Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
So basically SCOTUS is saying we can keep what we have now, but we can't get any more. We're not losing semi-auto 16" ARs. But FA or 14" ARs are not protected since they aren't common(due to laws).
Hello, Claire."The term was applied then as now to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity."
SCOTUS has recognized a right to "common" arms - those which people commonly have for non-military purposes.
SCOTUS has specifically not recognized a right to "militia" arms - those which allegedly have little place in normal society.
Could this set some sort of precedent for eliminating CLEO signoff for such things? It seems to imply/establish shall-issue for anything that is legal.It won't, because they're not banned (at least federally; your local jurisdiction may vary). I bought one last year.
SCOTUS has upheld the power of the gov't to require licenses (or other forms of permission) for ownership. SBRs are legal under NFA law insofar as you pay your $200 and submit paperwork, and you get your SBR.
Except they are truly banned is some places, like Michigan. Maybe the 200$ tax is a "reasonable restriction". What about state bans though?Quote:
How will the effect the rules against SBRs and SBSs?
It doesn't.
Quote:
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
We will now see a subsequent case demanding the right to military-specific arms, in conflict with this verdict.
Scalia is saying as clearly as humanly possible that a 922(o) challenge is dead on arrival.
The law adopted by Washington's city council in 1976 bars residents from owning handguns unless they had one before the law took effect. Shotguns and rifles may be kept in homes, if they are registered, kept unloaded and either disassembled or equipped with trigger locks.
Opponents of the law have said it prevents residents from defending themselves. The Washington government says no one would be prosecuted for a gun law violation in cases of self-defense.[/QUOTE]
Hard to be prosecuted when your dead because a burglar killed you since you didn't have a firearm to defend yourself.
No one to prosecute if all the victims get murdered. Yep, that's easy.
Washington D.C.: "We've never prosecuted a citizen for shooting a burlar in their home." [proudly].
Reality: Because the people can't protect themselves and all get murdered.
.
or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
Can we have Schumer classified as dangerous and unusual?
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie.
Precisely.Every challenge is a brick in the wall...
If that is what he is saying, why is everyone so happy?
If that is what he is saying, why is everyone so happy?
Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides which loaded “arms” a homeowner may keep. The majority says that that Amendment protects those weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” This definition conveniently excludes machineguns, but permits handguns, which the majority describes as “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.” But what sense does this approach make? According to the majority’s reasoning, if Congress and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
-"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."
-Security of the free state: "The phrase “security of a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security of each of the several States as the dissent below argued"
From reading Scalia's opinion, it sounds to me like the 1986 machine gun ban is here to stay. Is that how others are interpretting this?
Isn't he saying that since full autos are not common in civilian use, but are instead a military weapon, that the ban would be OK?
If that is what he is saying, why is everyone so happy?[/QUOTE]
Because if it had been ruled a "Collective Right" were would we be?
This is a small victory, but a very important one. It's a stepping stone, a base to build upon.
Are you pleased with the decision in Heller?
Yes ( 86% ) No ( 14% )
I suspect the Brady's and VPC people watching are the 14%. Wonder if any of them are crying on thier keyboards......