Originally Posted by Libelle201B

I'm a bit puzzled as it seems many states have some restrictions on, or require registration of certain firearms, something the 2A'ers seem to claim is or should be unconstitutional, yet there has not been as far as I know a serious challenge to these various state and federal laws before the SCOTUS. That seems to suggest that states and even the federal government CAN impose certain restrictions and or require registration on particular firearms, yet allow the populace to be "armed" to a certain extent in accordance to the 2A.

Incorporation was not until McDonald v Chicago. Challenges remain to be seen.

Federal should not be able to restrict. They use the 'commerce clause' falsely.

No one was ever charged under the 1994 AWB. I imagine that was because they KNEW it wouldn't hold up and decided not to test it.

There are limits to the 2nd, as there are limits to the 1st. But the laws that they are pushing now are NOT "common sense" no matter how many times they repeat those words. They are sweeping bans that will have little to no effect on criminals.

I'm not going to hunt down all of my sources, because I'm weary of it. But, there have been court cases over the years that basically confirm that the "Well Regulated Militia" will be drawn from able body men. When called upon those men are expected to show up with their own weapons and ammunition, similar to what is in common use of the day. "The People" are to be armed so that they can be called upon to form a "Well Regulated Militia". If "The People" were not armed, then they would not be able to form a militia.

People also have the right to defend themselves. Gandhi and MLK for example both said that violence in self defense is acceptable. Currently 81% of all pistols sold are semi-automatic with a standard (inside the pistol grip, not an extended version) factory magazine holding 11-19 rounds. If you went into any gun store and asked for a typical pistol, the salesman would give you a semi-auto that holds 11-19 rounds. Because of this, and the 2nd amendment, and the Heller decision, a ban on semi-auto pistols holding 11-19 rounds will most likely not pass SCOTUS scrutiny.

And speaking of rifles, in the last 5 years the number 1 selling rifle is the AR-15, which comes with a factory standard capacity 30 round magazine. According to the ATF there have been roughly 4,500,000 AR-15s sold since 199x, whenever they started keeping the records. The majority of which have been in more recent years. And that is just AR-15s, not including a huge number of similar rifles like Mini-14s, AK47 pattern, SIG, CEMTE, FAL, FN, etc etc etc. Because of this, a ban on semi-automatic rifles is not likely to pass SCOTUS scrutiny.

Now 50 round drums, 100 round drums, machine guns, mortars, rocket launchers, tactical nukes, would probably be able to be banned. These things are not in common use. The question is, how many people have they actually killed? Is it worth it to ban them? To create more bureaucracy, to create criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens? That debate would not be a waste of time.

The ironic thing is, as I read the different court rulings, I tend to think that a low capacity deer rifle in an odd caliber could probably be banned as it is not a common weapon that would benefit the citizenry in terms of self defense or common defense. No 2nd amendment protection there.

-Jay

Originally Posted by BE77 Pilot

I never could understand how states like NY got away with a clear disregard for our Constitution. Maybe what is going on these days will back fire on the left and The People will demand their rights. Could be in interesting.

Look first to DC v Heller for a SCOTUS opinion on the meaning of the 2A. Follow with McDonald v Chicago for incorporation of the 2A against the states. Up to then, the states were NOT fully restricted by the 2A, but were only restricted by their own State Constitutions and BoR's, and what statutes the legislative bodies were able to get passed.

Originally Posted by Neil Morse

From the SCOTUS summary of the Heller decision:



http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

What point do you present?

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

Maybe you should read post # 10 a few times, it clearly sets some restrictions on gun ownership if I am not mistaken.

What restrictions do you believe the information in post 10 sets?

The paragraph from DC v Heller that is cited in #10 does not set some restrictions on gun ownership. So, you are mistaken.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

Maybe you should read post # 10 a few times, it clearly sets some restrictions on gun ownership if I am not mistaken.

You show me post #10 and I will show you the 2nd Ammendment... Sorry you can not make any rule violating the nations charter document.

Originally Posted by wrightme

What point do you present?

Read the quote from Heller. That is the point I am presenting. Why do you feel the need to pose such obvious questions?

Originally Posted by Neil Morse

Read the quote from Heller. That is the point I am presenting. Why do you feel the need to pose such obvious questions?

Because you seem to hold a different interpretation of the meaning of the quote than I do. Or, maybe you hold the same one that I do.

Why do you feel the need to assume only one view of it? I asked you what YOU thought it means. i.e., what is your point? For instance, erh7771 will have a completely skewed read of it. I want to hear yours.

Originally Posted by wrightme

Because you seem to hold a different interpretation of the meaning of the quote than I do. Or, maybe you hold the same one that I do.

Why do you feel the need to assume only one view of it? I asked you what YOU thought it means. i.e., what is your point? For instance, erh7771 will have a completely skewed read of it. I want to hear yours.

I don't understand how you have concluded that I "hold a different interpretation of the meaning" of the quote from the Heller decision that I posted than you do. Nor do I "assume only one view of it," although I feel that Justice Scalia has a very clear and concise writing style and that the quote is pretty clear. I posted it because I thought it was responsive to the question raised in the OP. I don't know who erh7771 is, and I don't see any posts by him/her in this thread.

So, what view DO you have of it, or views?

It has been presented by others as if it means that the stated restrictions have been specifically upheld by Heller. They haven't.

Originally Posted by wrightme

So, what view DO you have of it, or views?

It has been presented by others as if it means that the stated restrictions have been specifically upheld by Heller. They haven't.

I find your form of "hide the ball" debate very tedious. As I said, I think Heller is written in a very clear and concise style. I have not suggested that it upheld any restrictions. It struck down restrictions. However, the quoted portion makes it clear that a majority of the court does not believe that the Second Amendment is absolute, which addresses the question raised in the OP.

Originally Posted by Neil Morse

I find your form of "hide the ball" debate very tedious. As I said, I think Heller is written in a very clear and concise style. I have not suggested that it upheld any restrictions. It struck down restrictions. However, the quoted portion makes it clear that a majority of the court does not believe that the Second Amendment is absolute, which addresses the question raised in the OP.

"Hide the ball?" When a bare quote is presented without opinion, it can be taken many ways. Clearly stating YOUR point is vital to discussion.

erh7771 uses the same quote from Heller to claim that just about anything can be restricted from ownership. When I asked you for YOUR 'read,' it was to find out YOUR view of the quote.


You should review the post you replied to earlier....
"Because you seem to hold a different interpretation of the meaning of the quote than I do. Or, maybe you hold the same one that I do."

It is of note that Libelle believes that the Heller quote actually sets restrictions. I didn't believe that you agree with that view, but until you actually state YOUR view, that isn't a known.


The quote to me, is the court recognizing that some restrictions have been either not challenged, or have been upheld, in the past. But, the quote in and of itself, did not create or justify those restrictions; it merely acknowledged them as examples. It also stated that the Heller opinion didn't creat doubt, in and of itself. Heller didn't rule on those items, but that is the point that some desire to falsely create from that quote.

To me, the Heller opinion is written clearly and concisely. To others, it seems to not be; or is actually clear, and is knowingly being misrepresented.

There are definitely "restrictions" on gun ownership. Felons, the mentally disturbed, people with domestic abuse convictions for instance cannot own a firearm in most states if I am not mistaken. There was also an AW ban at one time and it seems that New York is poised to put further restrictions on some firearms. So it seems clear to me that any state or the federal government CAN impose restrictions on the sale of and on various types of weapons wo violating the intent of the 2A.

Originally Posted by Libelle201B

There are definitely "restrictions" on gun ownership. Felons, the mentally disturbed, people with domestic abuse convictions for instance cannot own a firearm in most states if I am not mistaken. There was also an AW ban at one time and it seems that New York is poised to put further restrictions on some firearms. So it seems clear to me that any state or the federal government CAN impose restrictions on the sale of and on various types of weapons wo violating the intent of the 2A.

NY is getting sued so we will see if NY overstepped this round of gun grabbing


http://online.wsj.com/article/APdd33...5bd351a4e.html