresponsible not to have one. The nearest LEO may be 30 miles away.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws

This is not true...not even in the slightest bit true.

It is a felony to use a gun to commit rape, robbery, murder, kidnapping in all 57 states. (using the obama number.) It is against the law in all 57 states for a convicted felon to buy, own or carry a gun......so you are just wrong.

The problem we have is the patchwork of democrat controlled voting districts, where they allow repeat, violent gun offenders out of jail over and over again. I have posted the articles on this from state after state, where democrat judges, prosecutors and politicians release gun offenders even after 2nd and 3rd gun possession arrests....and then, released on bail or their own recognizance, they go out and murder someone. I-bonds for gun offenses have released over 70% of those arrested for felony gun possession.

If we have a patchwork of anything, it is because of democrats allowing gun offenders out of jail and prison.

Please....explain to us why the democrats keep doing that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Trained, licensed and insured.
It's what we require of people who drive automobiles in this country. Common sense.

You don't need any of those things unless you operate a car on public roads.
So...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Laws that allow for the law abiding to freely own, carry and use firearms in self defense? Certainly.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Welcome to federalism.

The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro.

You cannot show this to be true.

 

[diver52]

Driving on public roads is not a right it is a privilege granted by the states and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Gun ownership isn't a right and the government should be able to revoke it as well.

Even you gun advocates don't think that criminals and crazy people should have a 'right' to a gun. so let's cut the nonsense here.

Gun ownership is a right under the Constitution. The courts have made that very clear.

 

[diver52]

There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.

There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.

The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia. I have no idea how you regulate something without regulations. SCOTUS, which is empowered by the Constitution to resolve questions of constitutionality, has consistently held that such laws are constitutional.

 

[Flash]

There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.

There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.

The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia. I have no idea how you regulate something without regulations. SCOTUS, which is empowered by the Constitution to resolve questions of constitutionality, has consistently held that such laws are constitutional.

You are confused in two ways.

First of all the term "well regulated" at the time the Bill of Rights was written meant well provisioned. It did not mean to be regulated with regulations like we we may use the term today.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

"In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"

Second, as far as the term "militia" goes, the Heller case put aside any doubt that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right just like the right of religion and right of free speech.

The problem with the courts in the US is that they have not applied the strict scrutiny test to the right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutionally protected individual rights and that is despicable.

My personal opinion is that there should not be any laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It is none of the filthy government's business. If I commit a crime with a firearm I should be held accountable but the government should never infringe upon my right to keep and bear any arm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.
There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.

The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia.

However, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You can regulate the militia all you want, so long as you do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Blues Man]

Driving on public roads is not a right it is a privilege granted by the states and can be revoked at any time for any reason

Gun ownership isn't a right and the government should be able to revoke it as well.

Even you gun advocates don't think that criminals and crazy people should have a 'right' to a gun. so let's cut the nonsense here.

It can be revoked with due process.

We have a codified list of the people who cannot legally possess firearms

 

[diver52]

There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.
There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.

The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia.

However, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You can regulate the militia all you want, so long as you do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

It does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with a militia. Heller made that clear. However, that does not mean - and Heller was clear on this as well - that the state does not have the ability to regulate that. Restricting the nature of arms, specific categories of individuals, who may or may not conceal carry are all within the purview of state control. This is well established by the supreme court. And it is SCOTUS which determines what is or is not against the Constitution, not the individual citizen or any other branch of government.

I would point out that the 2nd amendment refers to arms. That word includes far more than firearms. 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.

 

[diver52]

There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.

There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.

The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia. I have no idea how you regulate something without regulations. SCOTUS, which is empowered by the Constitution to resolve questions of constitutionality, has consistently held that such laws are constitutional.

You are confused in two ways.

First of all the term "well regulated" at the time the Bill of Rights was written meant well provisioned. It did not mean to be regulated with regulations like we we may use the term today.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

"In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"

Second, as far as the term "militia" goes, the Heller case put aside any doubt that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right just like the right of religion and right of free speech.

The problem with the courts in the US is that they have not applied the strict scrutiny test to the right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutionally protected individual rights and that is despicable.

My personal opinion is that there should not be any laws that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It is none of the filthy government's business. If I commit a crime with a firearm I should be held accountable but the government should never infringe upon my right to keep and bear any arm.

The words regulated and nourished were both in existence at the time the Constitution was written. If the founders wrote regulated, they meant regulated.

I agree with you on Heller and did not mean to say that the right was intrinsically connected to membership in a militia. But you did not go far enough into Heller. The court also said:

"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.

 

[2aguy]

There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.
There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.

The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia.

However, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You can regulate the militia all you want, so long as you do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

It does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with a militia. Heller made that clear. However, that does not mean - and Heller was clear on this as well - that the state does not have the ability to regulate that. Restricting the nature of arms, specific categories of individuals, who may or may not conceal carry are all within the purview of state control. This is well established by the supreme court. And it is SCOTUS which determines what is or is not against the Constitution, not the individual citizen or any other branch of government.

I would point out that the 2nd amendment refers to arms. That word includes far more than firearms. 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.

Yes....and Scalia gave examples of restrictions that might be allowed.....and none of them mentioned had anything to do with banning guns

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.

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.

And Scalia went on in his writings in Friedman v Highland Park to further define what he meant.....and he states, by name, that AR-15 rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment...


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

 

[diver52]

There should be absolutely no gun laws due to the fact that the Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Every friggin gun law is an infringement and is unlawful because it is against the Constitution.
There should be laws against using guns for illegal purpose but never for keeping them and bearing them.

The Constitution also says the reason for the right is a well-regulated militia.

However, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

You can regulate the militia all you want, so long as you do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

It does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with a militia. Heller made that clear. However, that does not mean - and Heller was clear on this as well - that the state does not have the ability to regulate that. Restricting the nature of arms, specific categories of individuals, who may or may not conceal carry are all within the purview of state control. This is well established by the supreme court. And it is SCOTUS which determines what is or is not against the Constitution, not the individual citizen or any other branch of government.

I would point out that the 2nd amendment refers to arms. That word includes far more than firearms. 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.

Yes....and Scalia gave examples of restrictions that might be allowed.....and none of them mentioned had anything to do with banning guns

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.

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.

And Scalia went on in his writings in Friedman v Highland Park to further define what he meant.....and he states, by name, that AR-15 rifles are protected by the 2nd Amendment...


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

The issue, as I understood it, was whether any restrictions are constitutional. I have no issues with someone owning an AR-15.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with a militia. Heller made that clear. However, that does not mean - and Heller was clear on this as well - that the state does not have the ability to regulate that.

So long as such regulations do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, sure.

Restricting the nature of arms....

.. so long as such arms are not "bearable arms" as described in Heller and later jurisprudence...

specific categories of individuals....

... so long as those individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms, removed either through due process or by virtue of the fact said person is not of "the people"....

I would point out that the 2nd amendment refers to arms. That word includes far more than firearms.

Current jurisprudence, however, covers only firearms suitable for the various traditionally legal purposes.
You can argue that other weapons fall under this category, but you do so w/o precedental support.

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.

Nothing in Heller supports the idea that the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear sarin, so... no.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I agree with you on Heller and did not mean to say that the right was intrinsically connected to membership in a militia. But you did not go far enough into Heller. The court also said:
"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."

This does not mean a quarter of what you think it means.

 

[Flash]

[

"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.

 

[2aguy]

[

"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.

They want all the guns....they will not stop until they get all the guns, anyone who tells us differently is either naive, or lying.

 

[diver52]

I agree with you on Heller and did not mean to say that the right was intrinsically connected to membership in a militia. But you did not go far enough into Heller. The court also said:
"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."

This does not mean a quarter of what you think it means.

It means exactly what it says, which is what I think it means.

 

[miketx]

Society has a right to protect itself. Hence gun laws make perfect sense.

Where we have a problem is that we have a patchwork system of gun laws where what is legal in one state is not legal in another; what is illegal in a municipality is perfectly legal outside of it.

Its like fireworks on the fourth of July. We had laws against them in the city limits yet, every Independence Day, you heard nothing but fireworks going off as soon as the sun went down. People would just drive out to the unincorporated areas and buy them and bring them back.

The rest of the world has proven gun laws work when it is done in the macro. Its time we do the same thing here. Meanwhile…if you’re in need of a means of aggressive defense—firearms—you should be able to purchase them. Do you need a gun on Wacker St. in Chicago? No. Do you need one in rural Nebraska? Yep. It would be, in my view, irresponsible not to have one. The nearest LEO may be 30 miles away.

Why don't stop releasing violent felons from prison and stop giving them probation?

 

[diver52]

It does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess a firearm unconnected with a militia. Heller made that clear. However, that does not mean - and Heller was clear on this as well - that the state does not have the ability to regulate that.

So long as such regulations do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, sure.

Restricting the nature of arms....

.. so long as such arms are not "bearable arms" as described in Heller and later jurisprudence...

specific categories of individuals....

... so long as those individuals do not have the right to keep and bear arms, removed either through due process or by virtue of the fact said person is not of "the people"....

I would point out that the 2nd amendment refers to arms. That word includes far more than firearms.

Current jurisprudence, however, covers only firearms suitable for the various traditionally legal purposes.
You can argue that other weapons fall under this category, but you do so w/o precedental support.

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.

Nothing in Heller supports the idea that the 2nd protects the right to keep and bear sarin, so... no.

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.

"Bearable" does not mean able to carry. An officer sitting in a missile silo is bearing arms.

 

[diver52]

[

"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.