Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

California has some of the dumbest laws going, they regulate how a grip can be shaped on a rifle, how long they can be or what angle they can have. Those kinds of laws are NOT EVER going to save lives, they are just stupid harassment.

 

and all of that leads to years in prison-or worse. if that threat doesn't deter them, how are your Karenesque additional laws going to stop them. And this balancing nonsense is not correct. Of course the aim is to disarm as many people as possible. Nothing the dems do is common sense in terms of crime control but make lots of sense when it comes to harassing lawful gun owners

 

Californian politicians use ever increasing idiotic gun laws to cover up the fact that they have the warm fuzzies for violent criminals and the chaos those thugs create

 

They violate precedent

Since the USSC determines constitutionality, none of their rulings can possibly violate it.

 

what is the precedent that was violated

you do know the creation of a federal gun control power by the court violated precedent

 

I'm pointing out inconsistences.

 

Yes you are.

 

A "right" doesn't change common sense.

licensing and registration on autos doesn't elicit bellyaching by gun advocates, but, for a lethal weapon designed to kill, the source deaths to children, oh, you gotta problem .

sorry, not buying it.

 

no inconsistencies to those of us who understand that many rights can be forfeited through due process of law. The inconsistency comes from those who want to get rid of the second amendment but pretend to get upset that criminals lose their gun rights

 

common sense-thinking those who aren't deterred by the consequences of a murder conviction won't be deterred by a gun law conviction.

You seem to think that we shouldn't complain about being harassed because after all, the harassment isn't all that bad and while it won't do squat to stop violent criminals, people like you can pretend you've done something

Your argument is really invalid. You want to harass honest people and think it will deter those who murder others. I like the rather pathetic appeal to emotion-I guess it is the back up plan when faux logic fails

 

Nope, either NO exceptions exist, or they do.

 

sorry, you're wrong and everyone knows it. and why the crocodile tears over criminals not having second amendment rights-you advocate the government killing citizens to get rid of gun ownership

 

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that in 2022, in a case commonly known as NYSRPA v. Bruen, the Supreme Court established a test that inferior Courts are at least supposed to follow. This test is text, followed by history and tradition. Text is easy... Does whatever case that is before any given Court implicate 2A rights? If so, then the burden of proof shifts to the State (or other governmental institution) to prove to the Court that their proposed or existing bans on whatever reflects the history and tradition of the USA in 1791 when the 2A became the Law of the Land. However, that phrase requires a legislative equivalent, not just some history professor expressing an opinion. Furthermore, that legislative equivalent must be precisely that.

"If it please the Court, here is a Law we found in NYS from 1790 that banned what you and others would call an 'assault weapon'? If so, then it's possible that ban is legal, however if there is NO equivalent to be found, tie goes to the plaintiff. (Not really a tie, just colorful prose...)

So, if you want the NFA and GCA to remain in effect, not to mention the Hughes Amendment, some liberty-hating government flunky is gonna have to find a law from 1791 or earlier that did a functional equivalent. I sure don't know all the laws that exist even now, much less in 1791, but from everything I have seen to date, the answer to that is a resounding no. Any intellectually honest jurist would look at that mandated test, look at the complete absence of 1791 equivalents, and realize the gig is up. Gun control as you know it is over. Fini. Not a matter of if, only when.

That is a good thing, because not only is it as the Founders intended, it is also respectful of a free person's absolute RIGHT to defense of self and others, and the tools of their choice to accomplish it. As a US Army vet, my choice for home defense is an AR, because I can still after all these years field strip it, clean, and reassemble while blindfolded, accurately and quickly. I'm familiar with it's quirks, dealing with problems like a jam, and etc. I have no real desire to learn another weapon system (aside from pistols, which are convenient and easy to carry when outside the home, but are not as capable as a rifle. Or, as many will say, a sidearm exists only for you to use to fight with until you can get to your rifle. Neither you, nor the State of Florida, nor the US of A has the authority to tell me I'm not allowed to have one if I choose and can afford it.

Of course, with Florida being a bastion of freedom, I'm not all that concerned about them getting banned here, despite the actions of the [censored] at Moms Demand Action.

 

It would have been easier if they had kept Madison's original draft: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country."

The second clause is dependent on the first, and the first is independent of the second. While the order of the reading was reversed, the militia clause still remains a weak dependent upon the right of the people clause.

The first phrase (...Militia...) of the current amendment does not limit the second phrase. It's participle "being" simply emphasizes the reason for the amendment to be in the BoR. Imagine if the Constitution were to say "The car tires being flat, the right of the people to walk shall not be infringed". Would it make sense then that if the car tires were filled, Congress could infringe upon the right to walk? No one denies that the people have the right to walk, but if the car tires are flat, then people are just going to have to walk. Similarly, the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and if the militia needs to be called out, the people will need their arms.

 

The only reason Heller became necessary is because people who, if they have half of a brain, actually know exactly what the 2A says and what it means, but decide to violate our rights in that regards anyway. This is done for a variety of reasons, that can range from relatively innocent people who are frightened but mostly for statistically meaningless reasons, to the abjectly evil gun-grabbers who intend to essentially end the American experiment and try to turn us into the USSR v3. (v2 is what Russia is now.)

If everyone was intellectually honest in regards to knowing what "shall not be infringed" means, nobody would have bothered with the nonsensical banning of all handguns in the nation's capital (of ALL places!!) which they knew even before the law passed was an illegal infringement, but they did not care and proceeded to pass it anyway.

 

It's LEGAL (without quotes) to own a machine gun, and the circumstances aren't all that different from passing a BGC for any other firearm, except the $200 fee and the multiple months (if not longer) it takes for Uncle to get it's crap together. The real problem is the very Unconstitutional Hughes Amendment that has artifically constrained supply and resulted in their prices to skyrocket. A legal M-16 will set you back $30-40,000 while new ones are being bought by Uncle every day for a fraction of that.

There are many tanks and military jets in private hands, and it wouldn't surprise me if the same is true of arty. In past wars many of the pieces of artillery used by the US were actually "borrowed" from their private owners. And, as previously explained, I personally knew of a privately owned former military jet that used the same FBO where I kept my 172.

As for my blather, it means that the Bruen decision has put said Hughes Amendment in grave danger of being ruled Unconstitutional as there was no statutory equivalent in 1791. It's only a matter of time, as 'if' is not in doubt.

 

I've always felt that if your only point is, "I disagree with you so you must be lying!" is disingenuous at best, and a not so transparent admission of defeat. That has been significantly augmented since I experienced a real-life NDE and whacko xtian religionists and dominionists only reaction to the full story is to declare that I am lying. Because despite their protestations, I happen to know better.

 

I am a fan of incorporation in both instances, and I agree with the USSC's decisions regarding the same.

The idea that the BoR didn't apply to the States has never made any sense to me... What use is the 4th Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures if my city, county, or state can violate it whenever they like?? And that's just one example. It's an academic point as incorporation is here and has been for well over a century more than I've been alive (this time, at least), but it still bothers me that those protections wouldn't have been of much use prior to that.

 

The reason is because the Federal Government was extremely limited in what it could do. At the time the Constitution was written States had more power than the federal government. Think of them more along the lines of mini-countries. Kinda like the EU is made up of countries but all agree to a parliamentary government that was supposed to handle disputes between the member countries and foreign countries...and not much else. The individual citizens feel/felt more attached to their country/state than to the parliamentary/federal government. That is how the US used to be. Then the Civil War came along and all of that went out the window and the Federal Government had more power. And while SCOTUS ruled that the Southern States could not legally secede from the Union I believe that decision was only made to advance the Federal Governments power...not out of any particular actual law/rule whatever.

 

you have to understand the concept of federalism -and that the states were delegating powers to the new government. It wasn't until the 14th did the state cede additional powers

 

So you've abandon blather for ranting. Modest progress.

 

I'll file that in the 'we have the right viewpoint and those guys don't' file.

You just don't get it, do you?

'shall not be infringed'

What shall not be infringed?

The right.

And ONLY the right.

Nothing about the scope of that right is mentioned because when it was written, there was very little scope beyond muskets. It assumed gentlemen of good faith knew that 'keep and bear arms' didn't mean 'carronades nor howitzers', etc, that the reason it isn't in the second amendment because gentlemen would have been insulted that the framers would assume it needed to be stipulated and qualified in such detail (like a legal contract would), or that 200 years later, men who lacked the gravitas the framers did would try and exploit it to mean anything under the sun that used gun powder .

It is reasonable to assume that if weaponry then were as highly developed as it is now, the second amendment would be more complex than it is.

The point is, anything beyond the 'right', nothing about scope is mentioned, thus, regarding scope, the 10th amendment kicks in. States can regulate scope of the right, or rather, as it has been narrowed by Heller and Bruen. Actually, states can do whatever the hell they want and let someone challenge it up to the supreme court where they can conform it to Bruen, or toss out the ruling as it is unworkable.