Heller: Just found out

[usmarine0352_2005]

So I was on the NRA website and read something that I hadn't seen yet from the Heller decision. It says:

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?id=4066

Meanwhile, Washington, D.C. is trying to run with its own interpretation of the recent ruling. Despite the Supreme Court's clear and unqualified statements--that D.C.'s "handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [self-defense]" and that "Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights" the ban "would fail constitutional muster," and that individuals have the right to possess "all instruments that constitute bearable arms"--D.C. officials are saying they intend to continue banning all semi-automatic handguns, characterizing them erroneously as "machineguns."

"....that individuals have the right to possess "all instruments that constitute bearable arms."


There have been many discussions about whether or not semi-auto's are still banned in D.C. or anywhere else, such as CA with their "Hi-Capacity Mag Ban".


Doesn't this settle it legally?


That all pistols are legal.


.

 

[Sam Adams]

Where is that quote located? It would, apparently, eliminate any bans on standard capacity magazines, bayonets, flash hiders, and various cosmetic features.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Just found this:


http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=373379&highlight=body+armor

Originally Posted by SCALIA, J.
Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another."

BUT

Originally Posted by SCALIA, J
Thus, the most natural reading of "keep Arms" in the Second Amendment is to "have weapons."

Originally Posted by SCALIA, J
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

 

[dvcrsn]

The Heller decision does mean that pistols are legal--but don't forget who we are dealing with. People like Mayors Fenty and Daley and the leaders of the Brady campaign are going to fight us every step of the way:banghead: , or at least until the Supreme Court and the various Courts of Appeal start getting angry at being defied by our opponents (think along the line laws stating revolvers are ok (& pistols aren't), then 1911s with 7 round mags are ok, 8 round mags are ok)--after a few rounds, I would be surprised if there is not a major bit of SCOTUS smackdown.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Originally Posted by SCALIA, J
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

Also, this should put away some cities's notions of "one gun" ownership.

.

 

[natman]

As you point out, semiauto pistols are clearly covered by the Heller decision. Washinton DC has a bizarre law that defines any semiauto that could possibly take a magazine over 12 rounds as a "machine gun", so they refuse to license them.

This has been discussed in these threads:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=373548

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=375227

 

[Picard]

I remember hearing that during the day that Heller was released. I really think that Heller was a huge step in the right direction. We have the potential to use it to overturn many anti-gun laws in the U.S.

In my thinking, this ruling would also allow for blades, brass knuckles, etc. Basically any self defense tool should be ok to own and bear.

 

[bruss01]

Not that I need or want such a thing, but would a flame thrower be encompassed in the category of "bearable arms"?

IMHO it is a bearable arm, but indiscriminate in it's effects, similar to a bazooka or a grenade i.e. potential for collateral damage is thru the roof. I can see justification for limiting the use of indiscriminate arms, even if they are "bearable".

Someone without a lot of training could get himself and any bystanders into a lot of trouble real fast with one of those.

 

[bensdad]

Not that I need or want such a thing, but would a flame thrower be encompassed in the category of "bearable arms"?

IMHO it is a bearable arm, but indiscriminate in it's effects, similar to a bazooka or a grenade i.e. potential for collateral damage is thru the roof. I can see justification for limiting the use of indiscriminate arms, even if they are "bearable".

Someone without a lot of training could get himself and any bystanders into a lot of trouble real fast with one of those.

The check on such weapons should be the possible consequences of their use/misuse. The check on such weapons should not be an arbitrary government decision about what's good and safe for us peons. There's plenty of potential for "collateral damage" with any firearm. You say a flamethrower has too much potential. I say a short-barreled auto has too much potential. Fenty says any autoloader has too much potential. Schumer says any high-power rifle has too much potential. California says anything made of lead has too much potential.

I don't trust anybody to make this decision for my countrymen and me. least of all the govt.

 

[MGshaggy]

Not that I need or want such a thing, but would a flame thrower be encompassed in the category of "bearable arms"?

Would you believe that under federal law flamethrowers are not considered firearms.

Hows that for irony?

 

[Gifted]

A flamethrower can discriminate. You can decide who or what gets burned by it. What's more, it serves a useful military purpose, even if we don't use them these days.

Even a mortar or anti-tank rocket/missile can discriminate. You can decide what gets blown up, and judge what you're shooting against the blast and frag radius to blow up only what you want to blow up.

defensive purposes, either against a military, or criminals. Nukes and bio weapons are non-discriminatory, as once used, you can't limit the impact. Small pox would start an epidemic, and you can't control where all the fallout goes. Since these thusly create community problems, they can be banned. Keep in mind that these problems are related to the weapon itself, not the actions of a person, like gun crime.

 

[Zoogster]

Not that I need or want such a thing, but would a flame thrower be encompassed in the category of "bearable arms"?

Actualy as far as I know flame throwers are not federaly restricted. People in various places do have them.

They are however restricted by state laws and local ordinances, often related more to fire controls than criminal codes.

Arson, regulations on legal burning, and ordinances etc all restrict thier use.

Some people in some places do use them without issue.

 

[H088]

I could legal make and own a flame thrower in my state, they aren't banned by any federal laws.

 

[GingerGuy]

People like Mayors Fenty and Daley and the leaders of the Brady campaign are going to fight us every step of the way

These people have NO problem spending your tax dollars defending their causes, even if they have to go to court. They would rather try to defend their liberal views than buy school books for children.

 

[dispatch55126]

Nukes and bio weapons are non-discriminatory

By international law, nukes are no different than 500lb GP bombs.

 

[Zoogster]

Clearly anything infantry can weild and carry to fight armed forces should be covered.

There is some problems though. People routinely pack themselves into flying tubes made of some of the lightest most vulnerable materials and zoom around at high speeds in the air.
At the time of the founding fathers nobody did that, and ships were much more robust, and still are.


Yet to fight a military, foriegn or domestic, even as guerrilla forces you need to be able to take down the attack choppers, armed C-130s and jet fighters that fly around slaughtering you. Military aircraft which are hardened against small arms, and fly out of range of most.
Otherwise the side with air power will dominate.

So clearly people have a right to man portable SAMs under the 2nd, but then one man can kill hundreds of passengers that choose to use those civilian tinderboxes we call passenger jets.

It is a tough issue. Clearly any one man should be able to have the ability to fight any other one man, whether he is on foot, in a tank, or in military aircraft. Otherwise the 2nd loses a lot of the balance intended.
Yet you don't want every man to be able to easily kill hundreds either.
But if you require special permits, prohibiting expenses and background checks, then obviously the very people in charge of the forces those items are meant to keep in balance will only grant them to those that would never use them for that purpose.

 

[Zoogster]

You know it is rather interesting that commerical aircraft are in fact the legitimate reason we lose so many of our rights.

From one of the first widespread public prohibited places, to 9/11, to restricting items that are necessary for the people excercising the 2nd and keep the balance intended.

Metal detectors and people being okay with such invasions of privacy all started with commercial aircraft.

Massive flying tinderboxes have been one of the worst things to happen to our liberties as a free people.

When people traveled in large robust ships, or personal sized transports, the danger to many posed by one was far less (though if the magazine of a ship was ignited it often destroyed the ship).

 

[Diamondback6]

OT: So, with the proliferation of bolt-on airliner anti-SAM defenses (seriously, it seems like a new bolt-on's mentioned in every issue of Aviation Week), one could argue such restrictions on MANPADS (MAN-Portable Air Defense Systems) are no longer necessary... but what Congresscritter's gonna even consider a rollback effort with what the screamer Bradyite wackos are going to screech into every mike they see?

IBTL.

 

[yokel]

Missles, cannons, and artillery are all well and good.

Lasers will play a major role in air defense starting in the next ten years.

 

[Wes Janson]

OT: So, with the proliferation of bolt-on airliner anti-SAM defenses 9seriously, it seems like a new bolt-on's mentioned in every issue of Aviation Week, one could argue such restrictions on MANPADS (MAN-Portable Air Defense Systems) are no longer necessary

I'd like to point out that I strongly doubt that any airliner defense system will ever be as effective as its military counterpart. Therefore, any effective SAM system that would stand a chance of being useful against military aircraft would also by default be just as effective, if not moreso, against civilian aircraft.

 

[Gifted]

The people that would shoot down airliners are the same people that are trying to sneak nukes into the country. Sanity doesn't really apply. This is where parts of the market would come in. Likely, gun shops would still perform background checks on their customers. Companies would specialize in this check, making it as thorough and quick as they can with competitive pricing. I suppose we'd have to give up some tort protection, but the threat of that would keep suppliers, wholesalers, missile shops, everyone down the line, from being stupid and letting anyone with a Visa buy a SAM.

That litigation thing is tricky, not sure how well that would work. I'm sure I'll get flamed by someone for suggesting it.

 

[yokel]

Hybrid air defense systems, that's the ticket.

Employing air defense guns and missiles on an integrated platform that can engage low flying or hovering helicopters as well as fast strike aircraft. A system that can operate day and night, under low visibility and adverse weather conditions.

 

[Gifted]

Problem is, yokel, how are a bunch of rednecks going to afford that, especially when the feds declare a vendetta against them?

 

[Sam Adams]

So clearly people have a right to man portable SAMs under the 2nd, but then one man can kill hundreds of passengers that choose to use those civilian tinderboxes we call passenger jets.

I don't buy the "one man can kill hundreds with X" argument. One man with about $1 worth of gasoline (back when it was reasonably priced) killed 87 people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_fire

ANY weapon can be abused by a criminal or a sick person, and even things that we don't conceive of as weapons (such as a gallon of gas). Such reasoning can be used to ban or highly regulate damned near anything in our society - and is exactly what the control freaks will do any time they get a chance.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Doesn't this settle it legally?

Unfortunately, I don't think anything's going to be "settled" until Fenty & Company are tarred & feathered in public, then run out of town on a rail.