New York "SAFE" act turning into a gun ban program...

[2aguy]

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?

gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

More from Caetano v. Massachusetts....notice the wording about Miller and weapons useful for warfare...how they are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment....

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.

In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

-------

As the foregoing makes clear, the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today. The Supreme Judicial Court offered only a cursory discussion of that question, noting that the “‘number of Tasers and stun guns is dwarfed by the number of firearms.’”

Notice....the AR-15 and semi auto rifles are the most popular and "are commonly possessedd by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual rights. That is simple, special pleading and "legislation from the Bench".

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed for that purpose.

The unorganized militia may be infringed; but that is not the same thing as being disarmed, in all cases.

 

[Rustic]

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual rights. That is simple, special pleading and "legislation from the Bench".

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed for that purpose.

The unorganized militia may be infringed; but that is not the same thing as being disarmed, in all cases.

OK, taken in the context of the time what was the militia for? For protection from their own government... of course.
And the only way to do that is an armed individual, There is no such thing as any sort of free State when the federal government has all the control. Too bad the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment, that was what the tenth amendment is for to make sure the federal government is kept in check. Fortunately we still have the electoral college for that.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual rights. That is simple, special pleading and "legislation from the Bench".

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed for that purpose.

The unorganized militia may be infringed; but that is not the same thing as being disarmed, in all cases.

OK, taken in the context of the time what was the militia for? For protection from their own government... of course.
And the only way to do that is an armed individual, There is no such thing as any sort of free State when the federal government has all the control. Too bad the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment, that was what the tenth amendment is for to make sure the federal government is kept in check. Fortunately we still have the electoral college for that.

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

 

[Rustic]

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual rights. That is simple, special pleading and "legislation from the Bench".

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed for that purpose.

The unorganized militia may be infringed; but that is not the same thing as being disarmed, in all cases.

OK, taken in the context of the time what was the militia for? For protection from their own government... of course.
And the only way to do that is an armed individual, There is no such thing as any sort of free State when the federal government has all the control. Too bad the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment, that was what the tenth amendment is for to make sure the federal government is kept in check. Fortunately we still have the electoral college for that.

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Big brother is not needed...

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual rights. That is simple, special pleading and "legislation from the Bench".

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed for that purpose.

The unorganized militia may be infringed; but that is not the same thing as being disarmed, in all cases.

OK, taken in the context of the time what was the militia for? For protection from their own government... of course.
And the only way to do that is an armed individual, There is no such thing as any sort of free State when the federal government has all the control. Too bad the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment, that was what the tenth amendment is for to make sure the federal government is kept in check. Fortunately we still have the electoral college for that.

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

 

[Rustic]

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual rights. That is simple, special pleading and "legislation from the Bench".

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed for that purpose.

The unorganized militia may be infringed; but that is not the same thing as being disarmed, in all cases.

OK, taken in the context of the time what was the militia for? For protection from their own government... of course.
And the only way to do that is an armed individual, There is no such thing as any sort of free State when the federal government has all the control. Too bad the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment, that was what the tenth amendment is for to make sure the federal government is kept in check. Fortunately we still have the electoral college for that.

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment has nothing to do with Individual rights. That is simple, special pleading and "legislation from the Bench".

Only well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, and may not be Infringed for that purpose.

The unorganized militia may be infringed; but that is not the same thing as being disarmed, in all cases.

OK, taken in the context of the time what was the militia for? For protection from their own government... of course.
And the only way to do that is an armed individual, There is no such thing as any sort of free State when the federal government has all the control. Too bad the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment, that was what the tenth amendment is for to make sure the federal government is kept in check. Fortunately we still have the electoral college for that.

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

 

[Rustic]

OK, taken in the context of the time what was the militia for? For protection from their own government... of course.
And the only way to do that is an armed individual, There is no such thing as any sort of free State when the federal government has all the control. Too bad the federal government pretty much disregards the 10th amendment, that was what the tenth amendment is for to make sure the federal government is kept in check. Fortunately we still have the electoral college for that.

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

 

[skews13]

Well regulated militia must muster to become, well regulated. It really is that simple.

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, not self-defense.

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?

gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“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.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

 

[2aguy]

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?

gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“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.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

You can't read......Miller in fact protects magazines, semi auto rifles...as does Heller, there is not one Supreme Court ruling that allows these items to be banned......

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “
-------------------

“in common use at the time”

The Semi auto rifle is the most common rifle used by both civilians and police, and the magazines for those rifles are also the most common piece of equipment considering that they are standard issue parts of those weapons...

You have no idea what you are talking about.....and left wing democrats can ignore the Right to keep and bear arms, but they can't do it by trying to use the Supreme Court to do it.......The Supreme Court has already ruled all of their arguments unConstitutional....over at least 6 or 7 different rulings.......the left wing anti gunners don't like the Right to Keep and Bear arms.....and they will ignore anything that gets in the way of their banning and confiscating guns....but again, don't try to use Supreme Court Precedent to hide your agenda...

From Caetano v. Massechusetts....

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.

 

[2aguy]

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?

gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“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.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

You are the one cherry picking....but the actual decisions are out there, you can't lie about them....

From Heller....

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, 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.

 

[Rustic]

Take it in the context of the time, the founders were all about individual rights.

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

The only difference is who I'm defending myself from.

Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?

gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“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.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

The right to bear arms is an individual right, an absolute one unless someone screws up by becoming a felon.

 

[skews13]

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?

gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“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.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

You are the one cherry picking....but the actual decisions are out there, you can't lie about them....

From Heller....

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation.

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. 2.


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, 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.

SCOTUS has already decided. You lost. The debate is over.

 

[Anathema]

You will answer to the authority having jurisdiction if you get caught with a gun in the wrong place.

First they have to catch my with the gun, then they have to take me into custody alive.

Several years ago I carried a handgun, additional magazjne, knife and peper spray into a meeting with a Massachusetts Stste Rep IN THE STATE HOUSE without being stopped. I do not intended to be taken alive on any firearm charge.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it wasn't. It is about the security of a free State, it says so in the first clause.

Big brother is not needed...

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

nope; only well regulated militia of the people are declared necessary to the security of a free State, not defense of self or property.

 

[hunarcy]

You will answer to the authority having jurisdiction if you get caught with a gun in the wrong place.

First they have to catch my with the gun, then they have to take me into custody alive.

Several years ago I carried a handgun, additional magazjne, knife and peper spray into a meeting with a Massachusetts Stste Rep IN THE STATE HOUSE without being stopped. I do not intended to be taken alive on any firearm charge.

Talk like that isn't helpful. Nor is breaking the law. In fact, the battleground has shifted from the Courthouse to Congress. Contact your Senator to pressure the Senate to take up the legislation. NRA-ILA | House Passes Concealed Carry Reciprocity

 

[danielpalos]

They wrote our Constitution, for Context. The topic of the militia is establish in our Constitution.

Ya, and they were never about the collective, the whole constitution is based on individual rights.

Social contracts are collective, in nature. It should be a self-evident Truth.

The militia of the United States is a Collective, not about Individualism.

But That still does not mean that only the Militia can have firearms, firearm ownership is an absolute right the individual.

No, it's not absolute. There ar

Should gun lovers be required to muster to present Arms, every once in a while?

gun lovers should be required to have the "social support network" of their company and battalion commanders.

Please...read Heller.....many times.....

From Heller....

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

“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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Make sure you read it. Many times.

“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.”

Yes....what part of that statement allows for magazine limits, gun registration or gun confiscation when the citizen isn't a felon or mentally ill?

I see you like to cherry pick

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...”. It is “...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ “

Not only can high capacity magazines be prohibited, but semi automatic firearms themselves be prohibited should any state or locality put that prohibition in place.

Don't live under the delusion that because the state you live in has liberal gun laws that the Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution that it is that way in every state.

The case that was brought before the court was a challenge in different states regarding the right to carry a firearm openly, and a right to carry concealed.

Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, is what is always needed.

The federal government is there for better infrastructure, but the right to bear arms by the individual shall not be infringed, that’s not the federal governments job to be big brother.

The first clause of our Second Amendment, declares what the militia is for.

The rights of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed… End of story

The Supreme Court says you lose. End of story.

The right to bear arms is an individual right, an absolute one unless someone screws up by becoming a felon.

nope; only well regulated militia may not be infringed, the unorganized militia is not declared necessary and may be infringed.

 

[Anathema]

Talk like that isn't helpful. Nor is breaking the law. In fact, the battleground has shifted from the Courthouse to Congress. Contact your Senator...

I will not be bound by unconstitutional and illegal legislation. It' thst simple. Nor will I hide my willingness to defy such laws.

I live in New England and have for my entire 43+ years of life. I haven't actually had my views represented by any elected politician in my lfetime.

 

[danielpalos]

Talk like that isn't helpful. Nor is breaking the law. In fact, the battleground has shifted from the Courthouse to Congress. Contact your Senator...

I will not be bound by unconstitutional and illegal legislation. It' thst simple. Nor will I hide my willingness to defy such laws.

I live in New England and have for my entire 43+ years of life. I haven't actually had my views represented by any elected politician in my lfetime.

I thought New England was a US State, for minute. I had to look it up.

Does Maine have any gun laws?