SCOTUS Nominee Gorsuch SCHOOLS Feinstein On 2nd Amendment

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by rover77, Mar 21, 2017.

  1. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is nothing in Heller that limits its scope to handguns.

    Except Cruikshank and Miller, to name just two.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  2. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I take it that you are stretching Heller like the Burger Court stretched "right to privacy".

    I know how that ridiculous game is played.

    Do not play it with me unless you want to go directly to my iggy list and do not pass Go or collect $200 dollars.
     
  3. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why would I care if you engage your "iggy list". This is a debate forum. If you do not wish to debate points, especially those you make, why are you here?

    Edit: why do you ignore the points on Cruikshank and Miller regarding carbines?
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  4. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I have a tendency to move Sophists and liars onto the iggy asap.

    It's just me. It's what I do.
     
  5. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Respectfully, I thought Heller said "weapons in common usage" and not handguns alone. Would that not cover carbines "in common usage" as well?
     
  6. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most of these guys in this forum simply want to debate the points and get to the facts and Rucker61is one of them.

    I'd recommend taking some time to get to know the posters. We have some trolls, but none of the ones I've seen reply to you fall into that category.

    I disagree from time to time with pro-gun folks, nothing wrong with that. OTOH, I've learned some things from people I've initially disagreed with too.
     
    yiostheoy likes this.
  7. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Both the ruling and the commentary in Heller, as well as Miller, are very clear - "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd is not limited to handguns.
     
  8. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I did not say that it was. However the specific language of the ruling pertains to handguns, and the only specific discussion in the ruling of a long gun is a sawed-off shotgun.
     
  9. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Carbines are not mentioned in any way.
     
  10. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    from Heller:

    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.

    3. 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 scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this 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 arbitrarily 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

    Your reading that Heller only addresses handguns isn't the same interpretation held by most, or else the decision in Shew v Malloy (among others) would have simply read "Heller. Handgun. Assault weapon. Done" without delving into convoluted interpretations of "in common use" and "like an M16".
     
  11. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "... held by most" is of course a fallacy of argumentum populum, n'est pas ?!

    Didn't the SCOTUS recently turn down certiorari on a case where a local jurisdiction had implemented an assault weapons ban ?? Don't make me google it for you.
     
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In an 'as an example' sense.
    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...
     
  13. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cert denied means nothing.
     
  14. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Jeeze !!!

    More rhetoric !!!

    Give me a break !!!

    But thank you at least for conceding the issue.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  15. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm sorry...
    What point do you think you make when you mention "didn't the SCOTUS recently turn down certiorari on a case where a local jurisdiction had implemented an assault weapons ban"?
     
  16. Rucker61

    Rucker61 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    9,774
    Likes Received:
    4,103
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Friedman vs Highland Park. However, the 7th Circuit Court didn't find for Highland Park because Heller didn't protect anything but handguns.

    "If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. See George F. Loewenstein, Christopher K. Hsee, Elke U. Weber & Ned Welch, Risk as Feelings, 127 Psychological Bulletin 267, 275–76 (2001); Eric J. Johnson, John Hershey, Jacqueline Meszaros & Howard Kunreuther, Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions, 7 J. Risk & Uncertainty 35 (1993). If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit. Cf. Frank v. Walker, 768 F.3d 744, 751 (7th Cir.2014)."

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1698803.html
     
  17. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. So violating people's rights is okay so long as the majority thinks it's a good idea. Bovine excrement.

    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  18. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to fix your post @6Gunner ^^^^^^

    You quote me saying something that I did not say.

    Your "reply" function must have gotten all confused.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  19. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apologies, sir! I was quoting the ruling itself and condemning the thought expressed therein; I was in no way seeking to imply it was a quote of yours. The citation itself came from Rucker61, but again the commentary I was referring to was the ruling and not a comment made by a specific poster.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  20. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Please fix it @6Gunner
     
  21. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am pro handgun and pro carbine.

    However this current SCOTUS has said nothing about carbines other than to refuse certiorari for an appeal of a local assault weapons ban.
     
  22. 6Gunner

    6Gunner Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Messages:
    5,631
    Likes Received:
    4,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Done! Or at least it's appearing fixed on my screen....
     
    yiostheoy likes this.
  23. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you @6Gunner
     
    6Gunner likes this.
  24. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Tagging this thread -- re Kruckshank which I need to re-read.

    Back later.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2017
  25. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In Caetano however they did rule significantly further than was done in Heller clarifying that the standard of "dangerous and unusual" must apply at the same time, not rather one or the other. Caetano actually expanded greatly on Heller in significant ways, including stating outright that a firearm is not unusual, or able to be prohibited, simply because it is in a configuration that was not in existence at the time of ratification.
     

Share This Page