Biden calls for ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines in SOTU speech

Neither Reagan nor the Brady Bill had anything to do with the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

 

The Heller case says the 2nd protects the right to own and use all bearable arms.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

Really??? Then why cant I buy a full auto made after 1986?

 

Because in order to get Justice Kennedy off the the fence on the side of individual rights Scalia added language recognizing the long term restrictions could be held as Constitutional.

 

So was the bump stock ban a long term restriction?

So you’re saying that it is legal to restrict gun rights to the individual or that law would not stand. You can’t have it both ways. The Supreme Court also said that the restrictions on short barrel shotguns were constitutional in the Miller case.

 

Let me add that the 1986 ban on full autos is complete and utter BS. Reagan can rot in hell for all I care.

 

Nope, clearly unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court moves slowly at times. While the NFA was clearly unconstitutional at the time. Given Scalia's verbiage in Heller, later affirmed by Kavanaugh in Heller II, it's unlikely that the NFA 1934 will ever get overturned.

The law is an ass, and life isn't black and white.

 

It was obvious revenge for the passage of FOPA 1986 by two Democratic Senators, one of whom got to "count" the voice vote.

 

The NFA didn’t ban full autos or even open the door for a ban on anything made domestically. That was all Reagan and I hate him for it. Him and Trump are like two peas in a pod. One was just more outspoken.

 

You do sound like a gun guy though. I respect that. I feel like there are less of us anymore.

 

You read it - right?
Then yes - really.

Because the law in question has not been taken before the USSC.
Doesn't change the fact the court has indeed said there cannot be "legislation" with respect to certain kinds of arms.

 

False.
The USSC said:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

 

Not false. How does not equate to the restrictions on a short barreled shotgun being constitutional? In that case the defendant was in trouble for mere possession and transportation of the shotgun. They were not found innocent of that charge.

misconstruing the courts ruling hurts gun owners, it doesn’t help them. We need to find ways to get laws revoked that are hurting our rights, not ignore them.

 

Miller was dead by the time the case was settled and his attorneys made no closing argument.

Miller was one of the most poorly written decisions.

https://volokh.com/2010/02/27/united-states-v-miller/

 

I see people make excuses for Reagan and Trump almost every day.

Oh Reagan didn’t ban full autos he just banned the ability to manufacture full autos for the public…. What does that equate to? A post 1986 ban…

Oh, Trump didn’t ban any guns so he didn’t violate the 2nd amendment. It’s just a stock that mimics a belt loop. A stock, not a gun…. No, let me tell you what he did. He is the first American president in history that gave a destruction or confiscation decree on anything gun related. And republicans backed him!!!! So did the courts so far. And the NRA helped him. All these supposed gun lovers backed him. What the hell is wrong with that? He really got all you people to support gun related confiscation??? Really???

From my cold dead hands my butt. It’s more like from my cold dead hands until a Republican confiscates it. Yes master yes

don’t fall for that crap and don’t ever vote for Trump again. I damn sure won’t. Cause I actually like my guns.

 

I didn’t know that. You taught me something there. Thank you. That doesn’t negate that the Supreme Court did rule it was constitutional to regulate it.

 

The ruling in Miller should have overturned NFA 1934, but the entire purpose of SCOTUS taking Miller was to uphold NFA 1934. FDR at his finest.

 

Sorry I just get mad that one happened with very few gun owners objecting and still to this day supporting the Turd that done it. I don’t understand it. If it were a democrat they would be up in arms.

 

The court said :
...and therefore [we] cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
The court did not say:
...the 2nd amendment does not protect the right own and use a shot-barreled shotgun.

The difference should be obvious - had the defendant (who had since died) shown a SBS has any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, it would ave ruled the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and use such a weapon.

 

Heller was about a handgun ban in D.C. What Heller said about other federal gun laws is not legally binding, but I think the Supreme Court wanted to signal to the lower courts that they would not be open to overturning those laws.

 

Amazing then that SCOTUS thinks you're wrong.

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals thought it was legally binding.

"Since Heller and McDonald we have quoted that same sentence and considered ourselves bound by it. See Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir.2013) (upholding concealed carry restrictions). Thus, our own precedent causes us to conclude that the Second Amendment right to carry firearms does not apply to federal buildings, such as post offices. Therefore, we uphold the District Court's ruling that 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(1) is constitutional as to the post office building itself."

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1705917.html

Interesting theory.

 

I didn't think dicta could be legally binding. Cornell Law School says:

"A comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation. Also referred to as dictum, dicta, and judicial dicta. A dissenting opinion is also generally considered obiter dictum."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obiter_dictum

 

It's from the decision:

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

2. 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. Pp. 54–56.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Here's Scalia's dictum:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

You can't buy one, but you can build one after getting the appropriate FFLs.

That being said, the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional.