And I say you would be wrong. The AR15 is not protected by the 2nd, nor is the M16.I would say the AR15 is exactly the type weapon they are talking about..."in common use at the time"...and the exact weapon you would want to have show up in the militia...and that would include the high capacity magazines.
During a newsroom discussion about guns about a decade ago, a woman piped up: "I don't understand what the big deal is.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ruidoso News.
#721 Mar 4, 2013
#722 Mar 4, 2013
No argument there. It protects the right to "use the weapon within the home" but not the right of self defense.But I might be splitting hairs. I'm no lawyer so I'm on veery unsteady ground.
Same answer as above.
I do know in Heller, Scalia recognized "... concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment [2nd] or ...".(Page 2 2.)So I would assume a law that says CC is only allowed if the gun is not loaded would not be unconst. under the 2nd.
#723 Mar 4, 2013
This is what I was referring to.
"The ruling in Heller represented a radical departure from the Court’s previous interpretation of the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court stated, in a unanimous decision, that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of” the state militia. In reliance on Miller, hundreds of lower federal and state appellate courts had rejected Second Amendment challenges to our nation’s gun laws over the last seven decades, making Heller‘s reversal of this interpretation a watershed moment in Second Amendment law."
#724 Mar 4, 2013
See...?...It wasn't silly when I told you it would be futile to argue Constitutionality of a law with you. Even after you said;
"Now that's a silly thing to say. Of course I accept the 2nd, not as it is written, but as it is interpreted by the courts, in order of succession. I don't interpret any const. amendments. Not my job."
You said, YOU don't accept the 2nd Amendment as it was written...YOU don't accept the court's interpretation (even thou you say you do)...and that YOU don't even interpret ANY Constitutional Amendment...so I guess you just rely on the Gov't to tell you what your rights are..if any at all.
#725 Mar 4, 2013
List of Feinstein's proposed ban:
Rifles: All AK types, including the following: AK, AK47, AK47S, AK–74, AKM, AKS, ARM, MAK90, MISR, NHM90, NHM91, Rock River Arms LAR–47, SA85, SA93, Vector Arms AK–47, VEPR, WASR–10, and WUM, IZHMASH Saiga AK, MAADI AK47 and ARM, Norinco 56S, 56S2, 84S, and 86S, Poly Technologies AK47 and AKS; All AR types, including the following: AR–10, AR–15, Armalite M15 22LR Carbine, Armalite M15–T, Barrett REC7, Beretta AR–70, Bushmaster ACR, Bushmaster Carbon 15, Bushmaster MOE series, Bushmaster XM15, Colt Match Target Rifles, DoubleStar AR rifles, DPMS Tactical Rifles, Heckler & Koch MR556, Olympic Arms, Remington R–15 rifles, Rock River Arms LAR–15, Sig Sauer SIG516 rifles, Smith & Wesson M&P15 Rifles, Stag Arms AR rifles, Sturm, Ruger & Co. SR556 rifles; Barrett M107A1; Barrett M82A1; Beretta CX4 Storm; Calico Liberty Series; CETME Sporter; Daewoo K–1, K–2, Max 1, Max 2, AR 100, and AR 110C; Fabrique Nationale/FN Herstal FAL, LAR, 22 FNC, 308 Match, L1A1 Sporter, PS90, SCAR, and FS2000; Feather Industries AT–9; Galil Model AR and Model ARM; Hi-Point Carbine; HK–91, HK–93, HK–94, HK–PSG–1 and HK USC; Kel-Tec Sub–2000, SU–16, and RFB; SIG AMT, SIG PE–57, Sig Sauer SG 550, and Sig Sauer SG 551; Springfield Armory SAR–48; Steyr AUG; Sturm, Ruger Mini-14 Tactical Rife M–14/20CF; All Thompson rifles, including the following: Thompson M1SB, Thompson T1100D, Thompson T150D, Thompson T1B, Thompson T1B100D, Thompson T1B50D, Thompson T1BSB, Thompson T1–C, Thompson T1D, Thompson T1SB, Thompson T5, Thompson T5100D, Thompson TM1, Thompson TM1C; UMAREX UZI Rifle; UZI Mini Carbine, UZI Model A Carbine, and UZI Model B Carbine; Valmet M62S, M71S, and M78; Vector Arms UZI Type; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson Arms Linda Carbine.
#726 Mar 4, 2013
Of course I rely on the Gov. to tell me the law. Don't you? How do you go about finding out the laws that are enforce? Or do you care in AK?
Who is "the gov. anyway?
Is the SC part of the gov to you? Is it the final say- to you- regarding the constitutionality of a law or is it you?
I must be doing something right; I've never been arrested or even ticketed. I am very proud to say.
#727 Mar 4, 2013
What is your source, as initially you stated it was Scalia as below;
"This is what Scalia was referring to when he brought up the M16 example. He is saying that just because it is the weapon that is used in the military today, it doesn't mean it's protected by the 2nd.
Again, what he is saying is that Miller got it wrong."
Here is what the court did say about Miller;
"The Government’s brief spent two pages discussing English legal sources, concluding “that at least the carrying of weapons without lawful occasion or excuse was always a crime” and that (because of the class-based restrictions and the prohibition on terrorizing people with dangerous or unusual weapons)“the early English law did not guarantee an unrestricted right to bear arms.” Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 9–11. It then went on to rely primarily on the discussion of the English right to bear arms in Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, for the proposition that the only uses of arms protected by the Second Amendment are those that relate to the militia, not self-defense. See Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 12–18. The final section of the brief recognized that “some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property,” and launched an alternative argument that “weapons which are commonly used by criminals,” such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected. See id., at 18–21. The Government’s Miller brief thus provided scant discussion of the history of the Second Amendment—and the Court was presented with no counter discussion. As for the text of the Court’s opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment. It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307
U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews some historical materials dealing with the nature of the militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their members were expected to possess, id., at 178–182. Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case.24"
"24As for the “hundreds of judges,” post, at 2, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller: If so, they overread Miller. And their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown)upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. In any event, it should not be thought that the cases decided by these judges would necessarily have come out differently under a proper interpretation of the right."
#728 Mar 4, 2013
What is the purpose for CC...?
"So I would assume a law that says CC is only allowed if the gun is not loaded would not be unconst. under the 2nd."
Why would you assume that...? Your Right to "bear arms" is being infringed according to the following from Heller;
"JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is,
as the Constitution’s Second Amendment ... indicate[s]:‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’"
If you are doing CC...then to serve your purpose, I would expect to be "ready" for confrontation...wouldn't you...? What would being "ready" mean to you...? To me, that means your weapon is loaded and YOU are "ready" for offensive or defensive action in case of confrontation.
#729 Mar 4, 2013
Well with that type of attitude, there would be no challenges to the Constitutionality of ANY laws the gov't passes. You would just roll over and accept anything they tell you.
The point is for YOU to read AND comprehend what rights you do have...then you can weigh the laws against your rights.
"I must be doing something right; I've never been arrested or even ticketed. I am very proud to say."
Well of course when you don't rock the boat...comply with everything the gov't tells you...and never questions anything. You're falling into that slave role very well.
#730 Mar 4, 2013
Oops, I mis-read your post. I read "law" and you wrote "rights".
Sort of the same issue tho. I know the Bill Of Rights guarantees all US citizens a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserves some powers to the states and the public. I only attempt to interpret these rights in a general sense. When it comes to a specific or legal sense, I leave that up to to our system of courts.(Like Scalia said in Heller "Like most rights,...is not unlimited". And I don't get to decide what those limits are. Courts do.)
Normally, when a law is passed-fed.,st,local, I generally don't even know it unless and until it impacts me.
#731 Mar 4, 2013
Wow, even .22 rimfires(Armalite M15 22LR Carbine). Next she will be trying to ban slingshots. Too bad for her all that effort is for naught. There is no way the ban will pass.
Feinstein's Assault weapon Ban
The Senate arithmetic is in the Republicans' favour. The Democrats do not have the 60 votes needed to overturn a Republican filibuster. Republicans have already delayed progress on the bill by a week and will delay it further.
The hearing is a chance for opponents of assault weapons in civilian hands to voice their case. But for all the emotion displayed in the committee, the reality is that this bill has no chance. The Senate is holding this hearing not to help frame legislation but primarily as a courtesy to Feinstein.
#732 Mar 4, 2013
What do you say about these comments by Scalia?
-If so, they overread Miller
-their erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case [ie Miller]
-cannot nullify the reliance of millions of Americans (as our historical analysis has shown)upon the true meaning of the right to keep and bear arms [Scalia's meaning not "the “hundreds of judges, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller"].
Sounds to me like Scalia is saying Miller got it wrong or at least the interpretation of Miller was wrong for many years.
#733 Mar 4, 2013
So you wouldn't mind taking a .22LR in the face. WOW!
Thanks for your concern. But at least she's trying.
I see. But the "ban" is only part of the bill.
Even so, the bill probably,won't even make it to the floor in the Senate and for sure, as long as the Reps control the House, it will never make it to the floor. 2014 could change that and the look in the Senate as well.
But why, I wonder wasn't the M16 on Feinstein's list?
#734 Mar 4, 2013
Did you pick this up from your link?
"The original federal assault weapons ban was challenged repeatedly in federal court," Feinstein says. "Each and every time, these challenges were rejected, and the ban was upheld."
#735 Mar 4, 2013
Obeying a law doesn't mean not challenging the law.
And what if in your opinion the law goes against your rights. What do you do?
So far, it's not been a problem since I have never felt like a slave. If a law becomes a problem to me, I'll ask you for advice, I'm sure. I assume you're a lawyer. Cause that's what lawyers are for, aren't they?
But it sounds to me like you're trying to tell people to violate the laws they don't like. Surely you don't mean to do that. Do you?
#736 Mar 4, 2013
"Oops, I mis-read your post. I read "law" and you wrote "rights".
"I know the Bill Of Rights guarantees all US citizens a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserves some powers to the states and the public. I only attempt to interpret these rights in a general sense."
So how do you balance this with your comment;
"...I accept the 2nd, not as it is written..."...?...is that because you read the 2nd Amendment as the restriction that it is on the Federal and now State and local gov'ts..."shall not be infringed"...?
Do you have some difficulty in stating the Bill of Rights protects the "RIGHTS" of the people...? I found it interesting that you said it "guarantees...a number of personal freedoms, limits the government's power, and reserves some powers to the states and the public." No mention of "RIGHTS" at all on your part...why is that...?
You do realize that the Bill of Rights covers more people than just "US citizens"...?
#737 Mar 4, 2013
That portion numbered "24" is the footnote under the portion above it in my other post. It is the explanation for their decision regarding the Miller decision.
"Sounds to me like Scalia is saying Miller got it wrong or at least the interpretation of Miller was wrong for many years."
He's NOT saying it was wrong...it was a limited case for a specific purpose and NOT a full examination of the 2nd Amendment. He is saying that it was as you stated above...overread...erroneous reliance upon an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case
"[Scalia's meaning not "the “hundreds of judges, who have relied on the view of the Second Amendment JUSTICE STEVENS claims we endorsed in Miller"]."
WRONG...it was the majorities meaning...and it refutes the position of the “Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence”...a biased, anti-gun organization.
#738 Mar 4, 2013
Why don' you just tell me what you're driving at instead of this gaming?
#739 Mar 4, 2013
"But why, I wonder wasn't the M16 on Feinstein's list?"
Really...you're asking that question...?
The same reason the M14 isn't on that list.
#740 Mar 4, 2013
"If a law becomes a problem to me, I'll ask you for advice, I'm sure. I assume you're a lawyer. Cause that's what lawyers are for, aren't they?"
Sure...no problem...you can put me on speed dial.
"But it sounds to me like you're trying to tell people to violate the laws they don't like. Surely you don't mean to do that. Do you?"
Wow...really...maybe I need to be more careful in the words I choose...but please show me...where did I say or infer anything of that nature...?
But then again, maybe it's just you...after all you did read "LAWS" when I actually wrote "RIGHTS"...hhhmmmmm.
Add your comments below
|Martinez prefers to stick to issues (Jun '10)||6 hr||Raymond||6,482|
|Barack Obama COUNTDOWN Clock 1000 days left & c... (Apr '14)||Oct 6||Tuesday||504|
|Farmington Racism-Part One (Dec '11)||Sep 28||XandO||123|
|bandalaros mc (Jun '12)||Sep 26||XandO||63|
|BLM dropping herbicide to thin sagebrush||Sep 23||Horace||2|
|Random Acts of Kindness (Jun '09)||Sep 23||CommUnique||4,940|
|Decades later, Vietnam veteran Bob Bass given m...||Sep 20||Pro scout||2|
Find what you want!
Search Farmington Forum Now
Copyright © 2015 Topix LLC