Never can Iran have a Nuclear Weapon

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.

 

You're funny. You can't even find the majority opinion of Heller .

 

That's the direct quote form the majority opinion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
3rd para.

 

So, you’re pretending that is all the majority opinion is.
Laughable.

 

“Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused.”

The entire exercise is encapsulated in this statement.
The Heller decision is a response to the D of C not allowing Heller to keep and register another handgun at home without keeping it inoperative. . Not an ar15, not a shotgun.....but a handgun. Include in the decision, are the circumstances that would give Heller relief.
“
“The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scru- tiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (200 3
Syllabus
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbi- trarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

To comply, Heller must be allowed to register the handgun and be licensed to carry a handgun.
This ruling applies to handguns, specifically, Hellers handgun.

 

I said, theHeller decision only addressed Heller’s wish to keep an operative handgun in his home. You keep using the word “restricted.”
If you know anything about the decision, you would get that.

 

It’s you who keeps making up what isn’t there.

 

Bwwaaaaahahahhaahhahahha!
You're quoting the syllabus - the holding - not the majority opinion!!
You don't know the difference!!!
Bwwwaaaaahahahahahahhaahhaah!

Held:
1(a):
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm...
"A firearm". Not "a handgun".

...and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
That is, including, but mot limited to, self-defense in the home.
You know, like... duck hunting. Hard to do - in fact, illegal to do - with a handgun.

(f)
... 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 purpose
Which, of course, means more than handguns.

2:
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.
Which, of course, means more than handguns.

And then, the winner, form the ACTUAL majority opinion
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.
Which, of course, means more than handguns.

Please note this was upheld in CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex-tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (200....
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

You know haven't a leg to stand on - but, by all means, keep acting like you do.

 

And you;re wrong.
That was the issue at hand; the ruling was more expansive than that single issue.

 

Why do you completely neglect to post the operative ruling ? That’s fraudulent.

 

Speaking of fraudulent...

You know haven't a leg to stand on - but, by all means, keep acting like you do.

Why don't you go read the majority opinion.. er... the syllabus...

 

You are TOTALLY neglecting that the right to possess a gun is not absolute and Heller to this day, still can't have an AR15, and still has to be licensed and register the HAND gun.
That’s less expansive. I’m happy with all you bs ing as long as you must be permitted and your guns registered,
What are you afraid if, you can post it all including the actionable part if the ruling....THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.

Why can’t you post the facts ?

 

Let’s read it ......he has to be licensed to carry a registered hand gun in his home ! Hilarious. It even reinforces, Heller must QUALIFY.
BecauseHeller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law ispermissible if it is not enforced arbi- trarily and capriciously, theCourt assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief anddoes not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

 

Lol......registered and licensed, just to carry a handgun in his home.

 

Speaking of fraudulent...
Where's your response to post# 759?
Oh. You don't have one.

You know haven't a leg to stand on - but, by all means, keep acting like you do.

 

Registered and licensed to carry a handgun in his own home. That’s got to frost your gonads to think Heller actually includes that in the ruling.

 

"Civilian law enforcement?"

 

Another dream born out of false courage.

 

Thank you for demonstrating you cannot meaningfully address post # 759.
Similarly, thank you for demonstrating you know you do not have a leg to stand on.

 

What is "Civilian law enforcement?"

 

Nor does the Gov't have to have complete control over an industry for socialism to exist. Taxation is socialism - it is redistribution of wealth from the workers and industries to somewhere else - supposedly to benefit the collective.

 

What are you talking about - the posters opinion of socialism is not flawed. All taxation is redistribution of wealth from one persons pocket to another place - under the auspices of benefiting the collective = Socialism.

What the heck is your definition ?

 

Are you an American or a Trump supporter. You can’t be both.

 

I can be both

And am

 

Trump the traitor ?