What restrictions infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?

[g5000]

What restrictions infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?​

All of them. No exceptions.

Here is one of our Founders advocating for Americans to be disarmed who do not take a loyalty oath: Founders Online: [Thursday March 14. 1776.]

Here is the State of Rhode Island in 1798 requiring the registration of weapons in your home: The Public Laws of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations

Here you can find Boston in 1786 prohibiting the storage of loaded guns in your home: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr

 

[g5000]

This is primarily for those who believe we need more restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

Like it or, not the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right, unconnected with service in a militia, to possess all "bearable arms", and to use those arms for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Consequently, the 2nd Amendment protects that right from infringement by state and federal governments.

Similar to the 1st amendment’s “abridged”, the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” lays down an exceptionally powerful protection for the right to keep and bear arms; it, necessarily and intentionally, takes a great many policy choices off the table.
Indeed, “shall not be infringed” does not allow for any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it rejects any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.

Thus, the questions:
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you consider an infringement?
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you believe violate the constitution?

"Abridged" and "infringed" are not absolute, and this should be obvious to anyone with an IQ above 80.

Shouting fire in a crowded theater, for example. Child porn, another example. Libel and slander, yet more examples.

Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has also upheld some gun safety laws.

Laws which prohibit dangerous people from owning firearms, for example. Safe storage requirements, another example.

Two parents are going to prison for not safeguarding their guns from their maniacal son.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws which prohibit dangerous people from owning firearms, for example.

Congrats -- after 4 full pages of responses, you're the first to actually address the questions.

Why do you think this prohibition passed the test the USSC laid out in Bruen?

Safe storage requirement, another example.

These were ruled unconstitutional in 2008.

Anything else?

 

[g5000]

These were ruled unconstitutional in 2008.

No, they weren't.

At the bottom of this link, you can find a list of 26 states with safe storage laws: Child Access & Safe Storage

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, they weren't.

Yes, they were.
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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

At the bottom of this link, you can find a list of 26 states with safe storage laws:

Given the above, why do you think those laws are constitutional?

 

[MagicMike]

Yes, they were.
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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Given the above, why do you think those laws are constitutional?

The Second Amendment does not specify HOW this "right" to keep and bear arms should look in today's modern world. Laws that specify how firearms should be stored do not in any way infringe upon your right to own (keep and bear) them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Laws that specify how firearms should be stored do not in any way infringe upon your right to own (keep and bear) them.

OMG - you -finally- answered the question.

You're lying to yourself, as the post you just responded to proves otherwise.

 

[Failzero]

You seem like the type that doesnt necessarily follow the laws. And probably due to that someone will suffer because of it.

Have had a California CCW since 2012 ( No incidents or yankings ) and seriously doubt you could have passed muster if you applied for an Initial Carry Permit here

 

[john doe 101]

Have had a California CCW since 2012 ( No incidents or yankings ) and seriously doubt you could have passed muster if you applied for an Initial Carry Permit here

My point stands.

 

[Failzero]

Oh

Let’s start with stop and frisk in all dangerous / diverse shitholes.
You know…since the purple hairs are so worried about gun user crime and all.

oh and let’s add a Drug screen ( Piss Test ) with every 4473 Form ( That looks for SSRIs and Illegal Drugs )

 

[Failzero]

My point stands.

Your point would not assist in your obtaining a CCW in California

 

[BrokeLoser]

Laws that specify how firearms should be stored do not in any way infringe upon your right to own (keep and bear) them.

Of course they infringe…you wake at 3am to find an intruder outside your bedroom door, how fast can you jump out of bed, open your safe, rack a round and take aim? You’re dead before you got to the foot of your bed.

 

[g5000]

Yes, they were.
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

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

Given the above, why do you think those laws are constitutional?

That is not a ban on safe storage laws. I just showed you 26 states that have them. If safe storage laws were deemed unconstitutional, those laws would not be on the books.

QED.

 

[BrokeLoser]

That is not a ban on safe storage laws. I just showed you 26 states that have them. If safe storage laws were deemed unconstitutional, those laws would not be on the books.

QED.

You mean like how all of Mexifornia’s gun restrictions are unconstitutional but “on the books”?

 

[g5000]

Of course they infringe…you wake at 3am to find an intruder outside your bedroom door, how fast can you jump out of bed, open your safe, rack a round and take aim? You’re dead before you got to the foot of your bed.

Hundreds of thousands of firearms are also stolen from homes, vehicles, and individuals each year, funneling guns into an underground market where many of them are sold to people who use them to commit violent crimes.
Child Access & Safe Storage

 

[g5000]

You mean like how all of Mexifornia’s gun restrictions are unconstitutional but “on the books”?

Such as?

 

[g5000]

Michigan school shooter's parents sentenced to at least 10 years in prison​

​

Jennifer and James Crumbley are the first parents convicted in a U.S. mass school shooting. They were found guilty of involuntary manslaughter after prosecutors presented evidence of an unsecured gun at home and indifference toward the teen’s mental health.

 

[LuckyDuck]

What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you consider an infringement?
What restriction(s) on the right to keep and bear arms do you believe violate the constitution?

Banning the ownership of semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines and banning the ownership of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is not a ban on safe storage laws.

You are lying to yourself.
Please - continue.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Banning the ownership of semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines and banning the ownership of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

As the 2nd Amendment protects the right to own and use 'all bearable arms" - those in common use for traditionally lawful purposes - why do you believe such a ban does not violate the constitution?