Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You've been answered a dozen times, dumbass. Now you're just trolling.Still can’t answer huh? I’ll just keep asking. I’m not taking your troll baitI’m not trolling, I’m asking legit questions that Bri and Rust have avoided answering. 2guy gave a direct answer. I respect thatDo you believe a fetus has the right to bear arms?
Slade3200 is being a troll why do you bother responding?
Lib please, do you work for CNN?
In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control.In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
Wrong.In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this and Alito followed up Heller with Caetano v Massachusetts...followed by Heller, and Scalia stating the AR-15 is a protected rifle in Friedman v Deerfield..
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
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.---------
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.
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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
I apologize if you answered and I missed it. Can you point me to your answer or restate it? Where the constitution specifically says it’s ok for the government to take away a child or teenagers god given right to bare arms.You've been answered a dozen times, dumbass. Now you're just trolling.Still can’t answer huh? I’ll just keep asking. I’m not taking your troll baitI’m not trolling, I’m asking legit questions that Bri and Rust have avoided answering. 2guy gave a direct answer. I respect thatDo you believe a fetus has the right to bear arms?
Slade3200 is being a troll why do you bother responding?
Lib please, do you work for CNN?
Someone typed on a thread something else.........You want to get rid of the guns. And Trump is a NAZI to you. In human history, figure out what happens when you do that then.Wrong.In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this and Alito followed up Heller with Caetano v Massachusetts...followed by Heller, and Scalia stating the AR-15 is a protected rifle in Friedman v Deerfield..
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
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.---------
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.
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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The case concerned stun guns, not AR 15s; the Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles and carbines.
And the Supreme Court refused to hear Friedman v Highland Park challenging the constitutionality of AR bans.
This makes no sense.Someone typed on a thread something else.........You want to get rid of the guns. And Trump is a NAZI to you. In human history, figure out what happens when you do that then.Wrong.In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this and Alito followed up Heller with Caetano v Massachusetts...followed by Heller, and Scalia stating the AR-15 is a protected rifle in Friedman v Deerfield..
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
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.---------
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.
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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The case concerned stun guns, not AR 15s; the Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles and carbines.
And the Supreme Court refused to hear Friedman v Highland Park challenging the constitutionality of AR bans.
This makes no sense.Someone typed on a thread something else.........You want to get rid of the guns. And Trump is a NAZI to you. In human history, figure out what happens when you do that then.Wrong.In your subjective opinion.The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this and Alito followed up Heller with Caetano v Massachusetts...followed by Heller, and Scalia stating the AR-15 is a protected rifle in Friedman v Deerfield..
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
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.---------
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.
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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The case concerned stun guns, not AR 15s; the Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles and carbines.
And the Supreme Court refused to hear Friedman v Highland Park challenging the constitutionality of AR bans.
The problem isn't guns.....it's the fact that we have too many stupid Satan-worshiping Bernie Sanders and Liz Warren fans wandering around the country shooting people because their leaders have been fomenting violence and hatred for over a year.The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
Where is that written?In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
Why would you expect him to answer that when you ignore me when I asked you the exact same question?! Don’t be a hypocriteWhere is that written?In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
I answered your question, dumbass. Several other people did as well.Why would you expect him to answer that when you ignore me when I asked you the exact same question?! Don’t be a hypocriteWhere is that written?In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
Calling me a troll is not an answer. How about if I make it a yes or no question. Does the constitution give the government the right to take away a 12 year olds god given right to buy and keep a gun? Yes or noI answered your question, dumbass. Several other people did as well.Why would you expect him to answer that when you ignore me when I asked you the exact same question?! Don’t be a hypocriteWhere is that written?In your subjective opinion.How do you constitutionally explain the regulations on Automatics? (they aren’t banned btw)
The ban is unConstitutional.....it needs to be challenged in court.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
You're the only one being stupid and a liar.This makes no sense.Someone typed on a thread something else.........You want to get rid of the guns. And Trump is a NAZI to you. In human history, figure out what happens when you do that then.Wrong.In your subjective opinion.
As a fact of law the measure is Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.
All laws are presumed to be Constitutional and valid because they reflect the will of the majority of the people, including laws regulating firearms.
The Supreme Court already ruled on this and Alito followed up Heller with Caetano v Massachusetts...followed by Heller, and Scalia stating the AR-15 is a protected rifle in Friedman v Deerfield..
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
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.---------
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.
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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.
The case concerned stun guns, not AR 15s; the Court has never ruled on the constitutionally of laws regulating AR platform rifles and carbines.
And the Supreme Court refused to hear Friedman v Highland Park challenging the constitutionality of AR bans.
You are really stupid and a liar....the Caetano ruling directly addresses the "Dangerous and Unusual" argument you asshats make for semi-automatic rifles......
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
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.
