Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

And SCOTUS has let gun bans stand whuch means they pass scrutiny. that's what scalia said. your words coubt for naught.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And SCOTUS has let gun bans stand which means they pass scrutiny. that's what scalia said.

It's unclear what you are referring to here.

MontereyJack wrote:

your words count for naught.

I merely state the truth. The truth always counts for something.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

As far as Strict Scrutiny is concerned, the level of government is not important. What matters is whether the ban can be justified with a good reason.

So it all depends on what sort of guns are being banned. Something that there is a good reason for banning. Or something that there is no justification for banning.

Presuming that the ban can be justified, even the federal level would pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

If there is no justification for the ban, it is not permitted at any level of government whatsoever.

The Tenth Amendment does forbid federal gun control, but at present the Supreme Court is not enforcing the Tenth Amendment.

There are no constitutional prohibitions against statewide gun laws if they pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.

So then basically anything unconstitutional can be allowed if there's sufficient justification, but the goal should be to limit the constitutional violation to the minimum necessary to achieve whatever goal is deemed sufficiently important?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

If it complies with Strict Scrutiny then it isn't unconstitutional to begin with, unless it is unconstitutional for some other unrelated reason.

Note that Strict Scrutiny also requires that people not be impeded in exercising their rights. So if there were a restriction that was so draconian that it impeded self defense, and this restriction could be justified with a good reason, that restriction would be unconstitutional and would not be allowed.

However, this is seldom a factor. Most unconstitutional gun laws are unconstitutional because they have no justification.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

If it complies with Strict Scrutiny then it isn't unconstitutional to begin with, unless it is unconstitutional for some other unrelated reason.

Note that Strict Scrutiny also requires that people not be impeded in exercising their rights. So if there were a restriction that was so draconian that it impeded self defense, and this restriction could be justified with a good reason, that restriction would be unconstitutional and would not be allowed.

However, this is seldom a factor. Most unconstitutional gun laws are unconstitutional because they have no justification.

I'm not sure I understand this principle of strict scrutiny exactly right.

If the 2nd amendment enshrines your right to bear arms, then banning guns limits that right.

What I understood you to say is that the courts would limit constitutional right but only in the most limited way to achieve some necessary goal, such as public safety.

Now you seem to be saying that there's no denial of the constitution happening with the strict scrutiny modification, but isn't that exactly what you said it was used for?

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Start by looking at what the right is all about.

Currently the Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment is only about having guns for self defense. There is a strong case to be made that this is way too narrow, but for simplicity let's just assume that the Second Amendment is only about self defense in this post.

If a gun regulation does not impede self defense, how does it infringe on the right to have a gun for self defense?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

the second, the tenth, and the fourteenth amendments designed a "fence" about which the right to arm bears is presently pretty much untouchble.
Heller has, in a bit of interesting positive wording by the late Jutice Scalia, opened the door for reasonable gun controls as youve been repeating. Which is my assertion that in , perhaps one or more likely two, generations we shall see some such control, mostly to affect predictable behavior and ridiculous appurtenances.
I may make one more but not two.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Start by looking at what the right is all about.

Currently the Supreme Court says that the Second Amendment is only about having guns for self defense. There is a strong case to be made that this is way too narrow, but for simplicity let's just assume that the Second Amendment is only about self defense in this post.

If a gun regulation does not impede self defense, how does it infringe on the right to have a gun for self defense?

If gun regulations prevents people from having guns, it would impede their ability to use guns for self-defense, wouldn't it?

I think the main reason the NRA, etc. staunchly fights against every little attempt to regulate gun ownership is that they realize the left is not going to stop building on previous achievements until they have eliminated as many guns as possible from the landscape.

They do this for a simple reason, which is to protect criminals and organized crime business from danger. Crime is basically just an option for people to circumvent the regular economy, which they view as discriminatory and inadequate because they see business as not giving workers and 'the oppressed' their fair share of 'the pie.'

So when poor people rob and steal, they take their side against 'the haves' they are stealing from, i.e. because they see the economy as unfair and thus they attribute the desperation that drives people to crime to those who benefit from the economy.

So they don't want poor people deterred from stealing by the threat of guns. Gun-control opponents see this socialist tendency and try to nip it in the bud by stopping any and all attempts to pursue further gun regulation.

1 Reply

@revelette1,

Quote:

My fifteen year old granddaughter who temporarily lives with me, told me yesterday she is starting to be scared in school. Not too very far from where live, there was a recent school shooting. Now she is different from me, she is more like her folks on her dad side who are all republicans and gun enthusiasts. I had no words to comfort her. I suppose I could have said, well, if they had more teachers with guns or some such thing, but, I do not want that for her in school. Perhaps more trained guards with guns in more schools would also be an answer as well as better background checks and get rid of those things in guns which turns guns into guns which can kill so many people so quickly. In any event, I didn't want to have a gun debate with my own granddaughter.

How about much smaller schools so that you don't have 3000 kids sitting around in any one place for lunatics to target?

Little neighborhood schools like you might have had in 1840, 20 or 30 kids.

2 Replies

@ganeemead,

ganeemead wrote:

How about much smaller schools so that you don't have 3000 kids sitting around in any one place for lunatics to target?

Little neighborhood schools like you might have had in 1840, 20 or 30 kids.

Sure, but how would the funding work? You could just give parents vouchers so they can have public funding to spend however they please, but what would stop businesses from luring parents to give them their vouchers by promising better services, free food, etc.?

Then, to provide those better services and attract more vouchers for more revenue, the school would expand and try to recruit as many students as possible, which would make it impossible for little neighborhood schools of 20 or 30 kids to exist in every neighborhood.

0 Replies

@ganeemead,

How are kids going to get a rounded education in a school of 20 pupils? That's one teacher, how are they going to be able to spot and encourage excellence in Maths, Science, Languages, Humanities, Art Music, Dance, IT all at once?

Your idea belongs back in the 1840s.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

excellence in Maths, Science, Languages, Humanities, Art Music, Dance, IT all at once?

Those are all secondary to the indoctrination of the student.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Heller has, in a bit of interesting positive wording by the late Jutice Scalia, opened the door for reasonable gun controls as youve been repeating.

"Reasonable" is a vague term that can be applied to anything.

Strict Scrutiny will be the test of whether gun control is constitutional or unconstitutional.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

livinglava wrote:

If gun regulations prevents people from having guns, it would impede their ability to use guns for self-defense, wouldn't it?

That depends on what guns we are talking about. Restrictions that limit people to single-shot weapons would definitely impede self defense.

Restrictions on atomic artillery shells, on the other hand, would not impede self defense.

I think that someone with a lever-action .30-30 and a .357 revolver would be fairly well defended. That is likely to be the general area where the courts draw the line between "necessary for defense" and "unnecessary for defense".

The requirement that gun laws must be justified with a good reason will impact many more gun laws.

A lever-action .30-30 and a .357 revolver may be adequate for self defense, but there is no justification for telling someone that they can't use an AR-15 and a Glock instead.

0 Replies

ganeemead wrote:

Ever hear of an FNAR?

Not until you mentioned it.

FN makes good guns though.

1 Reply

Home school kids are notoriously backward.

It's not the size of schools that's the problem, it's the creepy NRA and their obsession with guns.

You need sensible gun controls not a dumbing down of the next generation.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

It never fails. People who oppose civil liberties always claim "common sense" (or some variation like "sensible" or "reasonable").

0 Replies

Presumably by your comment, you do not understand why higher maths are taught at school.

As a hint, it is not to learn to add up (that's basic maths).

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I believe the fnar is more like a military version of the Browning semiauto hunting rifles than like an updated FAL,

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

It's not the size of schools that's the problem, it's the creepy NRA and their obsession with guns.

You're kidding! Where's the logic in that. Suppose even that all the kids in such a micro school were packing double square bridge Mausers and 44 automag pistols; how's that going to affect their performance in math or French?

1 Reply

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know