Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

Ha ha
Does Heller still have to register his handgun in question and be licensed ?

 

People are pretty much the same around the world.
If draconian gun laws were a solution to homicides, they would work everywhere, not just in the older, White, smaller countries that have little in common with the US.


"The Mistake of Only Comparing US Murder Rates to "Developed" Countries"
https://mises.org/wire/mistake-only-...oped-countries

 

You know your statement, above,is false.
Why do you make statements you know are false?

 

The SCOTUS will have no problem taking cases now. Roberts is the reason they have been avoiding assault weapon ban cases. They were not sure enough of him to vote correctly. Now we have 5 votes to grant hearing the case and striking down the bans.

 

I suspect you are reverting to DC vs Heller. If not, a link would be nice.
As for DC vs Heller, I am extremely familia with the case.

The ruling doesn’t say ‘gun control is unlimited’... the comment referred to the ‘the protected’ right, yet did not offer any standard or criterial for defining limits. The ruling did not suggest that gun control ‘will’ and ‘should’ continue, rather it did not address arguing for or against gun control regulations in general. The ruling itself addressed a specifically narrowly defined scope, that of the appeal of lower appeals court’s ruling that DC’s law violated the 2nd Amendment by ‘affirming’ it’s ruling... ostensibly in doing so was declaring the DC regulatory measures unconstitutional.
As for the broader issue of the questions of gun control regulation, the reasoning and justification used by Scalia for the affirmation of the ruling being appealed, the door was left open for years of litigation regarding laws and regulations designed to limit 2a protections.
While the ruling set precedent for the review of similar laws, the reasoning and dicta associated with the ruling carry no no standing other than to provide the basis for other courts to use in the logic for evaluating rational in developing rulings in other cases brought to their courts that are challenges of law based on the constitutionality framing of those challenges.
So, if you see limits to 2a protections, what are they beyond untested opinion?

 

Totally wrong, they are protected under the First Amendment.

I and people I know have been called queers, verbally, on the air and in print and it was ruled we had no standing to sue for damages, as that language is protected speech under the First.

You have zero clues of what your are talking about.

 

Sorry, totally false.

 

Keep saying that and even you’ll believe it. Non science people just blow smoke.

 

Unfortunately.

 

Nothing here changes the fact your statement was false, and you know your statement is false.

As you know it is -impossible- for you to demonstrate your statement to be true, this describes you, and your statement, perfectly.

 

One of the lollipop kids.

 

As you know it is -impossible- for you to demonstrate your statement to be true, this describes you, and your statement, perfectly.

 

Yes, the right to bear arms is a natural right, and so unlimited.

 

Does it make much sense that an 18 year old can buy a gun, but not alcohol?

 

What about the word "publically?"

 

Why do you say that? Don't you think that it's perfectly understandable that some people - especially non-Americans/US residents like myself - would not be aware of certain crazy US laws and would think that there is SURELY no possible way that any country's legal system would deem an 18 year old mature enough to buy a gun, but NOT mature enough to buy alcohol?

 

What's the answer?

 

So for alcohol, you mean that "private transactions regulations to keep items out of the hands of" UNDERAGE people? Given that qualifications do not come into it.

 

No because that same 18 year old can join the military go off to war and be killed, as such the alcohol restriction make no sense what so ever.

We can send them into battle but they cannot have a beer on R&R?

 

Private transactions, YES.
It’s a federal offense to supply alcohol to minors for PUBLIC USE.
Depending on the circumstance, it can be for private use involving operating an auto, or accident involving injury. States have some discretion.
All states have provisions that prohibit supplying alcohol to underage individuals in general, either private or for sales.
States that don’t enforce this regulation have federal funds reduced. This law applies whether you know the age of the minor or not. You’re not excused for being “ dumb” like you are selling firearms privately.

 

It’s not enforceable for one reason only. It’s not MANDATORY to have a background check. No one is forced by law to have one in private transactions.

 

Big difference between firearms and booze.

 

Public use.....you may not get any state prosecution of a parent sharing an alcoholic beverage with a child in home. . Let that child drive the family car while drinking a beer supplied by a parent, it’s a different story. This stuff is easy to find out with a little research of your state laws.It’s also prosecutable if it’s related to any related child abuse charges..

 

Because there is no federal law mandating back ground checks to begin with....in a few states that do mandate then, some do allow card holders this exception. Do you know the difference between federal and state laws ? .

 

Science denier.