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

[Brain357]

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.

And countries with few guns do have those rights...

 

[JakeStarkey]

To repeat Scalia: “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.”

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Had Hillary won, the Second amendment would be on the ash heap of history along with the rest of the Constitution. That was their end game for America

 

[hazlnut]

Just so we're clear, a person with serious mental illness doesn't get to run a militia or pick out their outfits.

 

[hazlnut]

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.

Had Hillary won, the Second amendment would be on the ash heap of history along with the rest of the Constitution. That was their end game for America

So you have no faith in the checks and balances, the courts stepping in when state or local government overreaches?

So, what was Heller? Are they trying to lull you into a false sense of security, set you up for the big one...?

Get back on your med.

 

[Penelope]

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.


-

District of Columbia v. Heller

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. 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. Pp. 54–56.

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. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Had Hillary won, the Second amendment would be on the ash heap of history along with the rest of the Constitution. That was their end game for America

So you have no faith in the checks and balances, the courts stepping in when state or local government overreaches?

So, what was Heller? Are they trying to lull you into a false sense of security, set you up for the big one...?

Get back on your med.

The Second Amendment is the ultimate check and balance.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Before any more baseless, ignorant, 2A gunners post more of their unfounded swill, read the following below which were the points established as lawful PRECEDENT (HELD & ESTABLISHED BY THE COURT) in the Syllabus of the decision of District of Columbia v. Heller. They are the law of the land until such time that another panel of SCOTUS may modify them. All the other Bullshit about the wording of Amendment II, notwithstanding from the 2A mentally impoverished crowd!

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights 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. 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. Pp. 54–56.

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. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

~~ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER ~~

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Follow-the-Money Purpose: So That the Plutocrats Wouldn't Have to Pay for a Standing Army

"Well-regulated" in this context implies that they were pretrained in civilian gun use before enlisting.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

Had Hillary won, the Second amendment would be on the ash heap of history along with the rest of the Constitution. That was their end game for America

So you have no faith in the checks and balances, the courts stepping in when state or local government overreaches?

So, what was Heller? Are they trying to lull you into a false sense of security, set you up for the big one...?

Get back on your med.

The Second Amendment is the ultimate check and balance.

The Yellow Yell, and Hollow Fools Follow

It's done nothing to check the traitors abetting the invasion of illegals or the thughuggers' protection of gangbangers.

 

[bendog]

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good

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


You walked right into that one.

You still cannot understand the definintion of infringe. LOL

 

[skews13]

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?

What is wrong with that reply, is it was the basis for standing in petitioning the court for relief in the Heller decision on assault weapons ban, large capacity magazines, and an open carry case, that the court declined to hear.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/prote...court-leaves-lower-court-victories-untouched/

If you're a lawyer, you're not real good at it.

 

[bendog]

Maybe the right has watched too many westerns and want to relive those days.

Reliving those days would be great. No school shootings.

Tombstone (film) - Wikipedia

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

In other words, you’ve got nothing.

 

[bendog]

The problem with gun nuts is they can't define "infringed."

Sure they can.

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

• infringe a patent

2obsolete : defeat, frustrate

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good.

Most laws are about the USE of guns. You can't shoot people unless in self defense, and even brandishing or shooting a gun in public just for ha'ha's can be considered a crime.

What you can't do is just say "you don't get to have that gun because we the government of X says so"

Which is of course what progressives want.

Well, according to the Supreme Court, a ban on high capacity weapons would most likely be legal, so long as the gummit could show that legal uses of firearms were not affected more than a public safety interest was affected.
I think the only means that would have any possible effect now is that ownership would require a license with much greater background checks and personal interviews by real people. And that's not gonna happen. The good news I suppose is if you or a loved one works in a trauma center.

 

[martybegan]

The problem with gun nuts is they can't define "infringed."

Sure they can.

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

• infringe a patent

2obsolete : defeat, frustrate

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good.

Most laws are about the USE of guns. You can't shoot people unless in self defense, and even brandishing or shooting a gun in public just for ha'ha's can be considered a crime.

What you can't do is just say "you don't get to have that gun because we the government of X says so"

Which is of course what progressives want.

Well, according to the Supreme Court, a ban on high capacity weapons would most likely be legal, so long as the gummit could show that legal uses of firearms were not affected more than a public safety interest was affected.
I think the only means that would have any possible effect now is that ownership would require a license with much greater background checks and personal interviews by real people. And that's not gonna happen. The good news I suppose is if you or a loved one works in a trauma center.

The SC is wrong about that.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

It took 10 years for you to read the underground democrap talking point memo?

Yup libtards are so uniformed about news and politics.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

“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.”

Wrong. The 2nd Amendment simply says we have the right to bear arms. That's it. What it does NOT say is that we are limited to certain types of firearms for certain purposes.

There are a million things the 2nd Amendment does not say. It also does not say we can't dance on our front lawns wearing a tutu.We can't very well interpret it by what it doesn't say because to do so puts the very principles of the Constitution in danger.

 

[bendog]

The problem with gun nuts is they can't define "infringed."

Sure they can.

infringed; infringing
transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

• infringe a patent

2obsolete : defeat, frustrate

So we can have laws that restrict their use. Good.

Most laws are about the USE of guns. You can't shoot people unless in self defense, and even brandishing or shooting a gun in public just for ha'ha's can be considered a crime.

What you can't do is just say "you don't get to have that gun because we the government of X says so"

Which is of course what progressives want.

Well, according to the Supreme Court, a ban on high capacity weapons would most likely be legal, so long as the gummit could show that legal uses of firearms were not affected more than a public safety interest was affected.
I think the only means that would have any possible effect now is that ownership would require a license with much greater background checks and personal interviews by real people. And that's not gonna happen. The good news I suppose is if you or a loved one works in a trauma center.

The SC is wrong about that.

Well, the law has been consistent for about 300 years, so the SC has that in its corner. LOL

 

[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?

What is wrong with that reply, is it was the basis for standing in petitioning the court for relief in the Heller decision on assault weapons ban, large capacity magazines, and an open carry case, that the court declined to hear.

Protecting Strong Gun Laws: The Supreme Court Leaves Lower Court Victories Untouched | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

If you're a lawyer, you're not real good at it.

You might want to review MY POST directed at Bootney Lee Farnsworth for his bullshit post to your OP. That jerk was the one I took to task! I believe you misinterpreted the order of posts.