Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Limits are not bans. In heller scalia wrote that reasonable limits to where someone can have a gun (like courthouses and schools.
They also said in heller that bans on weapons in common usage will be unconstitutional. So a ban on a semi automatic rifle or a handgun will also be found unconstitutional.
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.
Limits are not bans. In heller scalia wrote that reasonable limits to where someone can have a gun (like courthouses and schools.
They also said in heller that bans on weapons in common usage will be unconstitutional. So a ban on a semi automatic rifle or a handgun will also be found unconstitutional.
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.
Read what he said. He said limits as in, you can't buy this type of gun, but you can buy this type. As he said in the Fox interview "I think most citizens understand that assault rifles belong in the hands of the army"
Read what he wrote.
He opened the door, he made assault weapon bans ok, he made restrictions on magazines ok, and he definitely ok'd universal background checks, even for sales to family and friends.
Its all constitutional. Now will congress pass those laws? Probably not, doesn't mean it isn't constitutional. He said the city and state couldn't take away your right to own and carry a pistol, but he said you could limit the type of gun owned.
"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said. He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."
“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
Read what he said. He said limits as in, you can't buy this type of gun, but you can buy this type. As he said in the Fox interview "I think most citizens understand that assault rifles belong in the hands of the army"
Read what he wrote.
He opened the door, he made assault weapon bans ok, he made restrictions on magazines ok, and he definitely ok'd universal background checks, even for sales to family and friends.
Its all constitutional. Now will congress pass those laws? Probably not, doesn't mean it isn't constitutional. He said the city and state couldn't take away your right to own and carry a pistol, but he said you could limit the type of gun owned.
Assault weapons have been highly regulated since 1934.
If it is commonly available (like semi automatic rifles) and not dangerous and unusual it would be legal. That was the standard laid out in heller. We will find out if you or I am right when SCOTUS takes a case about so automatic rifles. They will most likely find take a carry case next term. Ultimately, states will be forced to allow either one of concealed carry (with a permit that is shall issue) or loaded open carry. A complete ban on carry would be unconstitutional. Read the Moore V Madigan case that just tossed illiois complete ban on carry The Volokh Conspiracy » Moore v. Madigan, key points
Assault weapons have been highly regulated since 1934.
If it is commonly available (like semi automatic rifles) and not dangerous and unusual it would be legal. That was the standard laid out in heller. We will find out if you or I am right when SCOTUS takes a case about so automatic rifles. They will most likely find take a carry case next term. Ultimately, states will be forced to allow either one of concealed carry (with a permit that is shall issue) or loaded open carry. A complete ban on carry would be unconstitutional. Read the Moore V Madigan case that just tossed illiois complete ban on carry The Volokh Conspiracy » Moore v. Madigan, key points
Its not about dangerous. Just like the law he mentioned, if the sole purpose of your weapon is to scare or to intimidate people, the founding fathers had laws like that in place when the constitution was written. Meaning you couldn't carry a battle axe down the street. Same could be same today, assault weapons are really just for look, to look intimidating, because isn't a semi automatic hunting rifle the same thing? But the hunting rifle is to hunt, not to assault and scare people.
Look, I think assault weapons bans are silly, but to suggest in the opening post that background checks are unconstituional, wrong. To suggest that any gun law or restriction is unconstitutional, wrong.
And I've proven that over and over again. Assault weapons bans are constituional, agree with them or not. Magazine restrictions are constitutional, like it or not. And most definitely running a background check, even for individual to individual sales, is most certainly constitutional.
Thems the breaks. Luckily the court also said that they can't take away your right to bear arms all together, so in those radical states like New York, those laws can be overturned. You have the right to own a handgun or a shotgun in your home, hell as many as you want. But restrictions on guns are fully constitutional.
Its not about dangerous. Just like the law he mentioned, if the sole purpose of your weapon is to scare or to intimidate people, the founding fathers had laws like that in place when the constitution was written. Meaning you couldn't carry a battle axe down the street. Same could be same today, assault weapons are really just for look, to look intimidating, because isn't a semi automatic hunting rifle the same thing? But the hunting rifle is to hunt, not to assault and scare people.
Look, I think assault weapons bans are silly, but to suggest in the opening post that background checks are unconstituional, wrong. To suggest that any gun law or restriction is unconstitutional, wrong.
And I've proven that over and over again. Assault weapons bans are constituional, agree with them or not. Magazine restrictions are constitutional, like it or not. And most definitely running a background check, even for individual to individual sales, is most certainly constitutional.
Thems the breaks. Luckily the court also said that they can't take away your right to bear arms all together, so in those radical states like New York, those laws can be overturned. You have the right to own a handgun or a shotgun in your home, hell as many as you want. But restrictions on guns are fully constitutional.
So your saying a civil right will be taken away because one gun looks scarier than the other even though the have the same function? I highly doubt that. Ar15's are used in many things including self defense, recreational shooting and hunting.
Magazines of normal capacity (what the gun was designed to use) will also be covered by the constitution, so that 30 round magazine will be fine. Someone would have to justify why an arbitrary number is some how safe, while that 1 extra is some how unsafe.
Even though I don't support background checks for private party sales, I bet they would be found legal.
So your saying a civil right will be taken away because one gun looks scarier than the other even though the have the same function? I highly doubt that. Ar15's are used in many things including self defense, recreational shooting and hunting.
Magazines of normal capacity (what the gun was designed to use) will also be covered by the constitution, so that 30 round magazine will be fine. Someone would have to justify why an arbitrary number is some how safe, while that 1 extra is some how unsafe.
Even though I don't support background checks for private party sales, I bet they would be found legal.
I've seen that pretty picture before.
All I'm saying is that gun restrictions, however stupid you may think they are, are perfectly legal, constitutional, and if a majority of people decide that indeed 11 bullets is more dangerous then having 10 loaded, guess what? Load 10 bullets, or break the law. Choice is yours.
All I'm saying is that gun restrictions, however stupid you may think they are, are perfectly legal, constitutional, and if a majority of people decide that indeed 11 bullets is more dangerous then having 10 loaded, guess what? Load 10 bullets, or break the law. Choice is yours.
Rights have have nothing to do with the majority of people.
And those restrictions you talk about have yet to be determined to be legal or not. Hopefully the next case will determine scrutiny.
Rights have have nothing to do with the majority of people.
And those restrictions you talk about have yet to be determined to be legal or not. Hopefully the next case will determine scrutiny.
Again, the right to bear arms can't be infringed. However, the type of arms you can possess, just like the days if Washington, as scalia says, can and was restricted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
