9
   

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

 
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Sun 1 Mar, 2009 08:37 pm
Heads up!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009 -- The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Sun 1 Mar, 2009 09:32 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Heads up!

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824

WASHINGTON, Feb. 25, 2009 -- The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

It will be very interesting to see whether the USSC
will adjudicate whether government has jurisdicition to do this.
Remember, the rationale of US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
was that the instrument in question (a short shotgun) had not been shown to be of value to a militia.
Clearly, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are of value to milita.





David


Advocate
 
  1  
Sun 1 Mar, 2009 11:01 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Didn't Heller make it clear that the state could still restrict, although not ban, weapons? The case would seem to open the door to a crackdown on assault weapons.
oralloy
 
  0  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 12:19 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Didn't Heller make it clear that the state could still restrict, although not ban, weapons? The case would seem to open the door to a crackdown on assault weapons.


The state can only restrict or ban a type of weapon if there is a compelling reason to do it.

There is quite clearly no compelling reason to ban assault weapons, so said ban would be in direct conflict with the Constitution.

But even if such a ban did pass constitutional muster, that wouldn't mean we wouldn't still gear up and fight passage of the ban.
oralloy
 
  0  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 12:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It will be very interesting to see whether the USSC
will adjudicate whether government has jurisdicition to do this.
Remember, the rationale of US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
was that the instrument in question (a short shotgun) had not been shown to be of value to a militia.
Clearly, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are of value to milita.


Such a ban wouldn't pass muster with the Heller standard regardless of Miller. No compelling reason to ban the guns.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 01:41 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
It will be very interesting to see whether the USSC
will adjudicate whether government has jurisdicition to do this.
Remember, the rationale of US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
was that the instrument in question (a short shotgun) had not been shown to be of value to a militia.
Clearly, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are of value to milita.


Such a ban wouldn't pass muster with the Heller standard regardless of Miller. No compelling reason to ban the guns.

Do u have a particular part of the opinion in mind ?





David
oralloy
 
  0  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 04:19 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It will be very interesting to see whether the USSC
will adjudicate whether government has jurisdicition to do this.
Remember, the rationale of US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939)
was that the instrument in question (a short shotgun) had not been shown to be of value to a militia.
Clearly, semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons are of value to milita.


Such a ban wouldn't pass muster with the Heller standard regardless of Miller. No compelling reason to ban the guns.

Do u have a particular part of the opinion in mind ?


They applied strict scrutiny. That means the government has to have a compelling reason in order to ban a gun. And the ban has to then be narrowly tailored so it addresses only that compelling interest.

There is no compelling interest to ban pistol grips or flash suppressors.

And any law that bans them in addition to addressing some other compelling interest will not be narrowly tailored.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 11:31 am
@oralloy,
Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.
oralloy
 
  0  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 07:47 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict


In the definition of strict scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny




Advocate wrote:
an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.


Scalia rather soundly demolished the notion that there should be any standard other than strict scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment:

Quote:
JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 07:55 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict


In the definition of strict scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny




Advocate wrote:
an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.


Scalia rather soundly demolished the notion that there should be any standard other than strict scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment:

Quote:
JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home
.


WoW !!!!!
I had forgotten that portion of the majority opinion, Oralloy.
THANK U !
BEAUTIFUL JOB !!!





David
oralloy
 
  0  
Mon 2 Mar, 2009 08:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict


In the definition of strict scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny




Advocate wrote:
an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.


Scalia rather soundly demolished the notion that there should be any standard other than strict scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment:

Quote:
JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home
.


WoW !!!!!
I had forgotten that portion of the majority opinion, Oralloy.
THANK U !
BEAUTIFUL JOB !!!





David


You're welcome. But perhaps the thanks should be directed to Antonin Scalia or the Heller legal team. My part in all this was rather small (all I did was proofread an amicus for spelling errors and help make a firearms glossary for the amicus).

My taking any sort of real credit for this would be like a janitor at Los Alamos taking credit for our nuclear arsenal.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Tue 3 Mar, 2009 04:10 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Where is it said that there must be a "compelling reason" for the state to restrict


In the definition of strict scrutiny:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny




Advocate wrote:
an assault weapon? I don't think Heller contains that language.


Scalia rather soundly demolished the notion that there should be any standard other than strict scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment:

Quote:
JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering "interest balancing inquiry" that "asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute's salutary effects upon other important governmental interests." Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest-balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people--which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home
.


WoW !!!!!
I had forgotten that portion of the majority opinion, Oralloy.
THANK U !
BEAUTIFUL JOB !!!





David


You're welcome. But perhaps the thanks should be directed to Antonin Scalia or the Heller legal team. My part in all this was rather small (all I did was proofread an amicus for spelling errors and help make a firearms glossary for the amicus).

My taking any sort of real credit for this would be like a janitor at Los Alamos taking credit for our nuclear arsenal.

I already thanked Bob Levy, Esq. of the Heller legal team, a few times.
I attended some of his speaking engagements.
In addition to his arguing and strategizing, he financed the case.
He is a true libertarian and a generous American patriot.
David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Wed 4 Mar, 2009 04:13 pm
When I first read this I did not think of it as adopting a strict scrutiny criterion.





David
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Wed 11 Mar, 2009 04:24 pm
I prefer a polite society that is well armed.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/H2O-M14-5.jpg
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 01:47 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

I prefer a polite society that is well armed.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/H2O-M14-5.jpg

Yeah, well u might get that if u r getting ready
for a fight, but as a matter of reasonable convenience n feasibility,
if u wanna be ready for unexpected trouble on a daily basis,
u 'll need something to wear (ideally concealed, in my opinion).

I think a fairly short barreled revolver of heavy caliber
for the stopping power e.g.,
.44 special loaded with hollow pointed slugs is good.
David
McTag
 
  2  
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 03:07 am

In the news yesterday, a German teenager, from a family with eighteen guns at home, shoots fifteen people dead, including children at his old school.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 08:13 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


Yeah, well u might get that if u r getting ready
for a fight, but as a matter of reasonable convenience n feasibility,
if u wanna be ready for unexpected trouble on a daily basis,
u 'll need something to wear (ideally concealed, in my opinion).

I think a fairly short barreled revolver of heavy caliber
for the stopping power e.g.,
.44 special loaded with hollow pointed slugs is good.
David



Yep, I keep a pair of 45 ACP Glock 21s within reach at all times.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 08:57 am
@McTag,
There was also a guy in AL who killed a bunch of people with his legally acquired weapons. In Europe, where it is difficult to keep guns, their murder rate is a tiny fraction of ours.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 10:19 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

In Europe, where it is difficult to keep guns, their murder rate is a tiny fraction of ours.


Civilians in Switzerland are armed and the murder rate in that country is super low.



I will bet that Americans are medicated with legally prescribed drugs
more than any other country and this causes most US shooting sprees.

Guns don't kill people - stupid, medicated people kill people.
Advocate
 
  1  
Thu 12 Mar, 2009 10:47 am
@H2O MAN,
Switzerland may be the exception that proved the rule. The country is different inasmuch the people of very well educated and there is virtually no poverty. This may account for the low gun violence.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 03:26:06