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.
Nice hail mary. By "the feds", I suppose you mean The Hon. J. Clark McReynolds: try actually reading the decision, next time.
The relevant quote you were blindly groping for is: "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment". Which of course was strictly and literally true, since the ordinary military equipment of a U.S. Army infantryman in 1939 did not include a sawn-off shotgun.
The entire quote that you selected from is:
Quote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
You need to look back on the history of NFA1934. The justification for it was as a revenue producing measure, which is why it's enforcement was a function of the treasury department. Also remember that this was shortly after the end of prohibition...an event that left many Treasury Department employees with nothing to do, which would lead to a reduction in the size a fiefdom in the federal government. Never one to let that happen, instead of prohibition, an (at that time) draconian tax of $200 was placed on short barreled rifles, shotguns, automatic firearms and sound suppressors.
As I stated earlier, Miller was unusual in that there was no representation for the defense (the defendant was dead and the lawyer didn't show up). So, the reason there was an "absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has bsence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" was that there was no one on the defense to present such evidence. In fact, short barreled shot guns had been used by the military for decades. Had a defense been present, that entire argument would have been sunk in a second.
The interesting part is that SCOTUS did not rule on other restrictions under NFA1934 (short barreled rifles, automatics and suppressors). Their language seems to indicate that they considered that such weapons, since they have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", would indeed have been protected from the NFA1934 by the 2nd amendment.
I already knew that, the whole bill of rights does not in fact apply to the people as a whole or as a group. it is there to tell the government what they can and cannot do. they shall not infringe upon the rights of the people.
meaning the feds and the states shall not write any laws at all against the right to keep and bear arms in any capacity.
yes I do not believe that corporations are people either.
No. The bill of rights only applied to the federal government until the 14th amendment was passed. The u.s.s.c has selectively incorporated the bill of rights to apply to the states as well. At this point not all of the bill of rights has been incorporated.
Nice hail mary. By "the feds", I suppose you mean The Hon. J. Clark McReynolds: try actually reading the decision, next time.
The relevant quote you were blindly groping for is: "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment". Which of course was strictly and literally true, since the ordinary military equipment of a U.S. Army infantryman in 1939 did not include a sawn-off shotgun.
The entire quote that you selected from is:
Quote:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
You need to look back on the history of NFA1934. The justification for it was as a revenue producing measure, which is why it's enforcement was a function of the treasury department. Also remember that this was shortly after the end of prohibition...an event that left many Treasury Department employees with nothing to do, which would lead to a reduction in the size a fiefdom in the federal government. Never one to let that happen, instead of prohibition, an (at that time) draconian tax of $200 was placed on short barreled rifles, shotguns, automatic firearms and sound suppressors. This created a new jobs program for government workers.
As I stated earlier, Miller was unusual in that there was no representation for the defense (the defendant was dead and the lawyer didn't show up). So, the reason there was an "absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" was that there was no one on the defense to make such an argument or to counter the government's false claim. In fact, short barreled shot guns had been used by the military for decades. Had a defense been present, that entire argument would have been sunk in a second.
The interesting part is that SCOTUS did not rule on other restrictions under NFA1934 (short barreled rifles, automatics and suppressors). Their language seems to indicate that they considered that such weapons, since they have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", would indeed have been protected from the NFA1934 by the 2nd amendment.
Just a slight poetic license in your depiction of his comments. Yes Heller indicated the right to bear arms, but it also indicated there are limits, glad you support his decision.
I don't think it was poetic license at all, the majority opinion stated the second amendment was an individual right.
Excerpt from the DC v. Heller decision:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice Antonin Scalia
(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.
(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.
He does advise there are limitations, but the opinion pretty clearly states that banning an entire class of arms that are "in common use at the time" is unconstitutional. To extrapolate to modern laws being passed, especially in my home state of California: Semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines is a class of arms that is currently in common use for self-defense, so I don't think it is too difficult to imagine that law, if passed, being overturned. That's the only point I was trying to make with this thread.
I don't think it was poetic license at all, the majority opinion stated the second amendment was an individual right.
Excerpt from the DC v. Heller decision:
He does advise there are limitations, but the opinion pretty clearly states that banning an entire class of arms that are "in common use at the time" is unconstitutional. To extrapolate to modern laws being passed, especially in my home state of California: Semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines is a class of arms that is currently in common use for self-defense, so I don't think it is too difficult to imagine that law, if passed, being overturned. That's the only point I was trying to make with this thread.
The first paragraph you referenced in Scalia's decision is more inclusive.
I don't come to the same conclsion you indicated, that is really not what his finding indicates.
"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."
SCOTUS stopped paying attention to the Constitution a very long time ago, which is why a majority of its cases are voted on according to party lines.
Even in the face of a phrase "Shall not be infringed", they believe it is open to limitation. 9 jackasses in black do not matter.
This is definitely true in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is an amendment about the MILITIA, and not about individual gun ownership (which it says nothing about).
This is definitely true in their interpretation of the Second Amendment, which is an amendment about the MILITIA, and not about individual gun ownership (which it says nothing about).
The Court had to rule as it did in the Heller case. There are just too many gun owners in the U.S. The Court has never ignored reality in crafting its decisions. The Court may be pompous, but it's not dumb.
However, the gun nuts probably did not read the Heller opinion completely, if at all ... because Scalia, in his majority opinion, wrote the following, which should cause shivers in the spines of anyone who thinks his right to own an AK-47 is absolute:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, 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 said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” ...
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. [my emphasis]
The bottom line is ... the Court will uphold many, if not all, of the current and future limitations on weapons sales and ownership that have already passed or are being considered for passage at the moment. The gun nuts, in other words, are in for a rude surprise.
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.
