SCOTUS leaves gun carry limits in place
- Thread starter task0778
- Start date
Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,843
- 290
If you lose your ID . Are all your guns taken away ? You lose your right to bear arms ?
Timmy
Gold Member
- Oct 2, 2015
- 22,432
- 2,843
- 290
Oh so not having a fancy ID means your voting rights are gone but not your gun rights .
- Moderator
- #66
The question I didn't see answered was how the county treated the two lots for taxation, did they send one assessment for both lots or were they assessed separately and were they titled separately? I only read the syllabus, maybe those issues were addressed in the descents.
.
radical right
Platinum Member
- Feb 26, 2017
- 31,750
- 3,768
- 430
- Banned
- #67
If that man still has the military ID issued while he served in the military in WWII, that would be a valid ID, along with something to show his current address, ex: a tax bill, and it satisfies all ATF requirements to buy a firearm.
https://www.atf.gov/file/83651/download
18 U.S.C. 922(t)(1)(C): IDENTIFICATION OF TRANSFEREE
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
so that being the case your point is unconstitutional
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
--LOL
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,370
- 1,130
HARRISONBURG, Va. — A man paid to register Virginia voters prior to the 2016 Presidential Election will spend at least 100 days in prison for submitting the names of deceased individuals to the Registrar’s Office.
“In July 2016 Spieles’ job was to register as many voters as possible and reported to Democratic Campaign headquarters in Harrisonburg,” a U.S. Attorney’s Office spokesperson said. “In August 2016, Spieles was directed to combine his registration numbers with those of another individual because their respective territories overlapped. After filling out a registration form for a voter, Spieles entered the information into a computer system used by the Virginia Democratic Party to track information such as name, age, address and political affiliation. Every Thursday an employee/volunteer hand-delivered the paper copies of the registration forms to the Registrar’s Office in Harrisonburg.”
Later that month, someone at the Registrar’s Office called police after another employee saw a name they recognized on a registration form.
The name was the deceased father of a Rockingham County Judge.
“The Registrar’s Office discovered multiple instances of similarly falsified forms when it reviewed additional registrations. Some were in the names of deceased individuals while others bore incorrect middle names, birth dates, and social security numbers,” the spokesperson continued. “The Registrar’s Office learned that the individuals named in these forms had not in fact submitted the new voter registrations. The assistant registrar’s personal knowledge of the names of some of the individuals named in the falsified documents facilitated the detection of the crime.
“Spieles later admitted that he prepared the false voter registration forms by obtaining the name, age, and address of individuals from “walk sheets” provided to him by the Virginia Democratic Party, fabricating a birth date based on the ages listed in the walk sheet, and fabricating the social security numbers. Spieles admitted that he created all 18 fraudulent forms himself and that no one else participated in the crime.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Harrisonburg Police Department investigated the crime.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,542
- 2,290
Because a registry is used to ban and confiscate guns...as they did in Britain in the 1990s, Australia in the 1990s and Germany in the 1930s........the first step to banning and confiscation is knowing who has the guns so they can't hide them, or report them stolen when the ban and confiscation is implemented.....it took the Germans less than 20 years to go from registration to confiscation....and then gas chambers...
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,542
- 2,290
The bright spot is Gorsuch signed on to the dissent by Thomas....which has to make the gun grabbers really pissed off.....
Vedder Holsters Daily Digest: A Gorsuch Win, a Language Alert and One Little Flap - The Truth About Guns
Given his dissent in the Peruta non-decision . . . Gorsuch appointment looks like a win for gun-rights supporters
Then-Judge Neil Gorsuch hadn’t written anything squarely dealing with the Second Amendment when he was nominated to the Supreme Court; and while it seemed likely that he’d take a relatively broad view of gun rights (just based on his being a conservative, in an era when conservative jurists tend to lean in that direction), that was just a guess. We now have more evidence, from his vote joining Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent from denial of certiorari in Peruta v. California — he, like Thomas (and, before his death, Justice Antonin Scalia), seems to be a strong gun-rights supporter, indeed likely more so than some of the other conservative justices. Like it (as I do) or not, but that’s the information we now have.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,542
- 2,290
Sorry...you are just wrong. If you apply what you believe to other rights, then local governments could charge a tax to vote and require a test...after all, even the Right to vote has to be limited....right?
The ability to to defend should not be based on location.
toobfreak
Tungsten/Glass Member
- Apr 29, 2017
- 98,826
- 104,761
- 3,615
The answer is simple. Just as in the old adage that a pickpocket watches other people's hands, a Liberal knows he cannot trust himself or be trusted with a firearm, and so concludes the same holds true for all others.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,045
- 53,542
- 2,290
Read Heller, they talk about the ability to carry a weapon ......
Here.....some specific references to carrying a weapon for self defense...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Page 21...
Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.
--------------
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.
--------
n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “
---
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total 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.
-----------
-------------
In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”
As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”
-----------
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
--------
participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
And what about concealed and open carry?
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry
-----
------
Page 19
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
---------
And about the millitia.....
p.38
In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins, 13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin, sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment and the Pennsylvania analogue for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms in defence of his property or person, and to use them, if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”
-----------
P.39
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
-------
p.40
Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”
-------
------
P.43
The understanding that the Second Amendment gave freed blacks the right to keep and bear arms was reflected in congressional discussion of the bill, with even an opponent of it saying that the founding generation “were for every man bearing his arms about him and keeping them in his house, his castle, for his own defense.” Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 362, 371 (1866) (Sen. Davis).
--
The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
-------
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Secon
-----
-----
P.58
In Nunn v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a prohibition on carrying pistols openly (even though it upheld a prohibition on carrying concealed weapons). See 1 Ga., at 251. In Andrews v. State, the Tennessee Supreme Court likewise held that a statute that forbade openly carrying a pistol “publicly or privately, without regard to time or place, or circumstances,” 50 Tenn., at 187, violated the state constitutional provision (which the court equated with the Second Amendment). That was so even though the statute did not restrict the carrying of long guns.
See also State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616–617 (1840) (“A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional”).
------------
Handguns.....
It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upperbody strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.
-------
P62-63
Balancing the Right....
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
-------
The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
Link or fantasy?
- Banned
- #79
The purpose of having a Bill of Rights is to protect Americans from the abuse and oppression of a Democracy where the majority can take away the rights of the individual. Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government when the 51% votes to take away the rights of the 49%.
Our Constitution very clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Some filthy ass elected Mayor or city council should not have the ability to circumvent Constitutional rights.
As far as SCOTUS rulings go they are political just like everything else. It is clear that the Conservatives on the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the abuse to the Bill of Rights as it pertains to the right to keep and bear arms due to the 4-4 split and a unknown swing Justice. That was the smart thing to do.
After Trump appoints a couple of more Conservatives to the Court that will be fixed.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
No it's not.
Give me a good reason why the governemnt has to know if I own a gun. And BTW what a criminal might do with a gun is not a good reason.
Why is it that all you control freaks refuse to target actual criminals who use guns (most illegally obtained) to commit crimes?
Similar threads
