@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Debra Law wrote:Still drinking the NRA Kool-Aid.
It is a compliment to the NRA that whenever you see facts you think of the NRA.
They are not facts, unless you subscribe to Kellyanne Conway's incredulous theory that LIES are "alternative facts."
The NRA lies and you have fits of hysteria. That's a FACT. The supporting evidence of that FACT is all found all over this discussion board.
You have not shown that a legislative ban on assault weapons would violate your rights under the Second Amendment. After all, Congress banned assault weapons in 1994 following several massacres. The ban was publicly supported by former Republican presidents Ford and Reagan. The ban was subject to many constitutional challenges, and all challenges were rejected by our courts.
The 1994 ban terminated through a sunset clause in 2004.
The proposed 2013 bill did not pass. Apparently the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School was insufficient for our lawmakers to re-enact the ban. Again, however, even if the ban had been enacted, your "rights" would not have been violated. You don't have an unlimited right to own whatever arms you desire to own.
In Part III of the Heller decision, Justice Scalia wrote:
Quote:Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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 grave violation of the Second Amendment.
sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Assault weapons are extremely dangerous and highly unusual for members in society at large to keep in their homes. Our courts have consistently rejected constitutional challenges to assault weapon bans. Your allegation that such a ban would be a grave violation of the Second Amendment has no foundation in fact or law. Not even Scalia would have found such a ban unconstitutional.
This is NOT an executive order issued by Obama. There is no such "horrendous executive order". You provided a link to a publication in the federal register setting forth the final rules (promulgated by the Social Security Administration) necessary to comply with the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, which was signed into law by President Bush.
NICS is the "National Instant Criminal Backgrounds Check System". The Social Security Administration is required by law to report the names of all persons who have been adjudicated to be mentally ill and must have their mental illness disability checks sent to a representative payee. Those names are placed into the system and they are prohibited from purchasing firearms. Scalia noted in the Heller decision, see above, "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill. . . ."
Quote:
Banning people from having guns without any justification is of course a grave violation of the Second Amendment.
However, evidence of an adjudicated mental illness or of a criminal conviction for a felony is longstanding justification for prohibiting mentally ill persons and felons from possessing guns. And as much as it causes you pain, even mentally ill vets cannot possess firearms.
Do you remember this sad story:
Guilty verdict for troubled vet who murdered American Sniper
http://ew.com/article/2015/02/25/american-sniper-guilty-verdict/
Quote:The ex-Marine who shot Chris Kyle, the Navy SEAL better known as the American Sniper, was convicted of murder by a Texas jury and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Eddie Ray Routh, 27, had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity in the 2013 gun-range shooting that killed Kyle and Chad Littlefield. Routh’s attorneys claimed that he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and post-traumatic stress disorder, and said they intended to appeal the decision after the jury needed only two hours to come to its conclusion.
oralloy wrote:As more and more law-abiding people were added to the list, they would have eventually added nearly all Americans to the list of people prohibited from having guns.
Even if a person who suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and PTSD is a "law-abiding citizen" (normally), he still shouldn't be given access to guns. He was mentally ill.
oralloy wrote:
Debra Law wrote:Provide a citation and link to the allegedly offending judicial decisions and for each decision, explain how it was a malicious violation of the second amendment.
There are too many of those to count. Here is one recent case:
https://able2know.org/topic/355218-522#post-6369682
The reason why it counts as "judges maliciously allowing the Second Amendment to be violated" is because those judges are deliberately allowing a law to stand when it is a grave violation of the Second Amendment.
Every court that has ever considered a ban on assault weapons has rejected your allegation that such a ban is a "grave violation" of the Second Amendment. Not even Scalia would agree with you. The Fourth Circuit opinion cited Scalia's decision in Heller.
oralloy wrote:
Debra Law wrote:Try thinking for yourself.
I'm not Blatham. I
always think for myself.
Try keeping up with me.
Your argument has no support in fact or law. Stop drinking the NRA Kool-Aid. Why don't you read the Heller decision and the Fourth Circuit opinion and educate yourself. If you don't feed your mind through self-education, then there's nothing worthwhile swirling around in your brain to ponder.
