|Image Replies||0 ()|
|Lifetime||8d 2h 37m 17s|
-bypasses-constitution-us-citizens- given-60-days-to-turn-in-guns-or-be come-criminals/
April 5, 2018
Town Bypasses Constitution, US Citizens Given 60 Days to Turn in Guns Or Become Criminals
As the state promises gun rights activists they’re not coming for their guns, behind the scenes they’re pleading for it to happen. And now the feared gun grab is occurring. Residents in Deerfield, Illinois have 60 days to surrender their “assault weapons” or face fines of $1000 per day per gun.
The gun ban ordinance was passed on April 2nd with residents left with few choices of how to dispose of their valuable “assault weapons.” Upon careful reading of the ordinance, residents will be left with revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns to defend their homes and families from criminals who could care less about the law.
Fines for not disposing of the weapons range from $250 to $1000 per day per gun for those who choose not to comply with the city’s ordinance. While a fine may seem reasonable to some, as TFTP has reported on multiple occasions, failure to pay fines always results in police action. It is not far-fetched to predict major turmoil and arrests in the event of non-compliance.
One example of the so-called “assault weapon” is the Ruger 10/22 which can accept magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Even though the 10/22 is not listed in the list of guns the village wants to see banned, the gun cannot legally be possessed in the village.
Residents have been instructed to either sell their guns, transfer the ownership to someone who lives outside the village, surrender their guns to Deerfield’s sheriff, or begin paying the fines.
Deerfield mentioned a number of cities where mass shootings took place, including Sutherland Springs, TX where 26 people were killed in the First Baptist Church. That shooting was actually stopped by a man who used the very gun Deerfield voted to ban. No mention was made of that fact in the ordinance.
Also included in the gun ban were semi-automatic pistols which can accept higher than 10 round magazines. That’s virtually all full size semi-automatic pistols.
Even though the village trustees ignored the pleas of residents to leave their guns alone, and passed the ordinance anyway, many residents were encouraged to ignore the gun ban and engage in civil disobedience.
Joel Siegel, a resident of Lincolnwood, warned the village’s residents that governments all across the world have moved to confiscate guns then turned around and ran roughshod over the people. He said, “There’s an ancient and honored American tradition called disobeying an unjust law…I have urged (people) to listen to their conscience and if so moved do not obey this law.”
Deerfield Mayor Harriet Rosenthal implied the students from the local high school helped sway her decision to bring about the ordinance. “Enough is enough,” Rosenthal said adding, “Those students are so articulate just like our students. There is no place here for assault weapons.”
The statement mirrors the knee jerk reaction to ban guns following a nationwide public outcry of students who supposedly feared for their own lives following the recent mass shooting in Florida.
Opponents of the gun grab vow to fight the action in court while others praised the trustees decision to ban semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns. Ariella Kharasch, a Deerfield High School senior said she wants more action to be taken on both a local and national level.
“This is our fight…This is our generation’s fight. We’re going to keep fighting and this is part of it. Change happens gradually step by step. The fight does not end at the borders of our village.,” Kharasch said.
Predictably, law enforcement and retired law enforcement members of the community are exempted from the ban. Currently, in the U.S., law enforcement kills around 1,200 citizens per year. Ironically, that number is actually four times higher than those who die from rifles.
As TFTP has reported, cops have killed 450 percent more people than have died in the past forty years of mass shootings.
Highland Park IL (a enclave city in Chicago like Deerfield) enacted a similar gun back but the Supreme Court refused to hear the case against the city, so the law there still stands.
I suspect that this time around, the lawsuit will again be going back all the way to the Supremes.
I had no idea Deerfield was a village. No way in hell I'd get rid of my gun. I would literally shoot to kill whoever they send to take my gun. I won't pay their dumb fine either.
I Guarantee they can't enforce any of this. If they could they would require you to surrender your weapons or go to jail. They aren't doing that so fuck em. Fine me faggot! I'll never pay a dime.
>Town Bypasses Constitution
Until 2010, the 2nd amendment only applied to the Federal government, so this wouldn't be a bypass of the constitution. States and municipalities were free to regulate guns however they chose.
But, those same "activist judges" that gave you Citizens United and Gay Marriage changed all that in 2010, citing the same incorporation amendment that helped end slavery, so this town is one court case away from having that law overturned.
>Fine me faggot! I'll never pay a dime.
Fail to pay a fine for long enough and they'll put out a warrant for your arrest and toss ya in lockup.
This is something people who don't think fines are real penalties often don't seem to realize.
No they won't. They'll die. I'm sure many others feel the same way I do. They couldn't kill me if they tried. I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills.
I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. They are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe them the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words.
Fucking pathetic politicans only ever giving a fuck about how they feel and their public opinion. Why in the world are they still in power is beyond me. I'll tell you what, let's see them disarm their guards and military so they can't shove their dicks into people's faces with things that only ever burden their lives. All these shooters would actually be MORE glorified in the eyes of the public if they went for people who force the will of the public into subservience like a fucking animal.
Make them understand why their ways are folly. Keep attacking the sheep and all you have done is upset the sheep. Sheep can't think, but these guys at least have the falls to commit. Fucking commit to something that'll actually have an impact against this corrupt beast, but understand, taking the head. Takes the rest of the body below it. To be able to catch the body that had no choice regarding the head, one must be ready to assume that position.
> Fucking pathetic politicans only ever giving a fuck about how they feel and their public opinion.
Indeed, meanwhile their own city of Chicago had _650_ murders last year…
Gun laws only affect the already law abiding, while the criminals continue doing as they please and their victims will now be disarmed and unable to defend themselves, as the cops tip-toe around for fear of being labeled “racists”.
The American people are being propagandized by the Mainstream Media and suckered into giving up their civil and human rights at the behest of a tiny parasitical Wall Street elite, who would like nothing better then to disarm the People at the same time they take control of the Internet to censor anyone who would dare speak out and oppose them, via “hate speech” regulations.
He's right you know. No such thing as a kingdom without subjects, only a madman. Expose them to their true selves by literally using your life as non-participant and one of three things will happen.
They do what they want anyways because they never really did give a fuck but at least good people don't have to go through their bullshit.
They'll give you very good reason to shoot at them.
They might just listen since you can't have a power trip without subjects to the kingdom.
Knowing them and their history, they'd probably do a combination of 1 and two whilst always portraying your way of life as evil and unwanted/unnecessary and they would be successful because the only Americans with any real sense are in a very small minority while the rest are able to be manipulated to varying degrees.
Yes I can see it now. 8 neighborhood grandpas in MAGA hats sitting prone with their assault rifles in their wife's new $100k breakfast gazebo aside their $10m house in their gated community while being refreshed with cheap beer and mimosas worth $20 each. Then when the school bus comes they have to hide the guns because the one's grandson gets so embarrassed he refuses to talk to him anymore -- but after he goes inside to play ultra-realistic CoD the gramps get back to playing with their ARs and waiting for the SWAT.
I mean I don't think you will find very many people that will tell you that they think state law should trump federal law. State laws should only really serve to expand or clarify the laws that are in place nationally not to overrule them.
That said I suppose that anyone in favor of this would argue that this is just an expansion, and I would have to think about how to argue against that pretty long and hard besides just saying "shall not be infringed"
>I mean I don't think you will find very many people that will tell you that they think state law should trump federal law.
I can only guess you don't live in the US. Half the nation does. Granted, which half of the nation tends to shift whenever the opposing party is in the white house.
Though, libertarians in general tend to defend state's rights consistently (libertarian meaning the opposite here vs. what it means in Europe). And, well, in regards to the 2nd amendment at least, the Supreme Court ruled it did consistently from 1830 to 2010, when it suddenly decided to overturn nearly two hundred years of precedent. (And, up until then, it made sense, the militia existing for the states' security and all.)
>I can only guess you don't live in the US. Half the nation does.
Don't lecture to me how MY country works, Anon. I understand that a lot of states have laws that go against that statment, but I never said that they didn't. I said that probably a majority of the people in the country would argue that in a perfect world federal law should trump state law insofar as state laws should not directly contradict federal laws.
Obviously there are going to be exceptions to this and there are always going to be exceptional circumstances. However I would think that most people would agree that it would be sensible as a general rule. This includes conservatives and "libertarians" (I fucking hate how that word is defined here by the way because people give you blank stares if you tell them that you're anything but a conservative libertarian) too. The only difference between the average individual's opinions on this matter would be in regards to how much power the federal government should have in regards to determining federal law that should apply to states.
Make stupid assumptions win stupid prizes like getting called stupid on an internet forum.
2008 actually - the 2010 ruling just sealed the deal, and yeah, that was a weird turn around. Was a huge landmark decision, undoing 200 years of law, with very little fanfare.
I dunno what state you live in where you could think this. I've lived in MA, TX, and CA, and at least half the folks in all those states think state law should trump federal law, in all cases. (In Texas in particular, I'd say about 90% of them believe so, outside of Austin.)
Heck, we got ongoing lawsuits in California making that very argument, right now, precedents be damned.
But he is right that the second amendment never applied to the states until McDonald v. Chicago. Up until then it only limited what firearm regulations the federal government could demand of the states.
>I would literally shoot to kill whoever they send to take my gun
That's not how the law enforcement work. You see, the fine for not surrending a weapon is, as the article states, 1000$ per day. Nobody will come to collect it. Nobody will force you to surrender your weapon like in some movie. Instead, you will not be able to function as a citizen as long as you have that debt and that gun. You will be blocked. That means: you will be rejected by the government when you require government certification (or similar); for example: you will not be able to get a drivers license (basic thing that comes to my mind).
There is no way to fight the gun ban with guns. At least no effective one that I know of.
So the people you talked to said that it's perfectly fine for state and federal laws to actively contradict each other and it isn't something that both parties should seek to resolve? That's pretty fucking interesting, since that's my point if you missed it.
Good luck getting out of California though.
Something that is legal under state law can be illegal under federal law (like marijuana in California) and something that is legal under federal law (like murder) can be illegal under state law.
Federal law only preempts state law when Congress has "occupied" the entire field involved and declares that intends to take away the authority from states and municipalities.
"Even if a State may make violation of federal law a crime in some instances, it cannot do so in a field (like the field of alien registration) that has been occupied by federal law." - Arizona v. United States (2012)
"If State laws on commerce are identical with those of Congress, the Court may find congressional motive to exclude the States: Congress has provided certain limited penalties, "and a state law is not to be declared a help because it attempts to go farther than Congress has seen fit to go," Varnville, supra, at 237 U. S. 604 -- that is, if Congress has "occupied the field." But the fact of identity does not mean the automatic invalidity of State measures. Coincidence is only one factor in a complicated pattern of facts guiding us to congressional intent." - California v. Zook (1949)
>Something that is legal under state law can be illegal under federal law (like marijuana in California) and something that is legal under federal law (like murder) can be illegal under state law.
Yes, but I've met to meet someone who has argued that is an ideal situation. In a perfect world state and federal laws do not contradict each other and disagreements are worked out through debate and through the court systems.
You understand that I'm arguing for an ideal case, not a realistic case, yes? Can you please stop lecturing me about shit that I already know?
>Yes, but I've met to meet someone who has argued that is an ideal situation.
It's federalism. If all state policies lined up exactly with federal policy all the states would be the same and there would be no reason to have them at all. Our entire federal system of government exists because people didn't want the national government running the entire show.
No, not nessarily. That's one outcome, sure, but you can instead have a federal government that has very lose and general laws which would allow the individual states to set their own definitions.
Have you never considered the idea of a government that allows states to operate how they please while at the same time doesn't encourage contradictory laws on a state to federal level?
>Have you never considered the idea of a government that allows states to operate how they please while at the same time doesn't encourage contradictory laws on a state to federal level?
I thought about it just now but I don't know why I would prefer it. The federal government retains supremacy when it has to. Why would I inherently prefer that environmental and civil rights law be managed at a state level as opposed to a federal level? Or both?
>The federal government retains supremacy when it has to.
I never said that, I'm less proposing a system and more how I beleive we should strive to achieve with our current system. Again, please acknowledge that I'm referring to an ideal here, because I'm not sure if you're really getting that. Please include the words "I understand that you are talking about an ideal mode for the system and not an ideal form for the system" in your reply so that I know that are paying attention.
>Why would I inherently prefer that environmental and civil rights law be managed at a state level as opposed to a federal level? Or both?
Again, I never said that there can't be conflict, just that it's not preferable.
Well, a lot of folks would just prefer the federal government didn't exist at all. Granted, these tend to be the folks who didn't pay attention during the Articles of the Confederation portion of history class.
I do like having these 50 little experimental fronts of democracy, where you can try something and see if it works before the whole system adopts it... But I don't really see why so many people trust their state government over their federal. Sure, it's slightly closer to home, but in the end, they're still dealing with millions of people, and are every bit as disconnected from the average citizen's concerns as the central government.
And yeah, it seems whether or not any given person supports state's rights over federal law is directly related to whether they like the state in question, or the current federal government. Arizona was all about state's rights to control their borders under Obama, but they throw a hissy fit when California wants to control their own borders in the opposite fashion under Trump, and visa versa, etc.
Striving for a legal system where there aren't inherent contradictions and everyone is satisfied with the balance between federal and state powers doesn't sound good to you?
I'm advocating for the most milquetoast thing imaginable here. Where would you even being to object to this?
>Where would you even being to object to this?
The fact that you are extraordinarily unlikely to create any sort of system where "everyone is satisfied." Contradictions arise due to conflicts of interests who don't just magically go away because you want them to.
It's as if you proposed an ideal of having no courts because everyone should just agree on things and be satisfied instead of having to litigate them out.
>The fact that you are extraordinarily unlikely to create any sort of system where "everyone is satisfied."
I'm not proposing that we create a system in which that occurs, I'm proposing that this is a goal that we can strive for with the system we have in place now.
>Contradictions arise due to conflicts of interests who don't just magically go away because you want them to.
Quote where I said they did? Do you know what "strive" means?
>It's as if you proposed an ideal of having no courts because everyone should just agree on things and be satisfied instead of having to litigate them out.
Really? That's what you're getting here?
>I'm proposing that this is a goal that we can strive for with the system we have in place now.
I'm proposed that your goal is just the same as any other compromise situation, where some people get what they want and some people don't, and there's no explanation as to how your "striving for satisfaction" will actually increase satisfaction.
>Where the fuck did I say that this would require or necessitate any sort of compromise?
You didn't say it. It doesn't matter, though, because your not saying it doesn't make it not true.
Currently, there are contradictions. State law reflects one policy ideal in a specific field. Federal law reflects a different policy ideal in a specific field. Your system would end up with a single non-contradictory regime. The final regime either resembles one ideal (one side loses and is unhappy), or the other ideal (the other side loses and is unhappy), or is a mix of both (a compromise situation).
>Dude, I'm not going to lie, but I think you might be stupid and I don't want to continue having this conversation anymore.
You're a fucking idiot recommending an idiotic utopian solution to a problem that hundreds of jurists have struggled with for hundreds of years that magically makes all problems disappear.
Don't worry. In your ideal world, no doubt I don't exist. Poof! I'm gone! Your wanting something has made it so. It's like magic.
> Well, a lot of folks would just prefer the federal government didn't exist at all.
Nonsense, a lot of folks would prefer the federal government stay out of their personal lives and do its job of insuring that America’s interests come first.
> I do like having these 50 little experimental fronts of democracy
So you’d be cool with your home state scrapping your 1st Amendment rights to free speech and limiting you to a quill pen?
Yeah, I didn’t think so…
Judges don't get to choose what they challenge - someone has to bring a court case against it.
And again, if not for the 2010 ruling, this would be perfectly constitutional. 2nd amendment only applied to the federal government for nearly two centuries.
Though, apparently, the ACLU, of all folks, is considering bringing a case against it. Maybe they just see it as an easy win - though it might have to get to a federal court of appeals before said 2010 precedent inevitably kills it.
Its not the govenremnt, it's just a town. They only people that will fight the gun toting rednecks are the slow moving liberals and the handful of police who don't oppose gun control. You think every police officer will obey?
They've never disobeyed when ordered to take someone's guns. Similarly, the army has never refused an order to fire on US civilians - even with those civilians were veterans.
Don't expect groups that are paid and trained to obey government orders to save you from the government. Really, the county sheriff is the only one who has any actual authority to do so, and it's once in a blue moon that they actually exercise that right.
I'm against all this gun control bullshit, both on the grounds of our right to bear arms and our right to private property, but there are a lot of stupid people in this world, and when stupid people own guns bad things tend to happen. That's just a consequence of freedom, though. Less safety. And liberals would rather be "safe" than free (safe in quotes because clearly having less guns doesn't actually make you more safe, as countless statistics have shown around the world).
And for the record, I've never owned a gun in my life, so I'm not some "gun nut"
exactly, this is designed to kill with fines. honestly I dont' know why they made the fines so dramatic, any unpaid fine is non-compliance making you a criminal, any paid fine is compliance. I guess they wanted to make paying non-sustainable.
compliance even if you're lying. it's not about giving up the gun, having or not having, it's about going, "Oh Okay". Even if you like and keep the gun you're complying.
> And liberals would rather be "safe" than free (safe in quotes because clearly having less guns doesn't actually make you more safe, as countless statistics have shown around the world).
Even the virulently anti-gun Brady Campaign grudgingly admits that are _at least_ 200,000 incidents of defensive gun use per year in the U.S. (the NRA claims up to 2 million).
>50 little experimental fronts of democracy, where you can try something and see if it works before the whole system adopts it
Or you're california and you try anything and the other 49 states wind up complying because CA is too big of a retail base for any company to ignore. Literally everything is produced and labeled to CA standards, which is why I buy directly from China... oh wait.
>“This is our fight…This is our generation’s fight
Lol no it's not. Nobody else gives a fuck except American teenagers. Go to any other country and see if the same generation gives half a shit about your "Fight"
Your nation is in turmoil. Stop trying to pretend like you speak for everyone else on earth you fucking American slimeballs.
Okay but for real this is actually legally viable, and here's why.
The 2nd amendment was, for nearly 200 years, largely interpreted to be talking about militias. It was only in the year 2001, with the supreme court case DC vs Heller:
Antonin Scalia dropped the biggest originality bomb in existence by holding that firearms, specifically handguns intended for self defence, are protected by the 2nd amendment.
He ALSO states on the same page that this right does not 1. Protect felons and the mentally ill, 2. Block bans in sensitive places such as schools and govt buildings, and 3. Block laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
In a more broad coverage that you need to actually read the ruling to get, Scalia makes clear that the ruling is about handguns and firearms intended for self defense.
Deerfield is working on the presumption that 'assault weapons' do not fall under this protection, because it's not sensible to use an AR15 or a high capacity magazine for self defense.
The actual law is quite sloppy and will likely be taken in court, but a better written version elsewhere could go quite far indeed.
>The 2nd amendment was, for nearly 200 years, largely interpreted to be talking about militias.
This is at best, historical revisionism. At worst, propaganda. Though I fail to see much of a difference.
Jurisprudence on the 2a was limited for years because courts wanted to avoid defining the 2nd in a way that invoked the incorporation clause.
>It was only in the year 2001, with the supreme court case DC vs Heller
Heller was 2008.
There was also US v Miller, back in 1939, which Heller referenced.
>Scalia makes clear that the ruling is about handguns and firearms intended for self defense.
>Deerfield is working on the presumption that 'assault weapons' do not fall under this protection because it's not sensible to use an AR15 or a high capacity magazine for self defense.
Scalia in Heller also made it clear that firearms in "common usage" were protected by the 2nd Amendment. Both "high capacity" mags (which are really standard capacity intentionally mislabeled to sound scary) and the AR-15 absolutely are in common usage, especially in self defense. There's also the language establishing "well-regulated" as pertaining to equipment and training.
Also worth mentioning is Printz v US, which specifically mentioned that firearms considered to be "ordinary military equipment" (I.E- military grade) could contribute to the common defense and were protected. A sawed off semi-auto shotgun would not qualify, where as a unmodified semi-auto shotgun or rifle like the AR-15 would qualify.
>The actual law is quite sloppy and will likely be taken in court, but a better written version elsewhere could go quite far indeed.
A better written version wouldn't intentionally misinterpret Heller to attempt to codify into law scaremongering falsehoods invented by "barrel shrouds are the shoulder things that go up" leftists.
It's only legally viable if you ignore any empirical data whatsoever on defensive gun usage and base your entire knowledge of firearms on TV and movies.
It wasn't weird at all. A straight grammatical analysis of the 2A shows it is an individual right, not a collective right. This makes perfect sense because all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights. This is further supported by the Federalist Papers, which basically sold the 2A to the states as, primarily, a means to decentralize power into the people. It was literally advertised as a path for the people to effectively mount an armed revolt against corrupt and tyrannical government. The states signed it based on that idea.
It was actually the Federalist Papers that were used to defend the original position that the 2nd amendment only limited the Federal Government and that the State's were free to provide for their defense as they wished, each free to regulate firearms as they wished. It's also, of course, the only entry in the Bill of Rights that mentions a purpose or the states. ...and of course there was no incorporation clause back then, that didn't happen until 1897.
Granted, the 14th amendment seems to being used to give both corporations, financial entities, and the Federal Government absolutely unprecedented power as of late.
Not him, but:
Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by state militias, "The existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition."
In 1792, Congress passed an act establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States requiring, as an expansion of the 2nd amendment: Requiring every free able-bodied white male citizen who is 18-45 years, shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, and shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt...[etc] The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers to provide for the states' militias.
United States v. Cruikshank (1876), SCOTUS ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government" and thus limited the scope of the Second Amendment's protections to the federal government. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
...and basically every SCOTUS ruling on the subject from 1830 until 2008 either makes it clear that the 2nd amendment only restricts the national government, and/or is only relevant as it pertains to maintaining each individual state's ability to defend itself with a militia.
Though I agree with the more recent court's decision, however radical, as the spirit of the amendment is to defend against tyranny, and the state government has the same potential to become a tyranny as does the federal.
>In 1792, Congress passed an act establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States requiring, as an expansion of the 2nd amendment: Requiring every free able-bodied white male citizen who is 18-45 years, shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, and shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt...[etc] The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers to provide for the states' militias.
>In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".
>and basically every SCOTUS ruling on the subject from 1830 until 2008 either makes it clear that the 2nd amendment only restricts the national government, and/or is only relevant as it pertains to maintaining each individual state's ability to defend itself with a militia
US code specifically differentiates between organized and unorganized militias. Organized militias are 'state' militias (like the National Guard). Unorganized militias are private militias. They specifically defined this so that people could not argue the Amendment was supposed to only apply to state, or 'organized' militias. Miller doesn't attempt to define what a militia is, and as pointed out in>>243969
Printz v US and Miller both attempt to define what firearms constitute protected firearms. The standard they set was for "ordinary military equipment"
>Why mention the security of the state?
Not "the" state, "security of -a free- state". Big difference.
Do they mention a state? Do they mention a militia? Does James Madison not literally say he means a militia for defense of the state in the Federalist Papers, a quote linked all of two posts ago? Does Thomas Jefferson not do the same? these are the guys who wrote the thing, are you just gonna ignore them?
I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for the 2nd amendment as a defense against tyranny, foreign and domestic, state or federal, but it's levels of denial like this that lets the anti-gun nuts get more steam. All this "grammar analysis" shit just detracts from the core issue. What they meant is a long settled issue, settled by folks with considerably more education and study of the subject than you've bothered with - but the function of said militia, the reason for the maintenance of the free state, ultimately goes beyond the original intent of the amendment.
Not that you couldn't defend against tyranny with sniper rifles alone, but well, slippery slope.
>What they meant is a long settled issue, settled by folks with considerably more education and study of the subject than you've bothered with - but the function of said militia, the reason for the maintenance of the free state, ultimately goes beyond the original intent of the amendment.
The militia IS the People. If the People can’t have guns, you can’t have a militia to defend the state.
There’s an undeniable chain of logic here; People + guns = militia = defense of the state.
If the Founding Fathers had meant otherwise, they would have simply said so and the fact that you're forced to concoct wild speculations as to what the FF “actually” thought on the issue in an attempt to justify your claims, only proves it.
>actual quotes from the Federalist Papers
They did say so, RTMFT... A militia for the defense of the state, to be assembled and regulated as each state saw fit. The idea was that the federal government could not stop the state's peoples from arming themselves and thus jeopardize the independence of said states by weakening their militias, not that the states couldn't choose to what degree their people could arm themselves. Thus Madison and Jefferson bringing up the state's assignment of militia officers and the like. Even the 2008 and 2010 SCOTUS decisions acknowledge this in their statements, they merely say that in light of the subsequent applications of both the 2nd and the 14th amendment, that centuries old traditional view is now defunct.
You continue to misread and misrepresent the 2nd Amendment, claiming that the FF somehow didn't know how to speak and write English and that the militia is the reason for the arms but the militia clause is the subordinate clause to the primary clause; the right of the People to keep & bear arms.
“Because it is raining,”
“I have an umbrella.”
“A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,”
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This is the exact bullshit that makes it so easy for anti-gunfags laugh at you. You play with this gramatical bullshit that didn't even really exist at the time, while completely ignoring the literal volumes the founding fathers actually wrote while debating the subject. All the folks who have read the founding father's words on the subject know that you're dead wrong. Direct quotes of said are contained in this very thread, and you can't even be bothered to read those, yet you go on and on about knowing what they meant, based on a simplistic propaganda, as you've never studied the subject, even when given every opportunity to do so.
Well, that, and a lot of the constitution is ambiguously worded for adaptability, which also allowed those who pushed for ratification to make self-contradictory arguments to different states, as Franklin and Hancock also discuss in their own letters. Even with all that effort, it was kinda ratified by the skin of its teeth.
But while the Founding Fathers made it clear in their deliberations that the intent was for the states to retain the ability to defend themselves, and only to limit the federal government's ability to prevent the states from maintaining militias, the end purpose was to prevent tyranny of any sort, from any source, foreign or domestic. While the Founding Fathers, by their own reckoning, never intended the people to have an absolute right to bear arms, that is indeed required to fulfill the ultimate extension of the spirit of the law.
Yes, but none of the Bill of Rights was absolute. Until James vs. Madison, they only limited the Federal Government, and the Supreme Court could not declare a state law unconstitutional. The states were only limited to not infringing on the Federal Government's roles, and even then, the Federal Government had little in the way of mechanisms to interfere with them if they chose to do so. Freedom of speech, religion, et. al., could be violated by any state at any time. Even after that, the Bill of Rights was not truly limiting of states rights until after the Civil War and the 14th amendment, which wasn't truly tested until 1897. So, for about a third of the nation's history, the entire Bill of Rights really only chained the feds, which was true of a great deal of the rest of the Constitution as well.
Read and stop ignoring >>244031
>Even the 2008 and 2010 SCOTUS decisions acknowledge this in their statements
>doesn't post quotes from statements he's referencing
>You play with this gramatical bullshit that didn't even really exist at the time
But it did.
>while completely ignoring the literal volumes the founding fathers actually wrote while debating the subject.
>Direct quotes of said are contained in this very thread, and you can't even be bothered to read those, yet you go on and on about knowing what they meant, based on a simplistic propaganda, as you've never studied the subject, even when given every opportunity to do so.
>never intended the people to have an absolute right to bear arms
"well-regulated" means that right extends to anything that puts the people and militias on even playing fields with standing military bodies.
"You didn't read the literature and haven't studied the law-" idiot who clearly didn't read the literature and hasn't studied/can't properly reference the laws in question.
There's just no hope for this one. Doesn't even seem to realize that none of the bill of rights restricted any of state's laws until 1803, did very little to restrict them until 1897, links to a propaganda domain with a bunch of out of context quotes, and that the national guard didn't exist in the post where he literally just made shit up.
Yes, sure, whatever floats your alt-history boat. I'm just glad we have people who are defending the right to bear arms who have read stuff outside of "concealedcarry" snippets and thus have some idea as to what they are talking about.
>links to a propaganda domain with a bunch of out of context quotes
Each quote could be looked up on its own if you had any real, legitimate interest in what the founding fathers wrote on the subject.
>Doesn't even seem to realize that none of the bill of rights restricted any of state's laws until 1803, did very little to restrict them until 1897
I've been addressing specific bits of people's posts that discuss topics including, but also other than the bill of rights being incorporated to the states. You've ignored pretty much all of them in favor of whining about sources and demonstrating your complete and total ignorance of US code.
>and that the national guard didn't exist in the post where he literally just made shit up.
>The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>The classes of the militia are—
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Google "us code militia". First result. 7 seconds. Is Cornell Law School's online database propaganda as well?
>Yes, sure, whatever floats your alt-history boat. I'm just glad we have people who are defending the right to bear arms who have read stuff outside of "concealedcarry" snippets and thus have some idea as to what they are talking about.
If I could harness and globally distribute as an energy source, the schadenfreude I get from watching you flail and suffer from the cognitive dissonance you're experiencing right now, I could solve climate change.
> While the Founding Fathers, by their own reckoning, never intended the people to have an absolute right to bear arms
So when the Founding Fathers wrote “the People” in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th Amendments, they actually meant state governments? Thus;
The GOVERNMENT has the right to peaceably to assemble.
The GOVERNMENT has the right to keep & bear arms
The GOVERNMENT has the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
The GOVERNMENT has the right to be free from double jeopary
The GOVERNMENT shall not be denied other rights retained by the… umm, GOVERNMENT
And the rights of the GOVERNMENT are reserved to the GOVERNMENT respectively, or to the GOVERNMENT.
Boy howdy, those Founding Fathers sure were dumb, I can’t believe they couldn’t speak English! Good thing we people like you to tell us what they “really” meant…
Not him, but what are you even babbling about? And he's right, the 2nd amendment never applied to the states until recently, who were previously free to regulate arms in any way they wished. That's why Heller v. the District of Columbia and McDonald v. Chicago were *Landmark* decisions, and not "business as usual".
The law is not simply a matter of word games. Not that the Constitution could stand as a legal document, given it's broad wording, even during its time, let alone today. Thus we have this weve of precedents clearing shit up.
Well, SCOTUS wasn't in a position to declare any state law unconstitutional until Marbury v. Madison, so that's to the point, but the 2nd amendment in particular was ruled by that same court specifically to only apply to the Federal Government, repeatedly, from 1830 to 1939.
>"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." - United States v. Miller
>With respect to Cruikshank's continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government.
Until the 2008 and 2010 SCOTUS decisions, it was perfectly constitutional for the states to take their citizens' guns. The 2nd amendment was never absolute, nor was it originally intended to be - that being a key reason the Constitution was ratified to begin with, as that very argument comes up in the Federalist papers, repeatedly. Most states were refusing to sign on if they couldn't control arms within their borders, and thus demanded it be so.
Granted, it was also all done under the premise that the Federal Government would never have a standing army large enough to overcome the state militias, and that has obviously gone out the window. Similarly, the 14th amendment eventually expanded the scope of all of Constitutional precepts to be forced upon the states, so it was just a matter of time.
Your mistake was thinking you were relevant enough to be considered. That person was only thinking of American teenagers when they said that. The US is big enough that for many people the rest of the world might as well not exist apart from what they see in passing on TV.
>Until the 2008 and 2010 SCOTUS decisions, it was perfectly constitutional for the states to take their citizens' guns. The 2nd amendment was never absolute, nor was it originally intended to be - that being a key reason the Constitution was ratified to begin with, as that very argument comes up in the Federalist papers, repeatedly. Most states were refusing to sign on if they couldn't control arms within their borders, and thus demanded it be so.
This may explain why we very recently had a federal judge declare that AR-15 like weapons are not 2nd amendment protected.
The downside to Scalia's opinion is that he basically declared that the 2nd amendment as a protection against tyranny was defunct, and now its primary function is a right to personal protection. So while state's cannot blanket-ban firearms nor make them too hard to access, yes, "military grade" firearms can be banned.
Stupid, as while death by small arms are fairly common, mass shootings via "assault weapons" cause less deaths than lightning strikes, by orders of magnitude. They just have a much stronger emotional impact, thus everyone loses their perspective.
But I suppose the anti-tyranny function still works, so long as they don't come after the sniper rifles. Fighting the army is a losing proposition, and in a civil war, it'd quickly become a battle between two armies anyways... But, in order to prevent it reaching that stage, you don't have attack the body of the snake, just the heads of the snake. Or at least make the head of the snake realize that, if it goes too far, it gets to spend the rest of its life in a secure bunker, along with all its extended family and business associates.
Dunno how long we have until they come after those too though.
You're right in that assault weapons cause a relatively minor number of deaths in the overall numbers.
But in turn those overall numbers are much, much higher (per capita, not just magnitude) than any other civilized nation. You have to go to countries that currently have major rule-of-law problems to find greater instances of death by gun.
And yes, the majority of that comes from handguns. I'm not saying the law mentioned in OP solves the problem or that assault rifles are the problem.
But BOY is there a problem.
The more I read this thread, the more I'm convinced it's a schizophrenic person talking to themselves about shit they are incredibly misinformed about.
>This may explain why we very recently had a federal judge declare that AR-15 like weapons are not 2nd amendment protected.
Or- judicial activism and deliberate misinterpretation/obfuscation of jurisprudence, including but limited to the "common use" & "ordinary military equipment/military grade" clauses set forth by decades of SCOTUS rulings.
>The downside to Scalia's opinion is that he basically declared that the 2nd amendment as a protection against tyranny was defunct,
How many more times do you plan on vaguely referencing Scalia without actually posting to linking to specific quotes or onions he made?
>yes, "military grade" firearms can be banned.
"Military grade" firearms ARE specifically protected by the second amendment and cannot be banned. Arguments otherwise require deliberate misinterpretations of both the 2A and jurisprudence surrounding it.
This is why, among other reasons and examples, sawed off shotguns are not protected, but semi-auto shotguns and rifles are. "Ordinary military equipment" is specifically enumerated to carry protection by the 2nd. See: Printz v US for one example. "Common use" in Heller for another. AR-15s are most definitely in "common use". AR-15s are most definitely protected.
>But in turn those overall numbers are much, much higher (per capita, not just magnitude) than any other civilized nation.You have to go to countries that currently have major rule-of-law problems to find greater instances of death by gun.
ompared-to-europe-the-us-falls-in-r ank-for-fatalities-and-frequency-of -mass-public-shootings-now-ranks-11 th-in-fatalities-and-12th-in-freque ncy/
>But BOY is there a problem.
There most definitley is- gun ownership isn't it though.
ybodys-lying-about-the-link-between -gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed4 00be5
>How many more times do you plan on vaguely referencing Scalia without actually posting to linking to specific quotes or onions he made?
How many more times are you going to spread misinformation based on personal religious opinions rather than actual research on the matter, and just give the anti-gun folks more fuel to use against us all?
>United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54
>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, nor laws banning military weapons of great destruction. 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
So no, they aren't.
>How many more times are you going to spread misinformation based on personal religious opinions rather than actual research on the matter,
I haven't presented any "religious opinions", just as you still haven't been able to cite the Scalia references you claim support your arguments.
>and just give the anti-gun folks more fuel to use against us all?
Anytime you feel like not posing as a gun rights advocate, feel free. You're not fooling anyone and you're a poor quality disinformation agent.
> those in common use for lawful purposes
>Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time"
Which includes AR-15s, they are both in common use and used for lawful purposes.
>finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons
Which again, is why sawed off shotguns are not protected.
Sawed off shotguns are "dangerous and unusual weapons", they require uncommon modification for use in arguably uncommon purposes.
AR-15s are not "dangerous and unusual weapons", they do not require uncommon modification and are not majorly used for uncommon purposes.
>So no, they aren't.
Yes, they are. I've proven this several times now using the same info you keep citing. There's no jurisprudence cited in this thread so farr that proves anything other than the fact that AR-15s are most definitely protected by the 2A
Can't wait for you to ignore most of what I said again so I can rub your nose in it again. And again. And again
You're reading from a case that specifically upheld a law that included a ban on semi-automatic rifles. (Granted, the government's definition of said seems to be a little weird sometimes - if not as weird as the media's.) The AR-15 is banned in several states, and no one's managed to get a case to lift said ban beyond the circuit courts due to the Heller precedent's written majority opinions. Even before then, the federal ban failed to be challenged as well, it just expired.
District courts as well, after Heller:
>Firearms registration procedures, the prohibition on assault weapons, and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices are found to not violate the Second Amendment.
You're spouting what you "believe" rather than addressing the reality, and that renders you ineffective in this fight, save as an easily discredited cheerleader, which in the end, is an easy point for the other side.
What are you even trying to say? DC vs Heller overturned a handgun ban, and Scalia outlined the reason why: self-defense.
Under what circumstances is an assault rifle (or a semiauto knockoff of the same) a suitable weapon for home defense? Even the army doesn't use ARs in close quarters.
Bleh, meant for >>244333
None of which are due to what the media is describing as "assault weapons". I mean, you could magically whisk away all such weapons, and it wouldn't put a dent in the numbers. It's security theater - and we have far too much of that as it is.
Plus those sources you are calling bias link to the FBI crime statistics. That's before we get into who's shooting whom and why.
And suicide and accidental death rates aren't much higher in the US than elsewhere in the world - indeed, the highest suicide rates in the world are in nations that have blanket gun bans. Not that banning a device that might result in accidental death if misused or be used in a suicide should ever be a thing.
And it's all ignoring the fact that civilian guns save lives far more often than they take them. The vast majority use of guns in confrontations do not result in fatality, and indeed prevent otherwise potential fatalities among lawful citizens.
If you want to cite the FBI, LINK the FBI, not a gun advocacy blog that cherrypicks the numbers to its heart's content.
And while you're at it cite a source - an UNbiased one - that shows civilian ownership reduces crime.
And we don't know what sort of legislation would work or not, because of the fucking Dickey Amendment. For which we have the gun lobby to thank.
>Under what circumstances is an assault rifle (or a semiauto knockoff of the same) a suitable weapon for home defense?
When the defense is against those armed with assault weapons or with superior numbers. We have, in living memory, cases of civilian militias fighting off the federal governments more corrupt appendages and being exonerated. You can call people arming themselves against the federal government crazy, but we also called people claiming google and facebook were spying on them crazy a few years ago.
Well, I wasn't the guy who linked it - I generally avoid direct linking myself for exactly that reason, and put up easily searched information instead that one can have confirmed at the bias site of their own choosing. (Can't even link Wikipedia these days without folks screaming about the Jewish influence.) Plus, it just turns into a link war.
Nonetheless glanced it over, however, and much like Wikipedia, the references are there at the bottom.
Despite the Dickey (which I agree, was a dick move and the sorta thing that gives the NRA a bad name), we do have crime statistics, accident statics, suicide rates, and gun ownership statistics from multiple nations in addition to our own. Granted, what works elsewhere may not necessarily work here, culture is a thing, but if you remove the emotional component that these mass shootings drive, and look at things rationally, it's pretty clear that most of the anti-gun lobby is attacking the problem from the wrong angle out of irrational fear, and most of what they propose is more likely to exacerbate the problem than mitigate it.
Well, as long as we're bringing up Wikipedia:
Texas and California have the exact same murder-by-firearm rate (3.3/100k), despite having similar populations and economies, and pretty much diametrically opposed firearm regulations.
Unfortunately, I fear the real problem isn't going to be solved by something as simple as "ban X, Y, and Z" - I think we're merely looking at a symptom of a much more systemic problem of the sort no one really wants to address.
>And we don't know what sort of legislation would work or not, because of the fucking Dickey Amendment
>Despite the Dickey (which I agree, was a dick move and the sorta thing that gives the NRA a bad name),
The Dickey was lifted in 2012 in practice and on paper with the omnibus from February. Obama even ordered the CDC to publish an initial study on guns in America. Initial findings were that Americans use guns in defense astronomically more than in killing someone. Accidental, suicide or homicide. Even the low ball numbers were 50/50 if you assumed the offensive uses were the highest. For some reason nobody funded them after that despite plastering the study with "we dont know for sure, we need more funding"
It was NOT repealed, it's an act of Congress and Obama had no power to affect that; in 2012 Congress was majority Republican AND the anti-spemding Freedom Caucus was in and winning. He told the CDC to work around it, and their response was 'sure, just get Congress to fund us so we can', and at that point Obama essentially folded his hands and went and did something else becayse getting Congress to fund ANYTHING is an exercise in self-flaggelation.
The act is still in place, and even if it were repealed Congress must also obligate the CDC to spend money on that venture. Govt acquisition is not that easy.
I would say it was the Rule of Law. If the govt wanted those people gone, and didn't care about their well being in the process, they'd have just drone striked the place or something.
I know it sounds wierd but the government actually wants to care about you. It's incredibly bad at it, it's like you trying to pet an ant without crushing it, but that's the goal.
>Google the decision he quoted, he just did.
Where in either what he quoted, or any of Scalia's opinions, does he "basically declared that the 2nd amendment as a protection against tyranny was defunct". I'll wait for that specific reference.
>Your numbers ignore suicides and accidental deaths
Can you specify which source? Because several specifically include suicides and accidental deaths. The Medium source has a whole section dedicated to discussing that.
>And those aren't exactly unbiased sources.
All sources are biased. You're free to make the case as to why the ones I've provided are invalidly so.
> DC vs Heller overturned a handgun ban, and Scalia outlined the reason why: self-defense.
Self defense was one part of the decision, a decision that used previous established jurisprudence like the "common use" clause as basis.
>Under what circumstances is an assault rifle (or a semiauto knockoff of the same) a suitable weapon for home defense?
AR-15s and semi-auto rifles are used in both self and home defense on regular basis. Firearm experts regularly cite the AR-15 as a good home defense weapon.
13/01/24/no-shots-fired-home-intrud ers-decide-not-to-stick-around-afte r-seeing-their-victim-holding-an-ar -15
>Even the army doesn't use ARs in close quarters.
The army doesn't use AR-15s.
They DO use M4s/M16s, including in close quarters environments. See: any combat footage of clearing houses in Iraq or Afghanistan.
m8 the US drone striking US citizens on US soil would quite possibly be the most retarded move the US government could make, only outdone by using progressively larger ordinance. If the group within the BLM surrounding this whole ordeal cared about rule of law it wouldnt have happened in the first place. Bundy was a bastard about his grazing fees and rights but the feds broke almost every possible rule in how they handled the case, from how they tried to collect the cattle to the standoff and all the way up to the court case itself.
You got a real fucked up view of the government if you see the people as ants before a giant.
A giant made of ants. It's clumsy and crushes things easily, even when trying not to.
And my point was that the fact that the Bundy farmers bore arms had fuck all to do with the fact that they won the case. They won the case because they had the better legal standing, not because they had GUNS.
>You're reading from a case that specifically upheld a law that included a ban on semi-automatic rifles.
I'm sorry, was Miller's challenge to the law and his indictment based on possession of a semi-automatic rifle?
Or was it based on "transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches"?
Please remind me, oh vague and obfuscating "pro-gun advocate" who can neither respond to posts nor cite established case law and jurisprudence properly?
>no one's managed to get a case to lift said ban beyond the circuit courts due to the Heller precedent's written majority opinions
SCOTUS' abdication on taking cases that might undo state level prohibitions has directly do with the fact that if the clauses used to manifest the Heller decision were applied to these laws many of them WOULD be over turned. Writing themselves an excuse to dismiss challenges can only last for so long. It took decades for the 2nd to be incorporated to the states, there's a reason they're hesitant to get that ball swinging the way it's clearly being set up to swing, and it entirely a publicity issue.
>You're spouting what you "believe" rather than addressing the reality, and that renders you ineffective in this fight
Really? How effective do you think you'd be in court, ignoring entire swathes of a presented argument only to focus on a few points you're still pretending haven't been directly and regularly refuted?
Scalia regularly wiped the floor with people like you, if you actually read up on anything he's done you'd know how badly you're playing yourself.
>If you want to cite the FBI, LINK the FBI, not a gun advocacy blog that cherrypicks the numbers to its heart's content.
>And while you're at it cite a source - an UNbiased one
You're free to point out which specific sources are cherry picking and in what manner, and what biases said sources have and how it makes them unreliable. Otherwise, cry more.
This meme needs to die.
>spoonfed retard needs to learn google
>And my point was that the fact that the Bundy farmers bore arms had fuck all to do with the fact that they won the case. They won the case because they had the better legal standing, not because they had GUNS.
It did have fuck all to do with guns- standing up to a tyrannical federal paramilitary force using privately owned arms and making them back the fuck off of your land.
Having that act of defiance ruled legal and right in court was the cherry on top.
There's no rationalizing out the importance of guns in the Bundy case m8.
>Doesn't the M4 fall under SBR classification precisely because it's compact
Barrel length, yes.
>they needed guns to defend themselves from the tyrannical court that defended their right to own guns
Actually what was said was
>tyrannical federal paramilitary force
Being the BLM.
Is the BLM a court?
Is the court that handed down this decision part of the BLM?
No to both? No to both.
Thanks for playing, be sure to bin that knife and pay for your TV license on the way out.
>He told the CDC to work around it, and their response was 'sure, just get Congress to fund us so we can'
There response was also "here's some data based on what we were able to do with what funds we have. Sorry it doesn't support your conclusions." The response to this was "we might be able to fix that and have the CDC generate data that does fit our conclusions if we had more money, but those MEAN OLD REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS wont let us have it".
And you know what? Good for congress.
Seeking to repeatedly run studies on a topic until you generate the answers you want regardless of empirical validity should not be funded by the public.
If you want propaganda, pay for it yourself.
Michael Bloomberg could easily cover the bill, given he outspent a decade plus of NRA spending in a single year. I wonder why that was never done... hmm....
The law in question included a semi-automatic rifle ban, among many others, all of which the ruling explicitly upheld as already quoted, by Scalia himself, who wrote the majority opinion. The only thing they shat upon was Miller's inability to get a license for a handgun - more importantly, the reasons he couldn't.
>SCOTUS' abdication on taking cases that might undo state level prohibitions has directly do with the fact that if the clauses used to manifest the Heller decision were applied to these laws many of them WOULD be over turned.
No one could overturn the FEDERAL ban on assault rifles BEFORE Heller, let alone after. Every attempt to undo State AR-15 bans, since Heller, have been defeated in circuit courts *citing* Scalia's very decisions. The Supreme Court has effectively already ruled, so until there's a significant change in its makeup, including the current conservative judges, half which presided over that case, no federal court is going to go against recent SCOTUS precedent. So long as they do not do so, there are no grounds for appeal - that's how the system works, and why SCOTUS doesn't get confronted with every damn case, indeed, it doesn't even need to turn down cases most of the time.
>Really? How effective do you think you'd be in court, ignoring entire swathes of a presented argument only to focus on a few points you're still pretending haven't been directly and regularly refuted?
>Scalia regularly wiped the floor with people like you, if you actually read up on anything he's done you'd know how badly you're playing yourself.
Ya ain't refuted dick, and you're making Scalia turn in his grave.
>And my point was that the fact that the Bundy farmers bore arms had fuck all to do with the fact that they won the case
If the Bundy farmers hadn't been armed, there wouldn't have been a case, being key to the hole in your argument.
Idk the stats, but would assume you're correct as that makes sense to me.
After actually skimming through the law, it sounds like it's the old assault weapons ban from the 90's.
The op said people would "be left with revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns" which is not true.
>Citing Scalia's ruling
They intentionally twist the ruling to suit their needs. Scalia's riling clearly states that firearms that are "in common use" are protected. The AR-15 is one of the most popular rifles in the country, and it has been for some time.
The only reason district courts have been so bold is because SCOTUS has been terrified of taking any new 2A cases for years now. Once Ginsberg retires we will see state laws getting struck down left and right.
Scalia also makes a point of addressing the commonality of firearms at the time the 2nd was written - pistols and muskets.
If we want to hold to his word we need to ask whether a firearm was in common use at the time of the Heller decision. It probably doesn't change much - the AR-15 has been in circulation for half a century now - but we can't twist his words.
Scalia's ruling against the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 only struck down the trigger lock provision and denial of handgun registration. It upheld DC's "assault weapon" ban as Constitutional, that includes a ban the AR-15 (as well as a lot of semi-automatic magazine loaded pistols). This is why no one has managed to lift any other municipal or state ban against the AR-15, or any other "assault weapons" ban.
The good thing about the ruling is it upheld a universal right to self-defense that had been pretty much denied since the dawn of the 2nd amendment. For near two centuries it was merely treated as a mandate that the federal government could not disarm the states by disarming their citizens, but the states were free to regulate their defense as they saw fit, as it was deemed a collective right (culminating in US v. Cruikshank). The Heller and Miller cases combined to finally make it an individual right.
The bad thing about the ruling is that it more or less ended defense against government tyranny as a form of self-defense, practically declaring such a concept defunct, and only recognizes the right of personal defense. It thus indirectly denies the state right to defend itself against Federal tyranny through unregulated militia, as well as that of the people. Thus the states and even the federal government can still ban "assault weapons".
We may only need one more SCOTUS replacement to fix that ruling, but the less people who are aware of the current state of the law, the less apt such a case is to come to the court to give it an opportunity to repair that injustice. The people need to be able to arm themselves sufficiently to at least give the government pause, if the 2nd amendment is to continue to act as a check against tyranny. The 2008/2010 decisions got us halfway to the true spirit of the 2nd amendment - it's up to us to push it the rest of the way there. (But of course, we need not to be in denial of the need to do so.)
page took 0.0302 seconds to execute