Why is the second amendment the only amendment that you need to get a license for? (Iraq, dictators)

[All American NYC]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

The Second Amendment does not grant any rights. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875). Whatever rights that are secured under the Second Amendment, whether individual or collective, are nevertheless subject to law; which is to say that they are not unlimited, much less absolute. As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:

‘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. (Citation Omitted) 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. (Citation Omitted) Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of theSecond 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. (FN 26 Omitted)

‘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." (Citations Omitted)’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

We can still bear arms.

[samiwas1]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

I really wonder why people who have NO interest in the subject keep posting.

If you don't like the subject, stay away. You won't be missed.

Oh, I believe that I have provided many opinions on the subject. It's not that the subject of gun control or 2nd-Amendment-worshipping doesn't interest me, it's that guns themselves don't interest me. Hopefully you understand the difference. I would like to point out that when I'm not specifically on CD POC that I don't ever think about it. I don't post endless rants about it on my Facebook (much like some friends do), I don't bring it up at the bar (much like some friends do), I don't let it affect my life at all. I was wondering how many do.

Originally Posted by swagger

When cars come up in a 2A discussion, it's usually done by an anti-gun person ("you need a license to drive a car, so why not guns?"), so no, there will be no change.

Hmmm…so this:

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

In 2011, there were 851 accidental deaths involving guns in the US - Guns in the United States: Firearms, armed violence and gun law

In 2011, there were 32,367 deaths involving automobile accidents in the US - List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why aren't you pushing for greater control in regards to cars?

is not a daily occurrence as well? I see this in probably every single gun thread. And it's always brought up by the pro-gun side. So your argument falls flat. I guess since it doesn't support your argument, you don't want to include it. That's okay.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by All American NYC

We can still bear arms.

Liberals must think that the word is actually "bare".

[Jeerleader]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

As Justice Antonin Scalia stated for the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller:

'. . . 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. (FN 26 Omitted)

I'm always amused when I see this passage quoted. At least you acknowledge the existence of footnote 26 which is more than most do . . . Footnote 26 imparts very important context to the excerpt you quoted and has been the legal foundation for calling into question those longstanding regulatory measures:

"26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive."

If Scalia is recognizing this limited list of regulatory measures as unassailable and permanent fixtures, why would he characterize them as only "presumptively lawful?

Understand that those first couple examples of law probably enjoy the greatest claim of constitutional legitimacy out of the thousands that constitute the diverse body of, "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".

Well, for now those mid-Twentith Century laws are all presumed to be lawful because none have been held to any scrutiny under a holding that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia . . . " being reaffirmed that day in Heller.

Scalia fully understands the infirmity that Heller is creating in a wide swath of existing gun law and it would serve you better if you didn't lie to us or yourself about it.

When one actually understands what Heller actually did is unstated, (being the specific action of invalidating U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) and their progeny), you understand that Heller actually does call into question pretty much every gun law written since 1942.

Such inspections are ongoing in the lower federal courts:

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted."

U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)

Of course felon disablement of gun rights were/are/will be sustained because they are founded on legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning.

See, there are two main branches of gun law jurisprudence; the branch that can be supported and will be sustained (e.g. Barton above, felon dispossession) and then there are those laws that have been challenged and upheld by citing any permutation of the "collective right" theory and more specifically, the "militia right" or "state's right", which will, when challenged, be invalidated, e.g., Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996).

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

‘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." (Citations Omitted)’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Another interesting quote that is waved around by gun control advocates claiming that Heller can be cited to support the constitutionality of a myriad of prohibitions, with assault weapon bans leading the list.

Problem there is that "dangerous and unusual" is a legal determination arrived at by applying the Court's specific protection criteria, not an emotionally charged sentiment conjured into being by hand-wringing anti-gunners assigning the moniker to guns that scare them.

In fact, using that multi-pronged criteria established by SCOTUS, those arms known as "assault weapons" can not be deemed "dangerous and unusual weapons", because they meet all the protection criteria . . . They are of the type that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or that can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizens and/or are of a type in common use at the time by the citizenry.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Liberals must think that the word is actually "bare".

They think "bear" means "prohibit".

[Wendell Phillips]

//www.city-data.com/forum/28117726-post47.html

[Ceist]

Originally Posted by Chimuelojones

There is no requirement for a licence to excercise your 2nd amendment right. People conflate right to bear arms...knives, baseball bats, spears, nunchucks...with firearms.

I have a 2x4 with some nails in it sitting by my front door...I don't have a licence for it.

Perhaps people really only have the "right to bear arms" like old muskets and knives.

[Wendell Phillips]

Thanks to the misguided efforts of the NRA, American gun owners will soon find themselves the more "well regulated".

[Robert_J]

Originally Posted by Jaymax

Perhaps people really only have the "right to bear arms" like old muskets and knives.

We have covered this already. Then the freedom of speech does not include the internet, modern printing press, telephone or even telegraph. You would be limited to the old manual press, hand written letters and literally standing on your soap box yelling.

[Jeerleader]

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

//www.city-data.com/forum/28117726-post47.html

So, I'm going to guess that you consider that to be a reply to my rebuttal to you.

That wall of text in no manner addresses any point I made but it does enlighten us about what you consider compelling commentary on the 2nd Amendment.

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/op...ment.html?_r=0

I have read the decision of the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller many times, and with each rereading I find, as the above New York Times article highlights, more uncertainty.

You are looking for fresh determinations on principles long settled. Heller's legal action was to re-right the constitutional ship by jettisoning the "militia right" and state's right" interpretations inserted into the federal courts in 1942. Invalidating those decisions creates a legal cascade whereby those subsequent cases* sustaining unconstitutional laws resting their holding on the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretation and that there is no individual right aspect to the 2nd's protection sphere, are infirm (again I would point to Hickman v Block and I'm sure that you will once again ignore the point).

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

What I find disturbing is the extraordinary length that the court went to justify extending the Second Amendment protection to encompass an individual right; but then left us hanging on the nature of that right, and, more importantly, the standard of judicial review to be accorded to that right.

On the "extraordinary length" point I rather agree with you. Scalia's textual examination was completely unnecessary; Heller should have been 5 pages long relying on fundamental principles and SCOTUS precedent.

In answering the Heller question (crafted by the Court itself) there was no need to examine the text of the Amendment (especially given that the Court has always held that the right to arms does not flow from the Amendment and is not in any manner dependet upon the Constitution to exist).

Whatever question that you might have as to the "nature of the right" is answered simply by understanding the right to arms is a "pre-existing right" which means that no express power was ever granted to government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. I don't need the Court to tell me what my right to arms is, I just need it to tell the Congress that any power desired to restrain the possession and use of personal arms by private citizens, must be begged for, not assumed to exist.

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

I am puzzled why the court did not come out and just say that an individual right to have a gun is "fundamental" subject to "strict scrutiny" instead of making some cryptic reference relegated to a footnote.

Because the possession and use of personal arms by private citizens is a multifaceted liberty interest. The possession and use of arms for a regulated activity like hunting allows a level of governmental interest above that for the possession and use of arms for self defense. The Heller Court allowed room for the lower courts to work.

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

(Indeed, the court seemed almost embarrassed for not providing a clear and comprehensive answer to the question.)

Recognizing the issue was not before the Court is not demonstrating embarrassment.

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

Why did the court, after distinguishing its precedent in United States v. Miller, then bend over backwards to reconcile its ruling with that decision, which upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 against a direct challenge that it violated the Second Amendment. (My reading of this is that it leaves in place the federal laws regulating firearms.)

Sigh . . . The only reason Miller was decided in favor of the government was because no argument was heard that a shotgun with a barrel length under 18 inches had any common defense usefulness or was in common use. Do you have any comprehension / understanding of that?

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

And it took yet another ambiguous decision to "clear up the uncertainty" of the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. See McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010).

Ambiguous uncertainty like that only exists in a vacuum of understanding.

And from where is the quote "clear up the uncertainty" pulled from?

Originally Posted by Wendell Phillips

It makes me wonder what we got from this "landmark" decision. During oral argument, Mr. Dellinger argued (in response to Justice Alito’s question regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment) that it was wanted to retake state authority over the militia; to which Justice Scalia stated: "They got nothing at all, not everything they wanted. They got nothing at all." District of Columbia v. Heller, Transcript, Oral Argument (March 18, 2008). After studying the court’s opinion by Justice Scalia, I am convinced that gun owners got nothing at all as well.

Dellinger was arguing absurdities (even Ginsburg was rolleg her eyes) and why you feel a throwaway exchange during oral argument has some bearing on the Court's majority opinion (other than to draw a snarky word-play like you did) is lost on me.




--------------------------

*Federal Court Collective Right Holdings (beginning in 1942 with Cases v US and US v. Tot):

US Circuits: (15)

United States v. Chavez, 204 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2000);
U.S. v. Baker, 197 F.3d 211 (6th Cir. 1999);
San Diego County Gun Rights Comm. v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1996);
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996);
U.S. v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995);
Love v. Peppersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 1995);
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992);
Quilici v. Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982);
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977);
U.S. v. Wilbur, 545 F.2d 764 (1st Cir. 1976);
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976);
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974);
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972);
Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942);
U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942).


District Courts of Appeals: (18)

U.S. v. Spruill, 61 F. Supp. 2d 587 (W.D. Tex. 1999);
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528(S.D. W. Va. 1999);
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 13 F. Supp. 2d 811 (S.D. Ind. 1998);
Anderson v. U.S., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7107 (N.D. Ill. 1998);
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (Dist. Ct. Mass. 1996);
Barsch v. Brann, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6822 (N.D. Ca. 1996);
Luka v. Douglas, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21538 (N.D. Miss. 1995);
White v. Town of Chapel Hill, 899 F. Supp. 1428 (M.D. N.C. 1995);
Pencak v. Concealed Weapon Licensing Bd., 872 F. Supp. 410 (E.D. Mich. 1994);
Moyer v. Sec'y of the Treasury, 830 F. Supp. 516 (W.D. Mo. 1993);
Levy v. Abate, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9231 (S.D.N.Y. 1993);
Behre v. Thomas, 665 F. Supp. 89 (Dist. Ct. N.H. 1987);
Thompson v. Dreta, 549 F. Supp. 297 (Dist. Ct. Utah 1982);
Engblom v. Carey, 522 F. Supp. 57 (S.D.N.Y. 1981), revd in part 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982);
U.S. v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 363 F. Supp. 322 (E.D. Wis. 1973);
Eckert v. Pennsylvania, 331 F. Supp. 1361 (E.D. Pa. 1971);
Klinger v. Erickson, 328 F. Supp. 674 (Dist. Ct. S.D. 1971);
Wainwright v. U.S., 289 F. Supp. 820 (E.D. Tenn. 1968).