HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Jan 31, 2013, 06:07 PM
Registered User
Houston Ellington, Texas, United States
Joined Feb 2001
312 Posts
In Virginia there used to laws on the books making it illegal for a white man to marry a black woman .... Unconstitutional laws have always existed .... It requires the strength and courage of individuals to challenge those laws ... Just like the Lovings did in Loving v Virginia.
logan5 is online now Find More Posts by logan5
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 07:16 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
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.
The simple fact of laws, does not mean the laws do NOT violate the intent (or words) of the 2A. That is, except for laws that have passed SCOTUS opinion. Further, the state laws that have been in effect before McDonald may actually be found to be infringements; just like the DC handgun laws did in Heller, and the Chicago law did in McDonald.

Claiming that an existing law is constitutional without SCOTUS opinion, is circular logic.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Jan 31, 2013, 07:37 PM
Холодная война все еще здесь.
RCWorks's Avatar
Joined Aug 2003
1,644 Posts
Quote:
The government did not grant you any rights in the 2nd Ammendment. It was a limit of the power of government concerning the right granted you by birth to defend yourself. It says the federal government has no say.
A slight error...

That is NOT ONLY the federal government, but that also goes to the state and the people... your neighbor in your town is limited by that to... states and cities do not have the authority to infringe here either.
RCWorks is offline Find More Posts by RCWorks
RCG Plus Member
Last edited by RCWorks; Feb 01, 2013 at 01:50 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 04:41 PM
Registered User
S. FL
Joined Jan 2007
854 Posts
Creating a law that prohibits the ownership of a rifle or handgun would be entirely unconstitutional, that is clear and would certainly never pass a SCOTUS challenge. Passing laws that put restrictions on particular weapons, and who is able to own one seems to be very constitutional based on present state and federal laws.
Libelle201B is online now Find More Posts by Libelle201B
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:01 PM
Registered User
Beaumont ,peoples republic of Kalifornia
Joined Jan 2004
264 Posts
But would you let a nut job like feinstein have any say in the matter ? Or none of us seen this coming Joe....
A honest rational debate only comes with honest rational people
debogus is offline Find More Posts by debogus
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:05 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
Creating a law that prohibits the ownership of a rifle or handgun would be entirely unconstitutional, that is clear and would certainly never pass a SCOTUS challenge. Passing laws that put restrictions on particular weapons, and who is able to own one seems to be very constitutional based on present state and federal laws.
No. Unless they have been challenged to SCOTUS, that is inaccurate.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:26 PM
Registered Snoozer
Neil Morse's Avatar
San Francisco, CA, USA
Joined Jul 1999
6,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
No. Unless they have been challenged to SCOTUS, that is inaccurate.
You're really not making sense here. A law doesn't have to be FOUND constitutional by the Supreme Court in order to BE constitutional, does it? It seems by your reasoning that every law in the US that has not been the subject of a decision in the SCOTUS is unconstitutional. Is that what you are really saying?
Neil Morse is offline Find More Posts by Neil Morse
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:32 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Morse View Post
You're really not making sense here. A law doesn't have to be FOUND constitutional by the Supreme Court in order to BE constitutional, does it? It seems by your reasoning that every law in the US that has not been the subject of a decision in the SCOTUS is unconstitutional. Is that what you are really saying?
No. That isn't what I said. HE seems to believe that if it has NOT been found to be unconstitutional, it is. That is false. He is using circular reasoning.

The reality of my statement is that laws that have not been challenged, are not determined either way.

The claim was 'Passing laws that put restrictions on particular weapons, and who is able to own one seems to be very constitutional based on present state and federal laws.'

That simply isn't accurate. Laws and future laws are not de-facto constitutional. And, the bare fact that there IS some existing law does not mean a future similar law is constitutional. Unless the existing law has been deemed such. The point I present was not what you claim. My point is that it isn't determined, not that it is unconstitutional.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:34 PM
Registered User
S. FL
Joined Jan 2007
854 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by debogus View Post
But would you let a nut job like feinstein have any say in the matter ? Or none of us seen this coming Joe....
A honest rational debate only comes with honest rational people
As much as you would like to maligne Feinstein and Biden I think both of them along with most rational Americans are searching for ways to slow and or stop the level of gun related violence we are seeing today.
Libelle201B is online now Find More Posts by Libelle201B
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:36 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Libelle201B View Post
As much as you would like to maligne Feinstein and Biden I think both of them along with most rational Americans are searching for ways to slow and or stop the level of gun related violence we are seeing today.
Then it does not make sense for them to take the positions on new regulations that they are currently taking.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:45 PM
Registered Snoozer
Neil Morse's Avatar
San Francisco, CA, USA
Joined Jul 1999
6,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
The reality of my statement is that laws that have not been challenged, are not determined either way.
True enough. But can a law "seem" constitutional, to use Libelle's phrase, without a determination by the SCOTUS? You seem to be saying that it can't. I think it can. At least in terms of reasonably predicting what the court would likely decide about it. Do you disagree?
Neil Morse is offline Find More Posts by Neil Morse
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 06:48 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Morse View Post
True enough. But can a law "seem" constitutional, to use Libelle's phrase, without a determination by the SCOTUS? You seem to be saying that it can't. I think it can. At least in terms of reasonably predicting what the court would likely decide about it. Do you disagree?
Yes, I do. His metric of choice is existing laws. Unless they have been challenged, I do not agree with his 'seems.' Unless similar laws HAVE been challenged, it is premature to reasonably predict what a court would likely decide. That takes circular reasoning.
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 07:04 PM
Registered Snoozer
Neil Morse's Avatar
San Francisco, CA, USA
Joined Jul 1999
6,137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by wrightme View Post
Yes, I do. His metric of choice is existing laws. Unless they have been challenged, I do not agree with his 'seems.' Unless similar laws HAVE been challenged, it is premature to reasonably predict what a court would likely decide. That takes circular reasoning.
Given Justice Scalia's statements in Heller, I think it is reasonable to say that a given restriction on the Second Amendment "seems" constitutional, i.e., is likely to be found constitutional. I understand that you are taking a more cautious position. But I don't see how circular reasoning figures into it.
Neil Morse is offline Find More Posts by Neil Morse
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 07:07 PM
Trons and Fumes
wrightme's Avatar
Fallon, NV
Joined Mar 2007
5,038 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Morse View Post
Given Justice Scalia's statements in Heller, I think it is reasonable to say that a given restriction on the Second Amendment "seems" constitutional, i.e., is likely to be found constitutional.
I don't agree, and that is why I asked you what you read into that quote.
Scalia states that the opinion in Heller does not 'cast doubt upon' the listed items. But, he didn't state that the opinion in Heller supported those examples; merely that the examples do show restrictions. In addition, he did use the word 'if' when writing about the examples in another section. Specifically, have you seen the video of the Scalia interview?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil Morse
I understand that you are taking a more cautious position. But I don't see how circular reasoning figures into it.
He claims the bare existence of statute supports it as constitutional. No, it doesn't.


Look to about 40 second mark.

Scalia: 'Handheld Rocket Launchers' could be Constitutional --IDIOT (2 min 23 sec)
wrightme is offline Find More Posts by wrightme
Last edited by wrightme; Feb 01, 2013 at 07:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 01, 2013, 07:22 PM
Registered Snoozer
Neil Morse's Avatar
San Francisco, CA, USA
Joined Jul 1999
6,137 Posts
Thank you for posting that, I had not seen it. The language we are discussing from Heller is what is called "dicta," i.e. it is not necessary to the holding that the court is making. Dicta cannot be cited as authority for any proposition. So I certainly agree, as I have said, that Heller does not uphold any particular limitations on the Second Amendment.

But dicta can be the basis for some pretty accurate predictions about what a court is likely to do when confronted with a future case. Scalia is being very "judge-like" in his comments in the interview (of course), but even in the statement that you point me to, he says "Some [limitations on the right to bear arms] undoubtedly are permissible." That's all I'm saying.
Neil Morse is offline Find More Posts by Neil Morse
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Discussion The Battle of Athens 1946. 2nd amendment in practice Mig Man Life, The Universe, and Politics 8 Jan 22, 2013 02:44 PM
Discussion Battle of Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation Mike McCrea Life, The Universe, and Politics 46 Jan 10, 2013 01:07 AM
Discussion Columnist calls for repeal of Second Amendment, death of gun owners Park_Flyer Life, The Universe, and Politics 30 Jan 02, 2013 04:55 PM
Discussion States CANNOT Enforce Federal Immigratrion Laws Highflight Life, The Universe, and Politics 44 Jan 04, 2012 07:20 PM
Discussion State law or Federal law? 56S Life, The Universe, and Politics 27 Oct 07, 2009 11:13 AM