USSC rules on 2nd amendment

Dumbass pinko-nazi-neoconservative-hippy-capitalists.
Trollbait

Re: USSC rules on 2nd amendment

Post by Trollbait »

I wonder if that means I can own a shoulder-fired stinger missle system, for protection. Or an M1-Abrams tank (wouldn't that be cool). If Scalia's position is that US citizens have an unqualified right to own any weapon, absent a compelling state interest to limit the right, then the burden of proof will always on the state if they want to limit, in any way, the right of a citizen to bear arms.

Obvioulsy, it would seem rather easy for the state to show a compelling interest in limiting the sale of stinger missles and tanks. I just tossed that out as a crazy circumstance. Neither are all that effective for self-protection (unles you sleep in the tank), and no one wants some chuckle-head to start popping stingers at the odd airliner.

But what about fully automatic weapons? I can see a use for those. If you find yourself on the receiving end of a home invasion, 9 rounds may not be enough. But 50 or 60 might, especially if you're scared and need to "spray to slay", becuase you can't aim accurately.
OMFG please please please read the opinion. Then you would likely stop asking these questions.....
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary
military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful
purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second
Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced
in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

That accords with the historical understanding of the
scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
The majority opinion makes it perfectly clear that there already exists a compelling interest to ban certain types of weapons as Miller indicates. There is another part that I cannot locate at the moment which reiterates this point.
Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: USSC rules on 2nd amendment

Post by Embar Angylwrath »

That part of the opinion is kind of gaming the system, isn't it? If the USSC is saying that the guidance on what arms are allowable and what aren't comes from those weapons commonly available, it is assuming that the weapons commonly available today are the same ones that would have been commonly available had not there been years of un-Constitutional restrictions on the rights of gun-owners (and I think this is part of the circular argument Dd was alluding to).

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of broadening gun ownership rights. I just don't think the opinion was well thought out.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius
Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: USSC rules on 2nd amendment

Post by Partha »

See, some of you are still wedded to that 'strict constructionist' or 'Originalist' rhetoric. There's no such thing, and especially not in the case of Scalia. There is only the shifting viewpoint of how they're going to interpret it today. Which was my roundabout point with naming Schenck, but Jecks missed it because I wasn't clear enough.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
Trollbait

Re: USSC rules on 2nd amendment

Post by Trollbait »

Which was my roundabout point with naming Schenck, but Jecks missed it because I wasn't clear enough.
You were clear enough. You were just retarded for citing a case that has since been overturned.
Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17516
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: USSC rules on 2nd amendment

Post by Ddrak »

Embar Angylwrath wrote:(and I think this is part of the circular argument Dd was alluding to).
Yep - that's exactly it.

Edit: I figured it would end up with the state having to show a compelling interest to restrict ownership. That made some sense to me.

Dd
Image
User avatar
Garrdor
Damnit Jim!
Posts: 2951
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2002 9:02 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: USSC rules on 2nd amendment

Post by Garrdor »

Cowboys for jesus! GG human race.
Image
Didn't your mama ever tell you not to tango with a carrot?
Post Reply