All are spot on especially 3,4,5 and 7We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.
Member
All are spot on especially 3,4,5 and 7We shouldn't write laws based on the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.
Member
Will you let someone answer if they disagree with you this time?Originally Posted by Mom49of4
Member
My goodness slap, you are on a roll!
Member
Anywhere near Hazy Utopia?
Member
Quiet. Don't upset them.And that "scary"black rifle never was actually "banned" because the rifle with a few cosmetic changes never stopped being manufactured and sold.
.
Some metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and say, "lalalalalalalalalala", just so they don't have to be reminded of the truth of what you posted.
Or that 30 round mags existed in the millions and were never hard to get from 1994 - 2004.
Last edited by Wild Eyed Southern Boy; 02-03-2013 at 09:45 PM.
Member
Where does it say that we don't have that right?
Is it right there next to the words "only muskets"?
Last edited by Wild Eyed Southern Boy; 02-03-2013 at 09:44 PM.
Member
Big difference between REGULATIONS vs our Constitutition.
LAWMAKERS don't make regulations, they make laws.
Do you really think taking off our shoes at the airport made us safe? How come TSA didn't institute underwear inspection after the underwear bomber. There was no liquid bomber, but why are we prohibited from carrying liquids from outside? Tylenol tempering, was that the industry decision or FDA directed?
Member
The tamper proof containers were FDA mandated, after the Tylenol crisis.
http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall02/susi/tylenol.htm
Member
It's not a right to own any gun of your choosing.
If gun proponents thought they could have mounted a successful challenge to the assault weapon ban of 1994, don't you think they would have? But they didn't, and in fact, the ban was upheld in numerous state courts.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...ld-131451.html
"The federal courts have not given much previous guidance on whether a federal assault weapons ban would pass Second Amendment muster, but Winkler says he suspects one would be upheld by the Supreme Court.
“In the Heller case, the courts said a handgun ban is not constitutional because handguns are in ‘common use,’” which is a common standard in jurisprudence, Winkler said. “A shoulder-launched missile is not in common use for self-defense; a machine gun is not in common use. The assault rifle is a slightly more difficult question. … I suspect [the court] would uphold such a ban, especially after such high-profile shootings. And I suspect that many judges, like many other people, would believe you don’t need an assault weapon for self-defense.”
In June 2010, the Supreme Court’s ruling in McDonald v. Chicago extended to states the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that a D.C. ban on owning handguns violated the Second Amendment. The decision in McDonald struck down Chicago and Oak Park’s handgun bans by incorporating the Second Amendment through the 14th. Since the invalidation of handgun bans, both pro- and anti-gun advocates have turned their attention to assault weapons bans.
And in Heller, Scalia, writing for the majority, seems to indicate that restrictions on certain types of weapons remain constitutiona.
Scalia added, a 1939 Supreme Court case, United States v. Miller, allows for limitations on the right to bear arms, “supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
....and all these Supreme Court cases were BEFORE recent events. I doubt there will be a ban, but if there were, there is little doubt in my mind that it would be upheld, if challenged.
Last edited by slapshot; 02-04-2013 at 08:37 AM.
Member
The 1994 AWB was obviously implemented before Heller.
Miller vs U.S. may well provide a challenge to banning semi-auto rifles since they are capable of being used in a militia.
After all, I've heard many here label the AR15 a "weapon of war". It is clearly a rifle suitable for use in a "militia".
The 1939 Miller case was based on the premise that a double barreled shotgun with a barrel less than 18” was not a “militia” type weapon.
The opinion seems mainly concerned with whether the gun in question was a militia-type weapon, which would suggest that the decision is congruent with a well-established line of state right to arms cases (some of which were cited in Miller) that all persons had a right to arms, but that the right only encompasses militia-type arms (and not, therefore, Bowie knives or other arms associated with disreputable brawlers).
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice McReynolds, reversed and remanded the District Court decision. The Supreme Court declared no conflict between the NFA and the Second Amendment had been established, writing:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
Describing the constitutional authority under which Congress could call forth state militia, the Court stated, "With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Michael S. Brown (August 6, 2001). "The strange case of United States v. Miller
The Court also looked to historical sources to explain the meaning of "militia" as set down by the authors of the Constitution:
"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154, 158.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/htm...7_0174_ZO.html
The Supreme Court's recent interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."
As a side note regarding the use of short barreled shotguns:
"When American troops were in the heat of the fighting in the summer of 1918, the German government sent a protest through a neutral agency to our Government asserting that our men were using shotguns against German troops in the trenches. The allegation was true; but our State Department replied that the use of such weapons was not forbidden by the Geneva Convention as the Germans had asserted. Manufactured primarily for the purpose of arming guards placed over German prisoners, these shotguns were undoubtedly in some instances carried into the actual fighting. The Ordnance Department procured some 30,000 to 40,000 shotguns of the short-barrel or sawed-off type, ordering these from the regular commercial manufacturers. The shell provided for these guns each contained a charge of nine heavy buckshot, a combination likely to have murderous effect in close fighting."
Benedict Crowell, Assistant Secretary of War. America's Munitions, 1917-1918. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.. pp. 185–186.
Member
Yes, and your point is?
The AWB was never successfully challened in court, and Heller was mainly about handguns and how they should be kept/stored within the home.
This is a pretty comprehensive source on this topic:
http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/u....05_entire.pdf
Starting on page 19....
"No federal or state assault weapon ban has ever been overturned by the courts. The Supreme Court addressed the scope of the 2nd Amendment in United States vs Miller. In that case, the Court rejected a 2nd Amendment challenge. The Court held that "the obvious purpose" of the Amendment is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectivness" of the state militia.
Since Miller, the scope of the 2nd Amendment has been addressed in nearly 200 federal and state appelate cases. These decisions uniformly reject 2nd Amendment challenges to firearms laws. The US Supreme Court has had numerous opportunities to review these lower court decisions, and has consistently refused to do so."
The federal assault weapon ban has never been challeneged on 2nd Amendment grounds. Every 2nd Amendment challenege to state and local assault weapons bans HAS BEEN REJECTED.
I wonder why that is?
As I said, I doubt there will be a ban, but if there is, I'm pretty confident that any challenge will be rejected by the Courts.
Last edited by slapshot; 02-04-2013 at 01:41 PM.
Member
Perhaps on a national level "militia" may take on a new interpretation as well as the arms suitable for it. Time will tell.
The rejected challenges may not stand on a SCOTUS review.
Most thought Heller would not end up with the result it did.
We shall see.
Posting Permissions
 |
| Terms of Service | Search/Archive | Feedback | Contact Information | DC50tv | Baltimore Sun | Chicago Tribune | Daily Press | Hartford Courant | LA Times | Orlando Sentinel | Sun Sentinel The Morning Call | The Virginia Gazette Baltimore Sun, 501 N. Calvert Street, P.O. Box 1377, Baltimore, MD 21278 |
Reply With Quote