I need a translator ASAP

[hopelessjoe]

In a letter to various government head honchos the Brady bunch said this...

"However the Supreme Court's recent decision in DoC Vs. Heller already did that while making it clear that the 2A does not protect a "right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"...Heller allows for reasonable regulation of firearms; it certainly doesn't require H.R. 6691 or similar legislation."

What in the world does no "right to keep and carry any weapon in any manner whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" mean?

Last time I checked the 2A guarded all weapons carried in any manner as seen fit by the carrier.

I give ground on the "whatever purpose" bit. If the purpose is intentional harm with premeditated malice then yes, it is forbidden.

But!, I carry a gun with the "purpose" of having to use it if necessary.

So the Brady bunch can kiss my posterior parts.

 

[AndyC]

That's Greek - and we don't speak Greek 'round here

 

[Big45]

You need a translator for that?

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

They are saying that the 2nd Amendment, like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restriction.

 

[jakk280rem]

That's Greek - and we don't speak Greek 'round here

molan labe isn't greek?

 

[Wes Janson]

The phrase "reasonable restrictions" should be met with the same response in polite society as Carlin's seven dirty words.

 

[Pure Kustom]

This post just brought back flash backs from that day and the B.S. that Daley was spewing. He should be arrested!!! For willfully defying the SC decision.:banghead:

 

[hopelessjoe]

They are saying that the 2nd Amendment, like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restriction.

Funny... I always thought that "shall not be infringed" meant there were no such thing as restrictions....

I guess your dictionary is one of those modern ones that is politically correct.

 

[TAB]

Actually, you need one in legalease.

I'd also like to point out that infringing apon the 2a is not a new thing, its been done since this country was founded...

 

[LaEscopeta]

I'd also like to point out that infringing apon the 2a is not a new thing, its been done since this country was founded...

Well, laws regulating where firearms could not be carried and how they could not be used (i.e. no arms carried in the dock area, cannot discharge a firearm within the town limits, etc) existed throughout the colonial period, and continued through the time the Constitution and Bill of Rights was being writen, debated and approved. The Founding Fathers knew about these laws restricting firearms use (in some cases wrote them) and did not see a problem with them. The men who wrote the words “…shall not be infringed upon” were not thinking they meant “no laws mentioning arms at all.”

The other rights in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution are the same way. You have the right to peaceable assembly, but in most cities you need a parade permit if you have more than 20 people. And you can’t assemble your demonstration in any public location you want; the opponents of G. W. Bush cannot demonstrate against him on the public street outside the Republican National Convention. You have Freedom of Speech, but if you want to speak in your own radio broadcasts you have to apply to the FCC for a license, pay thousands of dollars in fees, are restricted to one frequency, and have to air public service announcements with which you may not agree.

Anyway, from page 2 of the Heller decision syllabus:

“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.”

(Bold added by me.)

But don’t give up hope. Not all rights are listed in the Bill of Rights. And just because the 2cd amendment does not prevent laws against things like concealed carried does not mean Congress or you State legislature HAS to pass laws against it.

 

[Old Guy]

A part of Heller not thought much about?

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.”

Some were in this decision it equates the common musket/rifle of that time, with that long arm now in the hands of the Military now? IE you can not prohibit hi capacity magazines or ARs? Would need a smarter guy than me to understand all the legalize.

 

[everallm]

A number of folks have at best skimmed the Heller decision, cherry picked the sections that support their wishes, hopes, desires and/or prejudices and skipped over the rest.......

The Heller case and decision was about a very specific and tailored issue, purely about an outright ban of new, the registration and restrictions of "grandfathered", of a single class of firearm, in DC and the associated storage laws.

It was further complicated with DC's status as a federal enclave with limited self rule.

The SC, in general, when they make any ruling typically keep it very narrow, very specific and only in context of the original suit and it's impact on constitutional law.

Because this was the first real attempt to take a stab at 2A since before Miller (which was not a ruling but a decision NOT to make a ruling, "In the absence of evidence"), the SC actually went further than strictly necessary to lay a framework for further activity around 2A.

When an SC justice says words like

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.

It does NOT mean the SC are fully supporting and casting in stone these prohibitions, it means they are not ruling on it as it was not in the remit of the original suit.

As it was the SC went further than strictly required to answer the suit as they specifically stated that 2A is an individual right and completely divorced the militia and comma nonsense from 2A. This was not necessary for the ruling but was a bonus.

The other section that is to be answered hopefully via the Chicago suit is the issue of incorporation. This was an example of strict ruling by the SC about DC, not states, to be decided later as incorporation of 2A was not part of the original suit.

Remember, legalese is not English.......

 

[MAKster]

What they are saying is that Heller only dealt with possession of a handgun in ones home. Heller did not grant any new right to carry a firearm outside ones home.

 

[LaEscopeta]

Some were in this decision it equates the common musket/rifle of that time, with that long arm now in the hands of the Military now? IE you can not prohibit hi capacity magazines or ARs?

Took me a little while to find it, but Heller mentions M-16s by name. From pages 55 & 56 of the decision:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right."

I think someplace else discusses the difference between military weapons and those commonly kept in the home for lawful purposes (hunting, self-defense, target shooting, etc.) At the time the 2cd amendment was written these 2 classes of arms were pretty much the same, of course. When I get time I’ll see if I can find it…

 

[Old Grump]

Its not a translator you need its eyewash to rinse out the hogwash.

 

[NG VI]

They are saying that the 2nd Amendment, like the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. It is subject to reasonable restriction.

Actually what they are doing is encouraging members of government to go ahead and continue to put forth bans on whatever they please, because the SC hasn't said specifically not to yet.

 

[AndyC]

molan labe isn't greek?

Point taken, but I was making the point that.... oh, never mind

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

The Brady Bunch says a lot of things. It's best just to roll your eyes and snort instead of trying to make sense of the irrational.

 

[Rokyudai]

molan labe isn't greek?

Not to a Greek...cuz it's spelled Molon Labe

Sorry for the thread jack...