Reply With Quote
The legalese of the case was centered around the intended use of the guns ie self defense is justifiable use. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.
Beat me to it. Thanks.
The legalese of the case was centered around the intended use of the guns ie self defense is justifiable use. It's not as cut and dry as you make it seem.
By justifiable I think you mean lawful. Nothing's changed when it comes to that.
Note that I don't think there's anything wrong with a registration requirement. I think that would certainly be cons utional, and I don't see what the big deal is with that.
As for the case, I see what you are saying. As for this, I believe some of it is because it makes it difficult to study the effects of guns on a community. I know that a lot of the rank and file worry about big brother but I doubt that the executives type within the gun lobby have that concern. Registering firearms means that you can track them which is great for policy analysts. By preventing registrations you prevent such policy discussion from being as meaningful.
Registration also has tangible benefits, as you see for example with vehicles. For example directly contacting owners about important recall information.
Because registration is the 1st step, historically, to confiscation. It's hard to confiscate guns otherwise since you cannot trace a gun to a person. Registration would enable the po po to go door to door with a list and collect every registered gun. I don't think it would happen, but the Healthcare bill just signed into law had a provision against it.
Let's not truncate it:
The Supreme Court held:[43]
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state cons utions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. 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. (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. Pp. 54–56. (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 cons utional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail cons utional 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 uncons utional. Because er 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 er to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64. The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44]
The bolded part is important, as semi-auto handguns fit into that description, if Americans overwhelmingly choose them.
How does Executive Order, a power granted by the same cons ution, change that?
But confiscation doesn't happen out of thin air. There has to be a legal reason behind it (just like it happens with any property confiscations).
I have zero problem if somebody is diagnosed with some depression/mental illness and has his weapons confiscated pending further psychological review. It's no different than getting your vehicle registration revoked if you were convicted of a felony DUI.
Executive Orders can be challenged too, and struck down by the SCOTUS. Since Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Supreme Court has established that Executive Orders cannot make laws, they can only clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Cons ution. Executive Orders have been found invalid before (including in that case).
Exactly. The whole 2nd amendment is going down the drain angle has no real basis other than hysteria.
need a quote.
they will do all they legally can by executive order (not much), and all they can politically in Congress (nothing)
but you guys defecate non-stop in your paranoid fantasies, as dictated by the stinking gun industry shills from NRA.
If Obama Took 'Executive Action' On Guns, What Might He Do?
After Vice President Biden said Wednesday that the Obama administration might take some executive actions on the issues of guns and gun-related violence, questions naturally arose:
What kinds of things was he talking about? What might the administration do that doesn't require Congressional action?
Our colleague Ari Shapiro is looking to answer those questions on All Things Considered later today (click here to find an NPR station that broadcasts or streams the show). Meanwhile, here's some reporting from elsewhere:
-- Obama might "strengthen the database that the FBI uses to perform background checks on gun buyers. Many federal agencies that don't currently contribute to the database, such as the Social Security Administration, have access to mental competence information about prospective buyers, or details about failed drug tests and other issues that might prevent a sale to the wrong person. ... The president could also demand that the states share more information from their crime and mental-health databases." (The New York Times)
-- "It is unclear what specific executive orders Obama is contemplating, though one Democratic aide with insight into the talks said Obama could sidestep Congress and bolster federally funded mental-health programs." (The Hill)
-- "The coalition of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, led by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has called for Obama to consider several measures that they said could be implemented without congressional approval: Step up prosecution by the Justice Department of felons and others prohibited from buying weapons when they attempt to buy them. ... Require federal agencies to report records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems. ... Appoint an ATF director. The federal agency charged with enforcing gun laws has gone without a confirmed director for six years." (USA Today)
The Times adds, by the way, that "most changes to the current system, which allows easy access to weapons with hugely destructive power, has to come through legislation."
After the Dec. 14 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Biden was charged with reporting back this month with "concrete proposals" on reducing gun violence. Among the groups he's due to meet with today is the National Rifle Association.
Update at 12:35 p.m. ET. Biden Sees Recommendations Coming On Universal Background Checks And High-Capacity Magazines:
At the White House a short time ago, Biden said there's been broad agreement among the groups he's met with so far that some sort of sytem of "universal background checks" for gun purchasers needs to be created. Also, he said, there's been broad agreement for controls on high-capacity ammunition magazines. Based on past statements from NRA leaders, it's unlikely they are among those Biden is speaking about when he talks of agreement on those issues.
http://m.npr.org/news/front/169030246?start=20
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-11-2013 at 06:30 AM.
Oh yeah, this will end well...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...?utm_hp_ref=twJames Yeager, the CEO who recently threatened to "start killing people" if President Barack Obama pursued an expansion on gun control, has had his gun permit suspended.
Authorities with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security told Newschannel 5 the suspension was based on "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public."
In a statement to the station, Commissioner Bill Gibbons said:
The number one priority for our department is to ensure the public's safety. Mr. Yeager's comments were irresponsible, dangerous, and deserved our immediate attention. Due to our concern, as well as that of law enforcement, his handgun permit was suspended immediately. We have notified Mr. Yeager about the suspension today via e-mail. He will receive an official notification of his suspension through the mail
Read more: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/0...embled-an-armyNow, I don't condone anybody doing anything rash. I do not condone anybody committing any kind of felonies up to and including aggrivated assaults or murders. Unless its necessary.
Right now, it is not necessary. I understand that my video was very volatile. You have no idea how many people that sent me emails and texts and call me like 'Right on! My 's clean. My bag is packed. You tell me when and where.' You have no idea how quickly I accidentally assembled an army. I assure you, a quite formidable army. But now is not the time. It's not time yet.
But, it is time to get ready!"
Apparently Yeager worked as a security contractor in Iraq, drove into an ambush, immediately forgot how to drive the manual transmission car, bailed out, spent the firefight wetting himself in a ditch whilst the rest of his team fought back, and then afterwards killed two civilians for good measure:
Typical Friday night around my place....
"Legal" just means a law was passed. It doesn't have to be cons utional, despite the claims otherwise. There are laws on the books now that are uncons utional and won't be overturned for years. This is the same congress that voted several times on making flag burning illegal. They routinely ignore the BoR because of the direction the school of fish decides to erratically adjust to.
No. No weapons confiscations outside of already legal means like TROs and probation. I think the federal government should have to pass psychological reviews.I have zero problem if somebody is diagnosed with some depression/mental illness and has his weapons confiscated pending further psychological review. It's no different than getting your vehicle registration revoked if you were convicted of a felony DUI.
Yes, and uncons utional law can be passed and enforced until struck down in court.
There's legal avenues to challenge a law, including requesting an injunction suspending it's enactment while it makes it ways through the courts. But specifically, *this* Congress isn't passing any confiscatory laws, which is exactly why the mass hysteria is just that, FUD spread around since it sells well.
Well, I disagree with the first part. I don't think mentally unstable people should carry weapons, any kind. And people aren't necessarily born with a mental problem. Situations can bring about depression, PTSD, and a horde of other temporary (or not) and treatable (or not) mental problems. If they can prove they got their together, then they can get their license (and weapons) back. It's obviously not a fool-proof system (as seen in Newton), but IMO it's just common sense.
As far as the last part, sure. Why not?
Or not. Remember when States didn't comply with the Barrycare until the SCOTUS made it's decision? There's injunctions, etc.
The dangerous part would be Congress passing a secret law (like a lot of the natsec/terror stuff), but when it comes to gun control and this Congress, it's not happening.
Still, if a law enforcement officer enforces a law before it is challenged, what would you do? Resist the law, then resist arrest?
If a law like that passes, the lawsuits and injunctions will simply be there the next day. Again, not concerned one bit, simply because there's no room for such law to pass with this Congress.
I'm starting to wonder about that.
I'm not.
But even in the case they do, the damage would be only temporary. I have no reason to think the SCOTUS would reverse their stated views when it comes to the 2nd amendment. So, all in all, whoever is going crazy buying at 4x the price right now is pretty dumb, IMO.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
