Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2013, 11:56 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,753,071 times
Reputation: 1531

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toyman at Jewel Lake View Post
The prosecution ruled that this particular class of weapon (short barreled shotguns) did not have some reasonable relationship to a well regulated militia. As such, it could be regulated. Read a bit further into that. They exempted this particular class of firearm because it wasn't a military arm. They did NOT say that actual "military style" firearms, which do indeed bear a relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a militia, could be regulated. So, in theory, sporting firearms ("hunting" shotguns and rifles) could be restricted, but military arms COULD NOT.

Obviously, as the OP demonstrated, the pros lied in the first place. Short barreled shotguns had a long history of use in the military. But absent a defense witness or attorney go debate that, the SC agreed with that regulation on non-military weapons. They specifically did not mention other firearms classes impacted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, specifically automatic firearms, short barreled rifles and suppressors (not a class there, but an accessory).

The other interesting aspect of the case is that this was a case based not on "restricting" firearms as such, but as to the right of the treasury department to apply a specific tax to firearms for "revenue generation" purposes. In fact, it had nothing to do with revenue generation. NFA1934 was a jobs program, pure and simple. With the expiration of prohibition, a large number of federal agents had nothing to do, no job to justify their existence. But like most government agencies, they couldn't be allowed to shrink just because they were useless. So they passed a new law as a way to justify their existence. In terms of the purported purpose of the act (revenue), it was a massive failure. The excessive fees (in 1934 dollars) ensured that very few would pay the tax for the privilege of owning a commonly owned product. As such, NFA1934 always cost the feds more than it raised.

It will be very interesting if Miller is revisited by the SC.



***crap, edit to add, did not read BobTrent's post before replying. His post is an outstanding summary of Miller 1934.
They will, and when they do, we will win...This ruling was the worse ruling since Dred Scott.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2013, 09:31 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,753,071 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Do you know what one of the most significant changes wrought by the 2008 DC v. Heller decision, was?

Liberals finally quit insisting that "The Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court tells us it says!"

Liberals are not know for their reasoning or intellect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:44 PM
 
Location: somewhere in the woods
16,880 posts, read 15,221,410 times
Reputation: 5240
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
The list of things the supreme court got wrong, is pretty high.. . .and can be fixed later, when real leaders show up.


really? finally a democrat that admits that FDR was not a real leader. thanks so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 10:46 PM
 
16,681 posts, read 8,672,793 times
Reputation: 19504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
Yep. An example mentioned here, is their ruling that the 2nd applied only to people actively in a militia. A real leader finally showed up (Antonin Scalia), and wrote in 2008 that it wasn't so. The right to Keep and bear arms is an individual right.

More to come.
Everyone with a love of our Constitution should praise AJ Scalia, regardless of their personal politics. He has ruled in cases where he is personally opposed to something, yet finds it to be Constitutional. For instance he voted that burning the American flag was Constitutional even though he personally "would throw the hippie in jail if he were King".

In many cases, justices allow their own personal views to creep into their decisions, rather than ruling strictly on the actual intent of the Founding Fathers and their meaning behind our sacred document which governs our lives and society.

`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2013, 11:31 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,753,071 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vector1 View Post
Everyone with a love of our Constitution should praise AJ Scalia, regardless of their personal politics. He has ruled in cases where he is personally opposed to something, yet finds it to be Constitutional. For instance he voted that burning the American flag was Constitutional even though he personally "would throw the hippie in jail if he were King".

In many cases, justices allow their own personal views to creep into their decisions, rather than ruling strictly on the actual intent of the Founding Fathers and their meaning behind our sacred document which governs our lives and society.

`
Yes he is a very rare breed on the court, which is a damn shame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-17-2013, 12:41 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,753,071 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
The list of things the supreme court got wrong, is pretty high.. . .and can be fixed later, when real leaders show up.
How long should we have to wait and suffer at liberty lost? Why should the Supreme Court have such linitless power to unjustly limit such basic god given unailenable rights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 07:49 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,282 posts, read 6,753,071 times
Reputation: 1531
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
The list of things the supreme court got wrong, is pretty high.. . .and can be fixed later, when real leaders show up.
Dont worry Chris we will be ready when real tyrants show up and try to "fix" the 2nd Amendment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 08:10 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
78,863 posts, read 46,719,563 times
Reputation: 18521
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
Does that also mean that the weaponry a person may desire, must originate from regulated manufacturing facilities, to prevent people from making their own?

I make my own now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 08:14 PM
 
20,948 posts, read 19,079,560 times
Reputation: 10270
Who didn't know that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2014, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Alaska
7,529 posts, read 5,775,031 times
Reputation: 4911
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisFromChicago View Post
The list of things the supreme court got wrong, is pretty high.. . .and can be fixed later, when real leaders show up.
LMAO! Your from Chicago!! Oh my GOD the irony!! Chicago, were only physcos have guns and life's a shooting gallery!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top