Here we go again. Before the second amendment to be ratified, Article One, Section Eight gave Congress the right (and responsibility) to arm the militia. That was why armories were established, not only to store weapons for the use of the militia, but in a few cases, to manufacture those arms. This is the relevant paragraph:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
In Presser versus Illinois, 1886, the Supremes held that: "Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States." (Groups like those loonies, the so-called Michigan Militia, could legally be banned by that state, which is what happened when Presser attempted to establish a self-organized militia in Illinois.) So the constitution gives authority to the states, which has been upheld by the Supremes.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 was challenged on the basis of the second amendment, and in 1939, the Supremes upheld that act. In their decision, they wrote:
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Clearly this refers to the right of the Congress in Article One, Section Eight, to provide for the arming of the militia. Congress has the right to legislate in such matters, and so do the states.
@Setanta,
That's great. But, I haven't seen anyone say that the militia's shouldn't be controlled, trained or armed by the government.
In
D.C. V, Heller, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a long-standing constitutional question about whether the right to “keep and bear arms” is an individual right unconnected to service in the militia or a collective right that applies only to state-regulated militias.
By a five to four margin, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home (emphasis ours). Accordingly, it struck down as unconstitutional provisions of a D.C. law that (1) effectively banned possession of handguns by non law enforcement officials and (2) required lawfully owned firearms to be kept unloaded, disassembled, or locked when not located at a business place or being used for lawful recreational activities.
At least, the NRA believes...
Quote:... that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
Source
@McGentrix,
In fact,
Heller only addressed the right of self-defense. The Arch Crypto-Fascist, Scalia, in framing the majority opinion, used the term "hearth and home" in describing self-defense. It in no way authorizes the right to keep and bear fully automatic weapons, weapons which can be converted to operate as automatic weapons operate, or any other type of military weapons. It's a very narrow ruling, and does not overturn either
Presser nor
The United States versus Miller.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:The guy was seen with a mystery woman. If they can find a video of her they might advance the case.
I heard on the news this morning that the police say they have a credible reason to believe that:
a) this guy fully expected to escape alive and uncaught after he was done shooting, and
b) this guy had a currently-unknown accomplice.
By the way, totally off topic here, but what in the world is going on with Obamacare pricing????
Blue Cross has just told me that 2018 prices for a gold plan will cost me $950 a month. $800 a month for silver. And $550 a month for bronze.
By disagreeing I am to be characterized as 'snide.' That won't shut me up. Those who say these things cannot be prevented overlook the fact that it happens more and more often, withing increasing deadly consequences, in this country, but almost never in other countries, not counting the ones at war.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:The guy was seen with a mystery woman. If they can find a video of her they might advance the case.
I heard on the news this morning that the police say they have a credible reason to believe that:
a) this guy fully expected to escape alive and uncaught after he was done shooting, and
b) this guy had a currently-unknown accomplice.
By the way, totally off topic here, but what in the world is going on with Obamacare pricing????
Blue Cross has just told me that 2018 prices for a gold plan will cost me $950 a month. $800 a month for silver. And $550 a month for bronze.
The Republicans are sabotaging Obamacare to make sure it fails.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:There can be no logical defense of unrestricted weapon ownership.
That depends. First we need to define unrestricted weapon ownership.
Since we've had restrictions on guns ever since 1934, it can easily be argued that we don't have unrestricted gun ownership to begin with.
If you want to include "the situation as it exists today" in the category of unrestricted gun ownership, chances are good that a logical defense
can be offered.
edgarblythe wrote:The gun nuts I speak with privately (my own son is one) believe the slightest form of gun control is but a ruse to ease in total seizing of guns. Nothing touches that notion.
Well, yes. Gun rights advocates pay attention to their opponents. We know very well that the only goal here is to violate our rights. And for no other reason than the left
enjoys violating our rights.
edgarblythe wrote:Owning guns for target practice or protection is fine with me, but they don't believe it when I tell them that.
Is it OK with you if they have a semi-auto assault rifle for target practice and protection?
**** no it's not okay with me if non military has that kind of firepower.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:At least, the NRA believes...
Quote:... that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations.
Source
Make sure the SHARE Act is attached to any such legislation.
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:**** no it's not okay with me if non military has that kind of firepower.
Then they are correct to regard you as opposing their rights.
How exactly does adding a pistol grip to a rifle add to its firepower?
@Setanta,
I didn't say anything about military weapons. I don't own any military weapons either. However, my Beretta 92FS is also
used by the military, but that does not make it a military weapon. I may (or may not) own an AR style rifle. It is not a military weapon either, though the military may also use it. The shooter in Las Vegas did not own any military style weapons either (unless you know more than has been released). He purchased them legally. He was an evil, murdering bastard. Changing gun laws will not stop evil.
Not even in Canada.
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:In fact, Heller only addressed the right of self-defense.
Heller was indeed a disappointment regarding the issue of military weapons. That could be my fault in part, but it was probably inevitable.
However, a Supreme Court ruling protecting guns that are suitable for self defense was still a welcome step. And it opened the door for a future ruling applying Strict Scrutiny to all gun laws. As well as a future ruling extending Heller to cover carrying guns in public.
We just need to get one more conservative on the court before we can go forward. Right now we only have four votes for going forward with more expansive rulings.
Setanta wrote:weapons which can be converted to operate as automatic weapons operate,
Technically any gun in the world can be converted to operate as a full auto if you modify it enough.
@jespah,
jespah wrote:I await the Second Amendment arguments. Well, sorry, folks, but the Second Amendment reads as follows, in its entirety:
the Constitution wrote:A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
See:
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992
It's about the right to have a militia.
The first half of the Second Amendment is a requirement that we always have a militia (a requirement that the government is violating, by the way).
The second half of the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms that was created in the 1689 English Bill of Rights.
jespah wrote:And even if you want to toss out the militia part, why oh why is it impossible to have restrictions on the Second Amendment when we have them on the First?
It's not impossible. The restrictions just need to pass muster with Strict Scrutiny, just as restrictions on other rights do.
jespah wrote:The First Amendment reads, in its entirety:
the Constitution wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Yet we still have slander and libel laws. We still don't allow an incitement to riot, or rioting itself.
How come the Second Amendment has no restrictions, whereas the First has several?
I would say the laws authorizing people to be punished for murder (or attempted murder, or assault) after the fact are broadly similar to the laws that punish people for slander/libel/incitement after the fact.
jespah wrote:But when you have more than 15 times as many guns as you have hands - and we are only talking about what Paddock purchased in 2017, isn't that a little (yes, the pun is intended) overkill?
It is fairly common for people to own hundreds of guns.
https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1591#post-6515625
Ignore the deserved snide and pay attention to the linked article.
Now here is higtor's response (as good a guy as the left can claim)
https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1592#post-6515890
@Finn dAbuzz,
And here is mine.
https://able2know.org/topic/355218-1593#post-6516139
I would hope anti-gun nuts might be able to discuss this subject without the usual nonsense of
"NRA and right-wing gun nuts want to kill everyone!"
Let's not forget that one leftist here called for a massacre of NRA members. Big heart, what?
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Let's not forget that one leftist here called for a massacre of NRA members. Big heart, what?
I saw that, and would hardly forget.
@roger,
Indeed roger and I saw your reaction.
The font of human kindness that guy is.
Oh...that guy was
OLIVIER
