Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

And can't dispute it

 

Give me some examples of gun laws you find an unnecessary burden

 

I could, but, I don't find I can take you seriously.

 

So you are retreating.
Smart

 

When you engage in weasel words and tropes like:

I find it amazing how so many on the left just live in their own bubbles

Which is not an objective fact that can be substantiated, and thus debated in any specific terms, In short,
it's what I call a 'non argument'. I'm game for even poor arguments, but non arguments I do not engage.

and your tired diatribes about 'leftists' which is a term usually used to connote that the entire group's ideas, the entire spectrum is wrong, not debating any specific policies, but they are wrong but because they are 'leftists'. These too, are weasel words, tired tropes.

Then you go off into a rant about Venezuela, which you think has something to do with my OP, but it doesn't. I'm not a communist,
my post is not marxist, nor is the OP about banning guns, per se. It's about giving states more freedom to regulate guns according
to the needs of their state which I think Bruen inhibits, maybe Heller, too, but I'll have to think about that one, more. I might be able to live with Heller, but Bruen has to go. The OP has nothing to do with whatever the hell is going on in Venezuela, or 'confiscating guns' or anything like that,.

 

the 1934 NFA as it actually applies to firearms and suppressors. short barreled rifles, hand held select fire carbines, and suppressors should all be able to be bought as easily as single shot 22s, The hughes amendment is particularly disgusting
Any kind of registration
any limitation on magazine capacity
limits on how many rounds of ammo you can buy at once
any waiting period
requirements of "training" to buy or own a firearm
insurance requirements to own firearms
the gun control act of 68-at a federal level
the lautenberg amendment at a federal level -I don't think misdemeanors should be sufficient to strip one's rights
may issue carry permits

 

You've made a lot of false equivalencies, probably why you don't hear 'arguments like that'.

The only thing in this earth that has bullets are guns.

You don't bellyache about a driver's license or an auto registration, but, guns, the thing that is designed specifically to kill, oh my word, you have a conniption.

Sorry, I don't buy your sentiment.

Oh, it's a right that 'shall not be infringed', or so goes the usual argument on the right. Well,.....

No, it's the right that shall not be infringed and nothing more than the right.

The scope of that right can be regulated, though scope is now narrowed by Bruen and Heller (though Heller is fair), which goes to the point of this op, to reverse Bruen so that we can increase the scope back to sanity. I've resolved that I can live with Heller, but I think it should be repealed because, in my view, you can't make a court ruling from the supreme court when you get history wrong, history on which you base your ruling.

So, repeal it and get it right, or get rid of it until you can get it right. Has the right not made a similar argument about Roe?

I will say this, I based that opinion on Heller on this article, so if you can find fault with it, I'd like to see what you have to say: (note that the article is NOT anti-second amendment as an individual right)

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/why-heller-is-such-bad-history/

From a historian’s perspective, the problem is that the question the court had to address, “does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to bear arms?” was not an important question during the founding generation.

Indeed, this is correct, the framers' arguments at the constitutional ratification convention were focused on their concern that the new constitution appears to give congress the power to usurp state's militias and subsume them into a standing army, which they were vehemently against. Very little attention was given to the idea of 'individual right'. The southern states, as the article confirms, were especially concerned about this because without the militias, which they used for slave patrols, it would jeopardize their plantation economies.

 

I don't bellyache about licenses for cars because they aren't constitutionally protected and registration fees are designed to pay for highways etc. are taxes on guns and the 200 dollar stamps designed to build public shooting ranges. NO one at the time the constitution was created DOUBTED that citizens had a right to own firearms. That is why it wasn't given much thought. They didnt' have weasels in office trying to disarm citizens nor did they have a bunch of leftwing Karens who used gun control to punish people who didn't support leftist agendas

 

Comparing your thread to Venezuela has nothing to do with you. Sorry.
So claiming you're not a communist or a Marxist has nothing to so with anything.
I am comparing the rational on gun control / gun banning and where it has lead every time.

You claimed you wanted to ban handguns. Just like Venezuela did. They always start small and once you enter gun banning it always grows from there.
You can't go back once you allow this kind of legislation. There will always be someone wanting to take it to the next level.
And then you fluff your argument with a false statistic (More kids are killed with guns than anything else)
So if you and the like are willing to come up with false statistics now, or be sold by their claims without doing any research, what will it look like 10 years from now.

As far as Bruen is concerned, essentially, NY allowed government officials to decide who needs to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights and who doesn’t. Even living in a high-crime area doesn’t suffice in New York. Many, including the plaintiffs who filed against New York in the case, who pass a background check and simply wish to exercise their rights are not fully allowed to do so merely because some government bureaucrat says so.

To state the obvious, that’s not how constitutional rights work. We would never accept a regime that required arbitrary government permission to exercise free speech.

Law abiding citizens who exercise their 2nd amendment rights have nothing to do with mass shootings and crime. And mass shooters don't care about gun laws.
So these arguments of apocalyptic gun crimes do to legal gun legislation are just fictional arguments.

Another problem with NY, and why the SCOTUS ruled on this was the fact that NY arrest hundreds of legal gun owners every year. And they get away with it because of their own unconstitutional legislation. Just 8 months ago, Moussa Diarra, 57, a parking attendant was attacked in NY, AND SHOT, TWICE by a criminal trying to steal a car. He was able to wrestle the gun away before being shot a 3rd time, shot his attacker, and was arrested and charged with attempted murder, assault, and criminal possession of a weapon.

This is what happens when you have heavy handed government officials ignoring the 2nd amendment for their own gun legislation.

 

The OP doesn't advocate disarming anyone.

But thank you for confirming my point....you ARE bellyaching.

 

No I didn't. I said if a municipality wanted to as Wash DC did in 1975, it would be allowed. But banning rifles would be disallowed statewide and nationwide. So no disarming.

So your comparison is specious / off point

 

You assert that New York's policy on gun permits is akin to letting bureaucrats play gatekeeper with the Second Amendment. It's an interesting analogy, albeit a bit dramatic. It's as if New York has turned the right to bear arms into a game of 'Mother, May I?' with government officials. However, let's not confuse prudence with prohibition. The state's stance is more of a velvet rope at a club, not a brick wall at a fortress.

You draw a parallel with free speech, suggesting that we wouldn't tolerate such regulation in that realm. Yet, even free speech, the golden child of the Bill of Rights, isn't absolute. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded theater or slander someone without repercussions. Similarly, regulating firearms, especially in urban powder kegs, is not about suppression; it's about ensuring that the right to bear arms is exercised responsibly.

Now, onto your point about law-abiding citizens and mass shootings. Indeed, the majority of gun owners are as responsible as a librarian in a bookstore. However, the issue here isn't the responsible ones; it's the few who could turn a peaceful suburb into the Wild West. Saying that mass shooters don't care about gun laws is like saying that speeders don't care about speed limits. It's not an argument against having rules; it's an argument for enforcing them sensibly.

Finally, the case of Moussa Diarra. It's tragic, undoubtedly. But it's not a straightforward narrative about the Second Amendment being trampled by jackbooted government thugs. It's a complex interplay of self-defense laws, gun control measures, and judicial discretion. It's less about the Second Amendment in isolation and more about how it coexists with other laws and societal needs.

No, the Second Amendment, like any constitutional right, isn't an all-you-can-eat buffet. It's a carefully balanced diet, ensuring that individual rights don't cause societal indigestion. The aim isn't to disarm the populace but to arm it in a way that's consistent with public safety and common sense. And sometimes, that requires a bit more than just saying 'please' and 'thank you'.

 

If guns weren't a right you wouldn't give it a second thought no more than you would a driver's license, or registering to vote.

So, what that means is this isn't really about 'undue burden' this is about the fact that the second amendment says
"shall not infringe' and because of that wording things like licensing and registration of firearms is an infringement, even though it's common sense like getting a driver's license or registering to vote. And don't give me any crap that it's not common sense. Licensing guns, training folks similar to taking a driving course before you get your driver's permit, is common sense. We're talking about a lethal device. Really, I don't want to hear your 'karen' nonsense, and yes, YOU are the karen in this equation. All I ever hear from you is how the left isn't sincere, how leftist this, leftist that, 'there all trying to take your guns', blah blah blah ad nauseum, and it's really a whole crock of poop.

Taht's the thing, you don't want a minor encumbrance because you think it 'infringes' on your right.

If voting were a right, would requiring and ID to register infringe?

No, it wouldn't. infringing on a right to vote (if it were a right) would be that which seriously prevents or obstructs your access to a voting booth, After you register, show your ID, viola, you can still vote. Your right has not, therefore, been infringed.

Same goes for guns.

I just don't see your argument as valid.

And Bruen is nuts, and it is unworkable. A number of judges are now saying this.

Here are some judges who have expressed concerns about the Bruen ruling:

1. Judge Robert Miller Jr. - Appointed by Ronald Reagan to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in 1985, he reluctantly applied the test to dismiss a case against someone who purchased a firearm without disclosing he was under a felony indictment. He expressed “earnest hope” that he had “misunderstood” Bruen
   
   
2. Judge Irene Berger - Appointed by Barack Obama to the Southern District of West Virginia in 2009, she defined the problem simply: Bruen "requires original historical research into somewhat obscure statutory and common law authority from the eighteenth century by attorneys with no background or expertise in such research.".
   
   
3. Judge Ellen Hollander - Appointed by Barack Obama in 2010 to the District of Maryland, she gave more color to the frustrations that judges are experiencing.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-w...ges-find-supreme-courts-bruen-test-unworkable

“It insults both [the] legacy of [18th-century Americans] and their memory to assume they were so short-sighted as to forbid the people, through their elected representatives, from regulating guns in new ways.”--Judge Robert Miller Jr

Judges say lawyers and courts don’t have the expertise or resources to assess historical claims.

During an exchange with the government’s lawyer, Judge Higginson asked: “What’s the authority that we can decide history? The Supreme Court in Bruen had 80 amici from Ph.D. historians. We have one amicus.” He continued: “I’m not blaming you because I’m not a Ph.D. either. But you each gave us I think four law review articles not from historians. . . . And we have 20 minutes to ask you questions and [the lower court judge] didn’t have a chance to ask a single question.”
​

See the problem? Bruen as got to be the dumbest ruling handed down by the court since Citizen's United.

 

Wrong. Apparently you didn't read the post to which I responded to.

Oh give me a break. talk about hooey. they interpret it all the time. Even Scalia admitted it. He said, 'Judges do have their political philosophy'. What that means is the lens through which they see things, which would be different than how a liberal would see things. This is why not all rulings are 9-0. Different interpretations and don't give any crap that conservative justices read it correctly and the liberal justices read it wrong.

I could say the same thing to you. This is NOT an argument.

You're just pinning me down. Okay, I'll add 'or threat to kill'. You can't threat to kill if you are NOT WILLING TO KILL, because if you aren't willing, your opponent will call your bluff, take your gun away from you and shoot you with it. Which, goes back to my original point, guns are lethal devices whose sole purpose is to kill. Why to you go to gun ranges, to practice sharp shooting so that if the occasion is needed for self defence, you just might have to kill someone or some animal. Sure, you can make a sport out of it, but if guns didn't kill things, there would be no sports. I call that a red herring. A gun's primary function to kill, if you want me to be precise in my wording.

Weasel words (cavalier broad generalizations that cannot be substantiated) are of little argumentative value.

There are some differences of early modern English and late modern English. Misunderstandings do arise. Especially on the first and second amendments.

A meaningless argument. I could say the exact same thing for our choices for the court.

No, judges your side picks interpret the way you like, and the judges we pick interpret the way we like.

the only difference between you and me is that my statement is honest.

And, if you are not honest, the odds of your entire argument is probably wrong. I think that's a safe presumption.

No it isn't. Your toss off words like 'fake' in a cavalier, smug fashion. In a serious setting, with men and women of gravitas, you'd really sink your credibility with such sophomoric terms. Trump uses that term and Trump is an ignoramus boor. That's the pool you are swimming im. In fact, The only thing that is fake is your claim that it is fake.

Your claim that the CDC releases data on gun deaths for political reasons is a serious accusation (though I can't take you seriously for accusing). Understand that the CDC is a federal agency tasked with protecting public health. Their data collection and dissemination are part of their mandate to inform the public and policymakers about health-related issues, including those related to gun violence. Suggesting that their data is "fake" undermines the credibility of a respected scientific institution without substantial evidence, but, like I said, more importantly, it undermines YOUR credibility..

Regarding the CNN article and its focus on firearm-related deaths among children and teens, your argument selectively interprets the data. While it is true that motor vehicle deaths exceed firearm-related deaths in younger age groups, this does not negate the significance of the latter. The fact that firearm-related injuries are a leading cause of death in any age group, particularly among youths, is a cause for concern and merits public attention.

Your point about the age group of 15-19 years being more prone to firearm-related violence due to street crime involvement and lenient jurisdictional responses is an oversimplification. This perspective ignores the multifaceted reasons behind gun violence, including access to firearms, socio-economic factors, mental health issues, and the impact of community and domestic environments.

Lastly, your assertions about the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution are contentious. The Supreme Court's role is indeed to interpret the Constitution, and its interpretations have evolved over time in response to changing societal contexts. The language of the Second Amendment, like all constitutional language, is subject to legal interpretation, which can vary as societal norms and understandings evolve.

So, the long and short of it is that while your argument raises some valid points about the complexities of gun-related statistics and legal interpretations, it falls short in providing a nuanced understanding of these issues. Dismissing CDC data as fake, oversimplifying the causes of youth gun violence, and misinterpreting the role of the Supreme Court in constitutional interpretation weakens the overall persuasiveness of your position.

And, the term 'fake' is a tired trope, a thought-terminating cliche with very little, if any at all, argumentative value. It's the province of weak arguments.

 

You didn't answer the question. You just based your argument on what you think is "needed" now in the present day. IE: You ignored historical context and the need for the 2nd Amendment. You also proffered that "fighting tyranny" is a "fantasy". Ignoring that we've had this conversation before. Our military couldn't even defeat the Taliban, yet you think they could defeat our own people, even if they used the same tactics. You also ignore that if a civil war were to happen then that military that failed to defeat the Taliban would be split, and the militias/NG would undoubtedly resort to their respective States and be ordered from there to either support the tyrannical government or to support those fighting against it. Meaning that, as happened in the civil war between the North and the South, the States would divide up. Strategically speaking, the federal government would not want this. Especially considering other countries like Russia or China or Iran would undoubtedly play both sides of the fence and make the situation even worse.

In other words it is the threat that the 2nd Amendment poses that keeps the Federal Government in check from becoming tyrannical. Even more so now that the world is a much smaller place. It is not necessarily the ability of those going against it capability to carry out a successful overthrow of a tyrannical government. Which still isn't as weak as you try to make it out to be.

What's funny is that you know why the 2nd Amendment exists. You know that the Heller and Bruen decision were right in their rulings about the 2nd Amendment being an Individual Right and not a collective Right. I know you know this because you refuse to address the question that I had posed. Because you know that the Founding Fathers would not have made it to where the Federal Government could disarm The People. They would have done the exact opposite. Because given the context, there is nothing else they would have done except to make sure that there was a check in place against the government that they were forming that they knew could become tyrannical without such a check in place. And there is only one type of check that could have been put in place. An Armed Populace.

This is why your arguments only focus on the "here and now". Because you hope to convince people to the fantasies that you put forth. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure you don't think that they are fantasies. That they are legitimate in both concerns and capability of eventually accomplishing. But they ARE fantasies. The American People will never willingly be disarmed.

 

What better place? Like China? If you like it so much, move there. Why do you insist that folks cannot defend themselves?

 

LOL.. More torture. Can we ask for a moratorium on your linguistic torture here? Please??? The exact language is: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, is not "vague" or "ambiguous"... It's pretty direct. Why do folks have to live in fear in your world from a government that actively ensures crime attacks them in their places of work and at home? That's the world you insist is required. So tell us, why. Why do folks who know police won't be there to protect them, know that DAs won't charge violent criminals with crimes (well, unless they're white), and know that judges are being recruited by the democrats to make sure that those criminals who do actually end up in front of them won't be punished. Why on earth would you be in favor or taking away the only protections left to citizens?

 

When you start to apply the illegal theory proposed by AJ et al, it does beg lots of other questions, like finding a "right to abortion" or "right to commit crime and not be prosecuted", lots of pet authoritarian kinds of "rights" that the democrats/left now utterly believe in.... I blame public education. Public teaching unions have attempted the cultural revolution on the US kids, and seems that any fantasy will do these days.

 

Hmm.. So explain your position on Plessey v Ferguson then. If the SCOTUS cannot ever overturn bad law, are you here telling us today that it's your position that you want a return to slavery?

 

If you had wheels you could be a trolley car?
I noted all along there is going to be a difficulty in reconciling the incorporation as it cuts into state powers
and yes, Bruen is confusing in that way. My attitude, I would have struck down state laws that interfere with lawful citizens being able to keep, own, buy acquire, all firearms and bearing them in areas that traditionally people could (not courthouses, not jails etc).

 

you want to give the federal government the power to disarm anyone it wants.

 

1) laws that prevent the harmful use of firearms-ie murder, robbery etc, are valid
2) laws that restrict the carrying of firearms in secure governmental facilities are OK
3) laws that restrict minors, felons, those adjudicated incompetent, fugitives, illegal aliens etc from possessing or acquiring or carrying firearms are OK
4) laws that prevent knowingly (or being willfully blind) supplying felons, fugitives etc arms are ok

what are not ok are laws that prevent people from carrying firearms in public
laws that ban lawful citizens of age from owning, acquiring, keeping or using in traditionally lawful purposes any and all types of firearms
waiting periods
registration

 

And why is that a problem for you?.

Did you want to tell me what language is unclear to you in the 2nd?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Since comma functions are used as a tool to indicate to readers a certain separation of words, phrases, or ideas in order to prevent misreading the writer's intended meaning, how is this statement unclear. And what words do you claim are different than modern day English?

Another weak argument
Your definition of whats honest is if you agree or not. You have way too many threads to verify that claim.
Sorry, you don't get to sit in judgement of anyone especially with your reputation of dishonest information in your threads.

When you start your Trump comparison's, its a true sign of desperation and only means you can't prove a point on your own so you just dig into your bag of (I hate Trump) responses.

And another blah blah blah weak argument about your judgement on credibility.
Well if all that were true, where are the CDCs reports on motor vehicle accidents, knives, accidents of the home, suicides, gang violence, aircraft accidents, murders, ect.
Its funny how you will generalize anything you can find to support gun control like claiming the Center for Disease Control job is to report on guns because of health issues, but ONLY guns and nothing else. And when your data is exposed as false, you always jump to someone elses credibility instead of realizing your claims are wrong.
It only says something about your credibility when you try and use that over and over because you can't argue the point.
Which is why your argument fails under their own weight.

Selectively interprets? You mean exposes the data.
Only 20% of ages 0-16 deaths are gun related and most of those are suicides or murders from another group. Meaning the CDC LIED when they claimed their are more guns deaths for children than any other cause. The ONLY group in their manufactured data set that has more gun deaths than auto accidents is 17-19. And those are generated from crime reports and gang violence.
But you knowingly will ignore that actual statistics because you thought it made a point for you to claim.

So judges sitting on the bench are required to be non bias and just rule on the facts. Not out of emotion.
But because you think the Constitution is a living document, (Of which their is no such thing) that it should be ruled on by bias and emotion.
Thats what interpretation is. Interpreting the law to say (X) means to bend it to your will. You make the false premise that somehow language changes and if you redefine words in the future then the Constitution should be re-defined by your new re-definitions. It doesn't work that way.

Just because you think the CDC data is accurate, or you think the SCOTUS should rule by emotion, does not give any weight to your argument or the validity of my points. It has nothing to do with the actual data provided. You just want to dismiss information because you don't like it so you do what you always do, start in again about someone elses credibility. The fact that you knowingly dismiss data because it doesn't fit your arguments, then claim the poster has no credibility, is the actual province of your weak arguments.

 

Your argument is with the SCOTUS. The arguments were heard and they ruled based on the fact that NY WAS in violation of the 2nd and they WERE playing gatekeeper.

Using your own analogy, the left would argue because of speeders and the dangers they create, we need to shut down interstates.

Balderdash, you certainly love to go the long way around the barn to support your issues with the 2nd.
Your telling me that an unarmed citizen, who is attacked and shot, who gets the gun away from his attacker, is charged with illegal possession of a firearm, has nothing to do with NYs trampling on his 2nd amendment rights of which his possession shall not be infringed?
Yet in the face of the Bruen ruling AGAINST NY, because of jackbooted government thugs, you claim it isn't about jackbooted government thugs?
Sorry, you were ruled against.

So by your own measure, the victim had no right to defend himself by taking the gun and shooting his attacker because the 2nd amendment is more about how it coexist with other laws and societal needs.
Right, got it.

 

I've been thinking about this since you posted it. I agree that we, U.S., haven't, invested wisely in our youth. But, what I'm reading, it isn't from a lack of funding but that the Federal Government has put the money in the hands of the States to be distributed. And the States are doing a lousy job of getting money to the people that need it. They have created grand bureaucracies that suck up the funding leaving to really address the problems. I haven't done a lot of research on that, but I've seen a few articles that make that claim.

But, I believe there has been a great feeling of desperation in America that began when OUR Government actively started deregulating industry, allowing our jobs and place as the worlds manufacturer to be shipped overseas and with them what, had been, the American dream. Since then generations have grown up living hand to mouth and it's caused not only great hardship but also great resentment. Which has manifested itself in poverty, crime, homelessness, mental illness and violence.

Most of what we lost is obsolete now, but instead of growing through it's obsolescence we were cut off at the knees and have spiraled downwards. Instead of growing we've atrophied, which has left a large segment of Americans behind. America is coming back and good paying jobs are returning. The government needs to step up and do everything possible to help create good jobs and the American dream again.