The Supreme Court Rules The 2nd Amendment Does NOT Grant An Unlimited Right To Own Guns

[BluesLegend]

Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns?

No I read the 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitution that states our right to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

As if you could take on the government with your guns.....maybe an elementary school....but not the feds.

1. Your argument supports the notion that we need better, more powerful guns as citizens. Your argument supports complete repeal, if it is true that we can never overthrow our own government. BUT

2. 300,000,000 guns verses 5,000,000 AT BEST??? Any military stratagist will tell you that all other weapons (bombs, aircraft, tanks) are mere support weapons for the infantry. The infantry must win wars, not the support. Any advantage the military has with support equipment is heavily neutralized by the mass of infantry they face. But, I like your argument. See 1. We need machine guns.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Some women don't want dead flowers.

I buy my guns, but James did buy me a very nice 20 gauge for Christmas.

I like it better than dead flowers or chocolates.

My kind of woman.

 

[Tom Horn]

As if you could take on the government with your guns.....maybe an elementary school....but not the feds.

That's what the government in Saigon thought too....asymmetric warfare is known and understood better here than anywhere in the world. The internet is full of tricks of the trade and there are millions of ex-GIs who know methods and tactics. I know Federal troops will fire on resisting Americans....we saw it at Waco. But for how long and at what cost?

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn’t, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim. Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament. Reading it, in fact, offers some real hope that a reasonable middle ground may be possible as America gropes in these polarized times for a solution to gun violence that protects the rights of gun owners and public safety.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:

“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.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”


“But, but, but …,” your Facebook friend might counter, “the text of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ Shall Not. Be. Infringed.” Said friend may even say it in all capital letters.

Funny story. The framers used the word “shall” a lot. But it turns out that many of the constitutional rights they wrote about in unqualified terms are, in fact, qualified. Some amendments, for example, tell us that the government “shall make no law ... abridging” or “shall [not] deprive any person of” or “shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge” certain rights.

Others declare that a right “shall not be violated” or “shall be preserved.” And yet many of those rights have been subject to restrictions over the years. Considering that the framers prefaced the Second Amendment with the observation that a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” its language—“shall not be infringed” notwithstanding—is arguably less absolutist than many other constitutional provisions that did not come with a qualifier.

Our constitutional rights are not an all-or-nothing deal. We can uphold the Second Amendment and still pass reasonable regulations that further the public’s interest in safety. So don’t feel you need to choose between protecting our Second Amendment rights and supporting sensible gun regulations. Why should you? The Constitution doesn’t.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

You need to go back to law school.

You need to go back to law school.

What EXACTLY is so very wrong in the passage cited in the OP and OTHER more pertinent portions of Heller written by Justice Scalia which would be inapplicable to the legal principle of stare decisis and the exercise of that legal principle in other cases?

 

[Tom Horn]

As if you could take on the government with your guns.....maybe an elementary school....but not the feds.

That's what the government in Saigon thought too....asymmetric warfare is known and understood better here than anywhere in the world. The internet is full of tricks of the trade and there are millions of ex-GIs who know methods and tactics. I know Federal troops will fire on resisting Americans....we saw it at Waco. But for how long and at what cost?

BTW, Tim McVeigh gave them OKC for what they did at Mount Carmel.

 

[OKTexas]

The Framers knew without the Second Amendment there could be no First Amendment....

You leftists don't believe in either Amendment or anything else in the Constitution or American history and the country finally sees you for what you are....losers unworthy of even being here.

You find the OP threatening. The state militia was to protect the states from Indians and French, British in Canada and each from each other. We have come a long way in firearms since the time of the writing and it does not say every individual should have access to an assault weapon.

You're just not very smart are you, by its very definition, any "weapon" is an assault weapon. Wouldn't be much of a weapon otherwise.


.

 

[Penelope]

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good

No you can't. "Shall not be infringed"


You walked right into that one.

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good

No you can't. "Shall not be infringed"


You walked right into that one.

ustice Antonin Scalia, states:

“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.”

 

[martybegan]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Are you a member of the National Guard. That is the only approved militia today.

Since the people retain the right to arms, not the militia, your point is pointless.

States have the right to a militia, people have the RKBA.

 

[DrLove]

You've a right to your opinion, but in the end your specious arguments are going to be shoved up the NRA's ass.

That will never happen. We will always be armed. It's time for the left to give up trying to control guns and start allowing us to carry in all places to protect ourselves. It is the only REAL solution.

No one of import and in enough numbers will ever take away your guns, nor are they even contemplating doing so. That is NRA fear-mongering .. nothing more and nothing less.

You want everyone packing everywhere they go - that's silly and will result in further death. This isn't the wild wild west Boots. Hasn't been for 200 years.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

My view is that people should have a right to not own a gun or feel they should be safe without being armed.

"A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I agree that if the person beside me was apart of a well regulated militia then if he or she is armed, my safety is not compromised and could be even enhanced.

While if that person is untrained and unvetted my security is being compromised...

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

A militia is simply comprised of citizen soldiers. Unless there has been a fundamental change in the laws of the universe then logically, a militia could exist today as easily as it did in the 1780s. As for a "well regulated militia", I assume this to mean that, in time of war or conflict, the citizen soldiers (militia) would be organized, commanded and led by professionally trained military officers.

 

[OKTexas]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Are you a member of the National Guard. That is the only approved militia today.

Try reading the whole decision, it says the right to keep and bear arms is NOT contingent on being a member of a militia, it is a personal right of the individual.


.

 

[Tom Horn]

You want everyone packing everywhere they go - that's silly and will result in further death. This isn't the wild wild west Boots. Hasn't been for 200 years.

I live in the wild west, dipshit.....are you saying it was "tamed" by 1818?

BTW, since we approved concealed carry without any kind of licensing, people are much more kind and respectful....that's how it works when people are free to stand their ground and able to do so.

 

[Tom Horn]

I think it was Tojo who said Pearl Harbor would awaken a sleeping giant and that: "in America there is a gun behind every blade of grass" which would make an invasion impossible.

 

[Penelope]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Are you a member of the National Guard. That is the only approved militia today.

Try reading the whole decision, it says the right to keep and bear arms is NOT contingent on being a member of a militia, it is a personal right of the individual.


.

Yes I see it was expanded upon to include individuals, wonder how much that cost the NRA.

 

[Penelope]

You want everyone packing everywhere they go - that's silly and will result in further death. This isn't the wild wild west Boots. Hasn't been for 200 years.

I live in the wild west, dipshit.....are you saying it was "tamed" by 1818?

BTW, since we approved concealed carry without any kind of licensing, people are much more kind and respectful....that's how it works when people are free to stand their ground and able to do so.

They are afraid to get their head blown off.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

They are afraid to get their head blown off.

Which is better than not being afraid and ill-prepared.

 

[OKTexas]

Please give us the definition of "a well regulated militia" as intended by the authors.

There isn't one that fits in the 21st century.

Oh, GOD. Not this stupid, completely rebuffed argument. I am NOT addressing this shit again. You can shove that stupid argument right up your ass.

Are you a member of the National Guard. That is the only approved militia today.

Try reading the whole decision, it says the right to keep and bear arms is NOT contingent on being a member of a militia, it is a personal right of the individual.


.

Yes I see it was expanded upon to include individuals, wonder how much that cost the NRA.

There was no expansion, the term "people", in every use in the Constitution, refers to the individual citizen, not a collective or organization.


.

 

[2aguy]

The Framers knew without the Second Amendment there could be no First Amendment....

You leftists don't believe in either Amendment or anything else in the Constitution or American history and the country finally sees you for what you are....losers unworthy of even being here.

You find the OP threatening. The state militia was to protect the states from Indians and French, British in Canada and each from each other. We have come a long way in firearms since the time of the writing and it does not say every individual should have access to an assault weapon.

The Heller decision specifically states access to those weapons in common use....those are protected......in numerous Supreme Court decisions.....the AR-15 is the "Most Common" rifle in civilian hands today, and it is also the most common rifle used by civilian police...by that fact alone, it is protected by the 2nd Amendment as affirmed by the ruling in the Suprme Court.....

First......

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.

The AR-15 is again, the most common civilian rifle in the country....

Second...

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

------

(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.


-

 

[hazlnut]

Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. I hadn’t, until the other day, when I was stunned to find that the decision is hardly the blanket protection for gun ownership that the National Rifle Association and adamant gun rights people claim. Nor is it the sweeping defeat that those who want gun control lament. Reading it, in fact, offers some real hope that a reasonable middle ground may be possible as America gropes in these polarized times for a solution to gun violence that protects the rights of gun owners and public safety.

On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states:

“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.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”


“But, but, but …,” your Facebook friend might counter, “the text of the Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.’ Shall Not. Be. Infringed.” Said friend may even say it in all capital letters.

Funny story. The framers used the word “shall” a lot. But it turns out that many of the constitutional rights they wrote about in unqualified terms are, in fact, qualified. Some amendments, for example, tell us that the government “shall make no law ... abridging” or “shall [not] deprive any person of” or “shall not make or enforce any law which shall abridge” certain rights.

Others declare that a right “shall not be violated” or “shall be preserved.” And yet many of those rights have been subject to restrictions over the years. Considering that the framers prefaced the Second Amendment with the observation that a “well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,” its language—“shall not be infringed” notwithstanding—is arguably less absolutist than many other constitutional provisions that did not come with a qualifier.

Our constitutional rights are not an all-or-nothing deal. We can uphold the Second Amendment and still pass reasonable regulations that further the public’s interest in safety. So don’t feel you need to choose between protecting our Second Amendment rights and supporting sensible gun regulations. Why should you? The Constitution doesn’t.

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

I post that all the time.

The gunnies hate it.