No. Not all rights are the same or treated the same under the law. The 2nd is the only right that concerns using a tool.
"Shall not be infringed".
"Shall not be infringed".
The late Justice Anton Scalia in Heller v. Dist. of Columbia blew that fiction out of the water in section 3, paragraph 1 of his decision. It's time for you gun nuts to look past all the tired and worn Amendment II propaganda and bull and edify thy selves!
You are wrong....
No! Actually it's you who is
STILL WRONG, and you keep ignoring the facts in the law and misinterpreting established case law. For at least the 4th time, from the pen of Justice Anton Scalia:
Heller v. Dist. of Columbia (2008), in Sec. III of the decision;
"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.... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
I've fed you the above excerpts multiple times. And each time your response has been silence, only to return months or years later and try to pedal the same tripe all over again. You haven't learned a bloody thing!
No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
He covers sensitive places, he does not say these weapons can be banned.....and, in fact, states....
Heller.......and what weapons are protected......which you don't want to address....
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.
--
Scalia........going into depth as to what weapons are actually protected.....you doofus.
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.
A more detailed quote from Friedman...
Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.
Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.
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 Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.
Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.
Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634.
This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.
III
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.
No, shit head....no where in that quote does he say you can ban rifles, pistols or shotguns......including AR-15 rifles......
AND there is no location on this thread where I mentioned the banning of firearms. You've "misfired" yet again 2A...will you ever learn to find the truth??
"..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."
I don't believe you ever got out a dictionary and defined the meaning of three words in the highlighted clause above. Prima facie is Latin and essentially means 'at first glance'. It does not mean or is intended to mean Amendment II all firearms, past, present and future, are lawful under the penumbra of the amendment. A rocket-powered grenade (RPG) is a firearm as EXTENDED under Amendment II but it certainly is NOT lawful, along with other weapons of Man's creation.
Friedman v Highland Park....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
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....
Obviously, you are clueless about the purpose of that petition for a Writ of Certiorari and the subsequent refusal by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to grant. In any case, Thomas and Scalia were venting their angst at being denied Certiorari in what you ignorantly cited. It is
NOT case law and has no bloody standing re: Amendment II in and by itself. They made a legal argument so the Circuit Court might bow to their wish for Certiorari and then had a hissy fit directed at a lower Court when it was denied.
But you keep throwing those darts, and who knows, you might get hit something someday.......maybe.
