U.S. gun website sued for alleged tie...

U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings

There are 164 comments on the Reuters story from Dec 12, 2012, titled U.S. gun website sued for alleged ties to slayings. In it, Reuters reports that:

A prominent U.S. gun control group on Wednesday sued a gun auction website it says is linked to a mass shooting at a Wisconsin spa in October and the stalker slaying of a woman near Chicago in 2011.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Reuters.

Marauder

Valdez, AK

#154 Dec 25, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What is modern language for "a well regulated militia"?
As I have stated previously; "well-regulated" in reference to the militia, is the militia being trained in military weapons, equipment and tactics. Those things required of a militia to be effective.

The USSC stated this;

From DC vs Heller;

"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”:“To adjust by rule ormethod”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#155 Dec 25, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
If current definitions weren't used then the 2nd amendment would not cover the use of assault weapons because assault type weapons weren't around in 1789.
The constitution has to be considered a living document in order to be applied to current conditions.
The conservatives speak against this line of thinking and yet they use it to justify the fact that assault weapons are covered under the supreme law of the land.
"If current definitions weren't used then the 2nd amendment would not cover the use of assault weapons because assault type weapons weren't around in 1789."

Not correct.

DC vs Heller;

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

YOU "The conservatives speak against this line of thinking and yet they use it to justify the fact that assault weapons are covered under the supreme law of the land."

Although this argument has not been before the court, they have addressed the "type" of arms protected by the 2nd Amendment;

"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."

Are "assault weapons" not those "used by the militia"...?..."in common use"...and used by the majority of owners "for lawful purposes"...?

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#156 Dec 25, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have stated previously; "well-regulated" in reference to the militia, is the militia being trained in military weapons, equipment and tactics. Those things required of a militia to be effective.
The USSC stated this;
From DC vs Heller;
"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”:“To adjust by rule ormethod”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Then you agree that the second amendment does not grant gun ownership rights to unsupervised individuals, and that "the People", refers to the people collectively.

I'm not sure what you are saying about "well regulated militia". To me the phrase implies some sort of oversight of the "body" of the people bearing arms, and not a bunch of unsupervised individuals running around brandishing firearms.
TexasTea

Mansfield, TX

#157 Dec 25, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Then you agree that the second amendment does not grant gun ownership rights to unsupervised individuals, and that "the People", refers to the people collectively.
I'm not sure what you are saying about "well regulated militia". To me the phrase implies some sort of oversight of the "body" of the people bearing arms, and not a bunch of unsupervised individuals running around brandishing firearms.
A form of "well regulated militia" can be observed by looking at the history of the Texas Rangers. They did not begin as law enforcement officers-they began as civilian posses to fill the gaps in Texas where there was no law enforcement, or no military, protection. On many occasions they would form up, go do their work, then come back home and go about their routine business.

This "filling in the gap" is why there is a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. The objective is for citizens to legally own firearms and have them at their disposal should a national emergency occur. And not all national emergencies would involve invasion by a foreign country. Hurricane Katrina is a good example-the reason being the emergency responding resources were so over extended surviving citizens had to provide for their own protection of life and property.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#158 Dec 25, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Then you agree that the second amendment does not grant gun ownership rights to unsupervised individuals, and that "the People", refers to the people collectively.
I'm not sure what you are saying about "well regulated militia". To me the phrase implies some sort of oversight of the "body" of the people bearing arms, and not a bunch of unsupervised individuals running around brandishing firearms.
"Then you agree that the second amendment does not grant gun ownership rights to unsupervised individuals, and that "the People", refers to the people collectively."

No I don't...never said or implied that, so don't try and put words in my mouth.

"Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes..."

“Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body."

The free exercise of individual rights does not require any "supervision" by the gov't or others that may disagree with that.

"I'm not sure what you are saying about "well regulated militia". To me the phrase implies some sort of oversight of the "body" of the people bearing arms, and not a bunch of unsupervised individuals running around brandishing firearms."

Well I'm not surprised, even after giving you the meaning...but fortunately, myself and the USSC do not agree with your "opinion"
and have "Held" so in their court case.

Since: Apr 11

Milwaukee, WI

#159 Dec 25, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>

YOU "The conservatives speak against this line of thinking and yet they use it to justify the fact that assault weapons are covered under the supreme law of the land."
Although this argument has not been before the court, they have addressed the "type" of arms protected by the 2nd Amendment;
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes."
Are "assault weapons" not those "used by the militia"...?..."in common use"...and used by the majority of owners "for lawful purposes"...?
U.S. v miller was a rather confusing case.

Both sides claimed victory.

The court took the case and remanded it back to the lower court for further review but not before PARTIALLY making an opinion on a case that they claimed they did not have enough information to make a ruling on the main issue.

Justice Mcreynolds stated:"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."

This leaves the impression that the court never determined whether or not the weapon in question was used by the military.

This is a strange case and there are many legal scholars that don't lend much weight to the opinion of it.

Since: Apr 11

Milwaukee, WI

#160 Dec 25, 2012
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>

Are "assault weapons" not those "used by the militia"...?..."in common use"...and used by the majority of owners "for lawful purposes"...?
I must also add that in response to the above comment that in DC V heller,the court left the door open to scrutinize the definition of what constitutes a "dangerous and unusual weapon".

Quote from wiki:"(2)...Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

With this line, would it not be an easy thing to say that the fed gov could rule,for example,that assault weapons fall under the courts definition of a what a "dangerous and unusual weapon" is?

So,as to fend off an attack by those who would uses this line to "disarm" the law-abiding citizen, what is the definition of a "dangerous and unusual weapon"???
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

#161 Dec 26, 2012
What part of, "Shall not be infringed" do the simple mined not unerstand?
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

#162 Dec 26, 2012
Corection: minded, not mined
What

Santa Fe, NM

#163 Dec 26, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
What part of, "Shall not be infringed" do the simple mined not unerstand?
part of "well-regulated militia" do you simple minded boneheads not understand.
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

#164 Dec 26, 2012
Well regulated militia are the civilians in the founders words. We are the militia. We have to protect the simple minded. Some of them are not worthy.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#165 Dec 26, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
U.S. v miller was a rather confusing case.
Both sides claimed victory.
The court took the case and remanded it back to the lower court for further review but not before PARTIALLY making an opinion on a case that they claimed they did not have enough information to make a ruling on the main issue.
Justice Mcreynolds stated:"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."
This leaves the impression that the court never determined whether or not the weapon in question was used by the military.
This is a strange case and there are many legal scholars that don't lend much weight to the opinion of it.
"This leaves the impression that the court never determined whether or not the weapon in question was used by the military."

That is absolutly correct. Miller had died before the case went to the Supreme Court and his attorney never showed up for the case. Without any evidence being presented by the defense, the court had no other recourse.

But then this case was about a sawed off shotgun...or short barreled shotgun...many of which are today used within the military and LE. Having barrels of less than 18" however does not put them in the "common use" category.

The "assault weapons" of today would be another matter altogether as they ARE the weapons in "common use" within the military/militia.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#166 Dec 26, 2012
cnw95 wrote:
<quoted text>
I must also add that in response to the above comment that in DC V heller,the court left the door open to scrutinize the definition of what constitutes a "dangerous and unusual weapon".
Quote from wiki:"(2)...Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
With this line, would it not be an easy thing to say that the fed gov could rule,for example,that assault weapons fall under the courts definition of a what a "dangerous and unusual weapon" is?
So,as to fend off an attack by those who would uses this line to "disarm" the law-abiding citizen, what is the definition of a "dangerous and unusual weapon"???
"With this line, would it not be an easy thing to say that the fed gov could rule,for example,that assault weapons fall under the courts definition of a what a "dangerous and unusual weapon" is?"

Yes, they very well could attempt to do that...putting them in the same category as fully automatic firearms as that is how they are classified. Still legal to own and shoot, as long as you have the proper paperwork and pay the "tax".

The challenge would be to get them classified in that manner.

"So, as to fend off an attack by those who would uses this line to "disarm" the law-abiding citizen,..."

It would NOT fend off an attack of that nature at all because semi-automatic firearms exist in other configurations as well. Would it be fair to say your concern is more with the number of rounds being fired before being required to reload...? In that case you're not talking about an "assault weapon" ban, but a magazine limitation.

Semi-automatic firearms are used for hunting...and that does include "assault weapon" style arms in some jurisdictions. Hunting regulations put limitations on the number of rounds a weapon can carry for legal hunting purposes. So to say "assault weapons" are not used for hunting purposes is not correct...they are.
Marauder

Valdez, AK

#167 Dec 26, 2012
What wrote:
<quoted text>
part of "well-regulated militia" do you simple minded boneheads not understand.
Understand it very well...it was addressed in DC vs Heller. What part of it don't YOU understand...?
Cat74

Carpentersville, IL

#168 Dec 26, 2012
The President lost the gun control fight the minute he appointed Biden to the Commission to design the legislation. He has no intention of disarming the killing fields in chicago. 13 wounded, one dead Christmas Eve.

“O'er the land of the free ? ”

Since: Jan 09

Don't Tread On Me

#169 Dec 27, 2012
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What is modern language for "a well regulated militia"?
Forget modern language and define "well regulated" in the day and time it was written.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#170 Dec 27, 2012
Where Is My America wrote:
<quoted text>Forget modern language and define "well regulated" in the day and time it was written.
I've tried, but the meaning of "well regulated" stubbornly seems unchanged.
Cat74

Mchenry, IL

#171 Dec 27, 2012
The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to own guns no matter what hitlerites think, and it makes me happy to know they are concerned. Maybe Obama should spend more time helping Rahm clean up their jungle in Chicago

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#172 Dec 27, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
The Supreme Court ruled the 2nd amendment guarantees my right to own guns no matter what hitlerites think, and it makes me happy to know they are concerned. Maybe Obama should spend more time helping Rahm clean up their jungle in Chicago
Your right to own guns is tempered by certain conditions, one of which is that the owner have higher brain function. I'm not sure you qualify.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#173 Dec 27, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
Well regulated militia are the civilians in the founders words. We are the militia. We have to protect the simple minded. Some of them are not worthy.
Pure nonsense.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Milwaukee Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Congress votes today to have Obama exorcised 1 hr Speraknone 15
Review: Compassionate Care Clinic 1 hr Vested 4
Murder Rates Rising Sharply in Milwaukee in Ste... 1 hr Whah 5
Shut Sheriff David Clarke Up !! Thu Todd 9
Sex store (Dec '14) Aug 31 Catseye 14
Brown Deer Music Selection (Aug '12) Aug 28 Musikologist 16
News New Crowdfunding Campaign Says Polar Bears are ... Aug 26 IB DaMann 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Milwaukee Mortgages