It is unconstitutional to ban handguns...

[M14 Shooter]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

 

[HenryBHough]

In America, yes.

But this is post-constitutional Obamerica in which laws flow not from Congress. rather are handed down from on high by His Imperial Majesty.

 

[miketx]

The silence of the trolls is deafening....

 

[yiostheoy]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

Scalia is not around to fight for gun rights anymore, so it looks like Thomas will need to take up that torch -- which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights -- after all the post Civil War legislation and rulings which tried to deprive black men from keeping and bearing arms.

I too noticed the "popularity" criterion used by Scalia in his write-up of Heller.

However the other SCOTUS justices are NOT buying it apparently.

They recently "let stand" a decision by a lower court upholding an assault weapons ban.

So times are changing. Scalia has died. And we are running out of strict-constructionist justices on the SCOTUS. BHO and Billy C. did not appoint any, and GWB did not get to appoint enough.

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

 

[yiostheoy]

The silence of the trolls is deafening....

It's just not an issue that most people are aware of.

You need to carefully read Heller, first.

Then you need to contrast that with the recent SCOTUS decision to "let stand" a recent local assault weapons ban.

Then you need to put all that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[jillian]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

 

[yiostheoy]

In America, yes.

But this is post-constitutional Obamerica in which laws flow not from Congress. rather are handed down from on high by His Imperial Majesty.

That's not true either.

Even Scalia admits that gun rights are not "absolute rights" which is an unfortunate confession.

Has nothing to do with BHO.

BHO tried to get green tipped 5.56x45mm ammo banned but he could not do it.

So BHO has done nothing concrete regarding guns at all, other than nominate activist justices to the SCOTUS.

There was no federal gun legislation during BHO's terms of office.

He spent his legacy on healthcare, which I suppose is a good thing. Helps the poor.

 

[yiostheoy]

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

That's not true either.

The reasonable regulation is regarding public possession.

You should read Heller v. DC.

 

[jillian]

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

That's not true either.

The reasonable regulation is regarding public possession.

You should read Heller v. DC.

you should probably UNDERSTAND Heller v D.C.

but thanks anyway

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Scalia is not around to fight for gun rights anymore, so it looks like Thomas will need to take up that torch -- which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights -- after all the post Civil War legislation and rulings which tried to deprive black men from keeping and bearing arms.

I too noticed the "popularity" criterion used by Scalia in his write-up of Heller.

However the other SCOTUS justices are NOT buying it apparently.

They recently "let stand" a decision by a lower court upholding an assault weapons ban.

So times are changing. Scalia has died. And we are running out of strict-constructionist justices on the SCOTUS. BHO and Billy C. did not appoint any, and GWB did not get to appoint enough.

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

And THIS is why Trump, not Hilary, must win the coming election.

 

[miketx]

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

You need to be made to understand what "shall not be infringed" means, traitor.

 

[miketx]

In America, yes.

But this is post-constitutional Obamerica in which laws flow not from Congress. rather are handed down from on high by His Imperial Majesty.

That's not true either.

Even Scalia admits that gun rights are not "absolute rights" which is an unfortunate confession.

Has nothing to do with BHO.

BHO tried to get green tipped 5.56x45mm ammo banned but he could not do it.

So BHO has done nothing concrete regarding guns at all, other than nominate activist justices to the SCOTUS.

There was no federal gun legislation during BHO's terms of office.

He spent his legacy on healthcare, which I suppose is a good thing. Helps the poor.

Nothing obama has done helps the poor. That is a lie.

 

[Auld Phart]

In America, yes.

But this is post-constitutional Obamerica in which laws flow not from Congress. rather are handed down from on high by His Imperial Majesty.

That's not true either.

Even Scalia admits that gun rights are not "absolute rights" which is an unfortunate confession.

Has nothing to do with BHO.

BHO tried to get green tipped 5.56x45mm ammo banned but he could not do it.

So BHO has done nothing concrete regarding guns at all, other than nominate activist justices to the SCOTUS.

There was no federal gun legislation during BHO's terms of office.

He spent his legacy on healthcare, which I suppose is a good thing. Helps the poor.

There was no federal gun legislation during BHO's terms of office.

Not from lack of trying

 

[LA RAM FAN]

In America, yes.

But this is post-constitutional Obamerica in which laws flow not from Congress. rather are handed down from on high by His Imperial Majesty.

Yeah Obama of course doesnt believe in the constitution.None of the presidents since Reagan have and have gotten worse and worse serving their masters instead of the people.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Scalia is not around to fight for gun rights anymore, so it looks like Thomas will need to take up that torch -- which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights -- after all the post Civil War legislation and rulings which tried to deprive black men from keeping and bearing arms.

I too noticed the "popularity" criterion used by Scalia in his write-up of Heller.

However the other SCOTUS justices are NOT buying it apparently.

They recently "let stand" a decision by a lower court upholding an assault weapons ban.

So times are changing. Scalia has died. And we are running out of strict-constructionist justices on the SCOTUS. BHO and Billy C. did not appoint any, and GWB did not get to appoint enough.

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

And THIS is why Trump, not Hilary, must win the coming election.

This is #1 for me.....his support for the first amendment:

The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish. Why don't churches pay taxes?





Donald Trump: As President, I’ll Reverse the Law That Prevents Churches from Endorsing Candidates
Trump said near the end of his speech that he would rescind the IRS rule preventing churches from endorsing candidates.

That takes you and it makes you less powerful than a man or woman walking up and down the street. You actually have less power.”

And yet if you look at it, I was talking to someone, we probably have 250 million, maybe even more, in terms of people, so we have more Christians… than we have men or women in our country and we don’t have a lobby because they’re afraid to have a lobby because they don’t want to lose their tax status.

So I am going to work like hell to get rid of that prohibition and we’re going to have the strongest Christian lobby and it’s going to happen. This took place during the presidency of Lyndon Johnson and it has had a terrible chilling effect.

Donald Trump: As President, I’ll Reverse the Law That Prevents Churches from Endorsing Candidates

 

[miketx]

Trump/Palin 2016.

 

[2aguy]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

Scalia is not around to fight for gun rights anymore, so it looks like Thomas will need to take up that torch -- which is ironic that now a black man has to fight for white people's 2nd Amendment rights -- after all the post Civil War legislation and rulings which tried to deprive black men from keeping and bearing arms.

I too noticed the "popularity" criterion used by Scalia in his write-up of Heller.

However the other SCOTUS justices are NOT buying it apparently.

They recently "let stand" a decision by a lower court upholding an assault weapons ban.

So times are changing. Scalia has died. And we are running out of strict-constructionist justices on the SCOTUS. BHO and Billy C. did not appoint any, and GWB did not get to appoint enough.

You need to get up to speed on the composition of the US Supreme Court.

Keep in mind....it was white people who were democrats who tried to deny blacks their Civil Rights...and they used the same tactics they want to use to keep people from owning guns...

The white democrats who didn't want blacks to vote used 1) Poll Taxes to make sure blacks could not afford the right to vote...and 2) Literacy test because they knew blacks couldn't afford an education....

What do democrats want today....they want taxes and fees on the right to own guns...and they want mandatory training....the equivalent to literacy tests....the democrats are using the same tactics against a different Right...

 

[2aguy]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

We already have reasonable regulation....you can't use guns to commit crimes...if you do you can be arrested and jailed....

If you are a convicted felon caught with a gun you can be arrested and jailed...

We can already do both of those.....

 

[Rustic]

...under any of the standards of scrutiny.

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; a ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. (see: Heller)

Handguns are used to commit 47.8% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 70% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-2014), (see: FBI) but, even with that demonstrable effect on public safety, the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. (see: Heller)

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; the AR15-style rifle is the most popular and highest selling rifle in the US, suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home.

Rifles of all kinds are used to commit 2.4% of all murders in the US (2010-2014), and 3.5% of all gun-related murders in the US (2010-20140 (see: FBI) , if EVERY rifle used to commit murder in the US were an AR15 derivative, AR15-style rifles are used to commit murder 5% as often as handguns.

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 (see: Heller); as the AR15 style rifle is in common use for all of the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm, including self-defense in the home, and is 5% as often used to commit a murder than a handgun, it cannot be considered dangerous or unusual.


Given the fact that, regardless of their effect on public safety, banning handguns violates the Constitution regardless of the level of scrutiny, how then can it be constitutional to ban AR15 style rifles?

Please try to answer the question without resorting to fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance, and/or dishonesty.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc..._2010-2014.xls

a total ban is unconstitutional.

reasonable regulation is not.

so who said a total ban is ok?

If you go by the numbers and percentages an ar15 sporting rifle is next to harmless...

 

[JoeMoma]

Once a type of gun is banned the door is open to ban any or all types of guns. Unless the second amendment is repealed, it is unlikely that all guns are banned, but we could be very limited as to what guns we can have. We could possibly be limited to guns that are single shot.