Matt Damon calls for IMMEDIATE gun ban in the US -

Are you still trying to argue that restrictions on guns you may purchase is somehow unconstitutional??

Or, what?

 

You mean those scary black ones with scary bits like a bayonet lug?

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

Well, give an example.

 

An example of what?

You still didn't answer my question.

 

In the McDonald v Chicago ruling the supreme court stated, in outright and explicit terms, that they reject the notion of the second amendment being subjected to judicial interest balancing standards, especially when it is being weighed against the vague and ambiguous standard of public safety.

Municipal respondents assert that, although most state constitutions protect firearms rights, state courts have held that these rights are subject to “interest-balancing” and have sustained a variety of restrictions. Brief for Municipal Respondents 23–31. In Heller, however, we expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 62–63), and this Court decades ago abandoned “the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the States only a watered-down, subjective version of the individual guarantees
of the Bill of Rights,” Malloy, supra, at 10–11 (internal quotation marks omitted). As evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment has not historically been understood to restrict the authority of the States to regulate firearms, municipal respondents and supporting amici cite a variety of state and local firearms
laws that courts have upheld. But what is most striking about their research is the paucity of precedent sustaining bans comparable to those at issue here and in Heller.

 

As I understand it, interest balancing has to do with what evidence is allowed. The question is whether evidence can be discarded by the court if it is considered unfair, confusing, overly time consuming, etc.

More to the point, the majority opinion in the case you cite specifically confirms that restrictions on ownership and carrying may be justified by safety concerns.

The case you cite basically says that the 2nd amendment is incorporated by the 14th amendment and relates to the right of self defense.

However, as pointed out by the minority, there is nothing in the 2nd amendment that even hints at self defense. The self defense connection was simply concocted by the right wing court we have.

 

When the states established their union, they gave it a limited set of legislative powers. Which of congress's enumerated powers would allow it to enact a law that prohibits the acquisition or possession of firearms by the people of the several states?

 

The real question is how the courts will judge the laws made by the process defined for making laws - a combination of the executive branch and the legislature.

The contest between public safety and rights that takes place in the judicial branch isn't clearly stated in the constitution itself as far as I know. Maybe someone can help out on that.

 

The correct answer is that the states never gave the federal government any power to restrict the acquisition or possession of firearms. Feel free to read the document and cite any such language.

 

That's not what I said. Read harder.

Aside from that you haven't addressed the issue I presented-
-The courts have said rights may be restricted only when an action harms someone or creates an immediate danger.
-There is no harm caused by or immediate danger created by simple ownership possession of a firearm
-Thus, the simple ownership of a firearm cannot be restricted.

You can characterize 'harm or immediate danger' as 'public safety', if you want, but you still do not address the question I set before you:
Absent these these conditions - conditions established by the court as necessary for the restrictions on the exercise of rights - what argument is there for limitations on the right to ownership/simple possession of a firearm?

Well?

- - - Updated - - -

And so,. you agree with what I said: the SCotUS has not upheld restrictions against the retail sales of machine guns.
What court has?

 

They're scary?

 

Unquestionably, some are, as the SCotUS has said.

- - - Updated - - -

More so: They interfere with the state having a monopoly on force.

 

But, the states DID give the federal government the power to restrict speech???

 

Did they? Where?

 

So, let's stop there and ponder the fact that there ARE restrictions even to simple ownership of a firearm. And, thus your final bullet point is very different from what is the case in America.

I'd also point out that your second bullet point is your claim that you haven't supported.

And, of course, your first bullet point requires a definition of "harm" that goes way beyond anything physical, because physical harm is obviously not the only claim that has been considered by the SCOTUS to be sufficient for justifying the limitation of rights.



The decision of DC v. Heller is the very first time the SCOTUS created a personal right to firearms. And, in that decision one can find the decision stating, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."

 

They don't have to. Courts can simply refuse to take cases they see as having no merit.

So, your question makes no sense.

 

Yes. Some are. But, that's not what anyone is arguing. Legislatures create ridiculous laws once in a while - nobody is doubting that.

The point is that some "infringement" continues to be accepted.


By looking at what happens in nations under revolt we can see that high explosives are a major issue with the monopoly on force. So are military aircraft - along with their bombs and missiles.

So, what are you REALLY hoping for? An AH-64D?

 

All I see here is avoidance of the question I asked.

I'll ask it another way.
Given the constitutional restrictions placed upon other rights, when the simple ownership/possess ion a firearm harms no one and places no one in condition of clear, present and immediate danger, on what grounds may it be constitutionally restricted?

 

Thus you cannot support your claim that "the courts support restrictions against the retail sales of machine guns", as you cannot cite a single instance of a court doing so.
Thank you.

 

I've answered that, but you seem not to like the answers I give.

Maybe what you should do is read SCOTUS decisions that allow gun restrictions.

I referenced one quite recently in this thread.

 

As I pointed out before, the courts support it by accepting no court cases challenging it.

Read up on how our SCOTUS works. They don't have to take cases. If they see the case as unimportant or as having been correctly decided by a lower court, they are highly unlikely to spend time on it.

 

the machine gun issue vexes the court. Deep down, the justices understand that the NFA is unconstitutional and violates both the second and the tenth amendment. But many of them realize that if they struck down the NFA, it would mean the federal government doesnt have the power to regulate firearms and all the Democrat appointees believe that this power is more important than constitutional honesty. and most of them understand that if the commerce clause expansion created by the FDR administration was rolled back, it would mean that hundreds of government programs would be challenged under the tenth amendment as an unconstitutional expansion of federal power.

 

Maybe, but this was less of an issue before the SCOTUS came up with their own version of English grammar in their quest to make guns (and thus gun violence) more prolific in America.

 

Since you are clearly willing and able to lie to yourself, there's no reason to continue this.