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

@izzythepush,

Let alone the fact all the 2nd amendment guarantees is that citizens can join in the armed forces and can participate in a "well regulated militia".

There is no explicit right to owning any sort of firearm.

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

That's just goofy. The Framers explicitly intended the militia to not be the standing army.

Not to mention the long legal history of the right to keep and bear arms including personal self defense.

1 Reply

Ponder this: If Jesus had a gun, he’d be alive today!

I’m off in a little bit confused. Why do we want to arm bears? They already have claws.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

Reminds me of a very old Wizard of Id cartoon.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nope. That comes up when someone is opposing a law.

Well, if you want to put the burden of justifying your proposal on me, I decline to justify your proposal.

Therefore no compelling government interest has been demonstrated and your proposal is unconstitutional.

Again, it doesn't work that way.

Your understanding of compelling government interest and strict scritiny to which it applies and other forms of scrutiny is severely confused.

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
What's more, according to Cornell Law School, "the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations, leaving open the question of which precise standard of review is to be employed when addressing the Second Amendment."

Wishful thinking there. Strict scrutiny is the standard for fundamental rights.

Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations.

oralloy wrote:

And "refused to endorse" is misleading. The Supreme Court has already cast four votes for strict scrutiny, with Thomas not being the fifth vote for strict scrutiny only because he was taking an even-more-hard-line position.

What's your source for these claims of yours?

oralloy wrote:

InfraBlue wrote:
Nuh-uh. That's merely your interpretation.

Not exactly. It is the Supreme Court's interpretation. I was just working within the limitations laid down in Heller. I'd actually be glad to extend full militia rights to all citizens.

Your take on Heller is severely flawed. The Court declared that it based its decision on United States v. Miller which ties ownership of weapons to "a well regulated militia."

oralloy wrote:

Militiamen have the right to have M-16s (and I don't mean neutered semi-auto-only versions), 40mm grenade launchers, grenades (both hand-thrown and 40mm), and 84mm anti-tank bazookas. Militiamen also have the right to keep their weapons at home.

Your idea of Militiamen, in regard to the Second Amendment, is severely flawed.

oralloy wrote:

Just imagine if a criminal came at you in full body armor and you fired an 84mm bazooka into their chest. No amount of body armor could withstand something like that.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4

So, if you want to argue for extending militia rights to everyone, I'm with you.

I know which closet I'll keep my bazookas in if you ever get the courts to agree with you.

But note: Extending militia rights to everyone still wouldn't provide any compelling government interest in restricting the number of guns that someone can own. In fact, militiamen would have an even stronger right to have a large arsenal.

You're confusing your RPG play with the real world.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

Ponder this: If Jesus had a gun, he’d be alive today!

I’m off in a little bit confused. Why do we want to arm bears? They already have claws.

Wocka wocka!

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Again, it doesn't work that way.
Your understanding of compelling government interest and strict scritiny to which it applies and other forms of scrutiny is severely confused.

No confusion. I am specifically applying strict scrutiny, as that is the proper standard to use when dealing with a fundamental right.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your statement is irrelevant to the fact that the Supreme Court has refused to endorse the application of strict scrutiny to gun regulations.

The Supreme Court has not made any such refusal. It is true that they have not officially imposed strict scrutiny yet, but "not having done it yet" is not a refusal to do so.

InfraBlue wrote:

What's your source for these claims of yours?

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Four votes for "due process" incorporation, plus a vote by Thomas for "privileges or immunities" incorporation.

InfraBlue wrote:

Your take on Heller is severely flawed. The Court declared that it based its decision on United States v. Miller which ties ownership of weapons to "a well regulated militia."

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.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

InfraBlue wrote:

Your idea of Militiamen, in regard to the Second Amendment, is severely flawed.

No such flaws. The Second Amendment protects the right of militiamen to have modern infantry weapons so that they can be an effective fighting force.

InfraBlue wrote:

You're confusing your RPG play with the real world.

That is incorrect. An 84mm anti-tank bazooka would be devastating against personal body armor.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

applying it does not man that its right. It only means that a majprity of judges agree. Like it was said before, even the 14th amendment is not above amendment.
Several cases in the past have been egregious violations of civil right but have been deemed "constitutional". Like all the Japanese and many German and Italian citizens were declared as enmies of the state.
Were they then overturned before the war ended?

We are a nation of laws, most of which are interpreted to erve political xpediency, which is merely "being conducive to an interest, not a right".

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Strict Scrutiny is the correct standard to apply when dealing with a fundamental right.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

dont assume that its even correct, its expedient. thats all. Ya pack a court with swine, theyre gonna vote for more slop.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I'm not assuming anything. It is correct.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

no, its only expedient and of "the time" The amendments were re set when our parents wanted to move th Japanese citizens to concentration camps in WWII.Or how the 13th and 14th amendment were so fucked over during Reconstruction that it took an entire bunch of new legislation and an amendment to an amendment.
Now we have a bunch of clowns in the Senate and a clown in chief in the white house who wishes to set all that back 100 years .

Well, the game has two sides.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

That is incorrect. Strict Scrutiny is the correct standard to apply when dealing with a fundamental right.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Can you give a citation for that?

Strict Scrutiny usually refers to Discrimination of Due Process of Law, not necessarily a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

"Laws encroaching on a fundamental right generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

"Two types of classifications cause the Court to depart from its usual rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause: when group burdened by the classification is 'suspect' (e.g., a racial or ethnic minority, women, aliens) or when the classification burdens what the Court determines to be a 'fundamental right.' "
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/fundrights.html

"For strict scrutiny to be applied, a legislative body must have either violated a fundamental right through enactment of a law, or passed a law involving a suspect classification, including not only race and national origin, but also poverty, religion, and alien citizenship status."
http://legaldictionary.net/strict-scrutiny/

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Where does it say the right to bear arms?

"Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review that courts use to determine the constitutionality of certain laws. Strict scrutiny is often used by courts when a plaintiff sues the government for discrimination. To pass strict scrutiny, the legislature must have passed the law to further a "compelling governmental interest," and must have narrowly tailored the law to achieve that interest.

Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of review which a court will use to evaluate the constitutionality of governmental discrimination. The other two standards are intermediate scrutiny and rational basis review."

1 Reply

@neptuneblue,

neptuneblue wrote:

Where does it say the right to bear arms?

In the words "fundamental right".

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Lol!

"Strict scrutiny is often used by courts when a plaintiff sues the government for discrimination."

So, again, how does that apply to 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms?

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

Strict Scrutiny is the standard that is used when dealing with fundamental rights.

2 Replies

@neptuneblue,

You have a right to have a gun for hunting, target practice, or self defense. Who convinced you that you don't?

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know