Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) talked to PBS's Judy Woodruff the other day, and when asked about a proposed assault weapons ban, the senator suggested the bill and related efforts are unconstitutional (thanks to James Carter for the tip).
There's certainly ample room for debate when it comes to the Second Amendment and various efforts to stem the tide of gun violence, but from time to time, it's worth noting that dismissing every proposal as necessarily unconstitutional is a mistake,
Back in 2008, in a case called District of Columbia v. Heller, a narrow Supreme Court majority answered a question that had lingered for a long while: does the Second Amendment protect an individual's right to "keep and bear arms," or is it a collective right belonging to well-regulated militias?
Five conservative justices, going even further than the Bush administration's lawyers had expected, sided with the former, striking down DC's ban on handgun ownership. So, does that effectively rule out post-Newtown restrictions? Actually, no. As Adam Liptak recently explained, there's quite a bit of policy work that can be done between the status quo and the Heller ruling's limits.
Despite the sweeping language of a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the District of Columbia's strict gun-control law, the decision appears perfectly consistent with many of the policy options being discussed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn. [...]
The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Looking ahead, Democratic policymakers seem to be focusing on banning high-capacity clips, improved background checks, and improved inter-agency information sharing related to gun crimes. Republicans may not like these ideas, there's nothing in the Supreme Court precedent that suggests such steps would be unconstitutional. Just the opposite is true.
Indeed, even in his Heller ruling, Antonin Scalia endorsed "longstanding prohibitions" on firearm ownership from felons and the mentally ill, guns in government buildings, limits on the commercial sale of guns, and bans on "dangerous and unusual weapons," including "M-16 rifles and the like."
Cruz should understand this -- as Carter reminds us, the senator "was the Council of Record for an Amicus Brief filed in the Heller case by Texas and other states."
As is always the case, it's hard to draw definitive lines until the justices actually hear a given case, but opponents of new restrictions won't necessarily be able to rely on Supreme Court cases to knock down every proposal that arises in the coming months.
Leave a Comment:
Hey Americans - when are you going to start putting people into office that have actually read the Constitution for understand?!? No, really, the tea-bag know nothings are really embarrassing in their ignorance! And while you're at it, how about you all read the Constitution for yourselves~
The 2nd Amendment does not say ANY gun ANY time ANY place. The tired old argument that the NRA folks have used to brainwash their members repeatedly to "Hitler taking the guns away from the citizens." The United States has a different government and a different Constitution than Hitler's Germany. Our freedom comes from the democratic process our Constitution defines, complete with checks and balances that were not present in the German Constitution of the 1920s and 30s.
The Second Amendment does not guarantee that you can have ANY firearm that you want and, in fact, almost no one believes that citizens should be allowed to own machine guns, surface to air artillery or a number of other types of weapons. Most of the country now believes that assault weapons also do not belong in the hands of the general population .... and for good reason. Those assault weapons are very much like those banned machine guns in their ability to shoot a very large number of very damaging bullets in a very short amount of time.
Limits that define the responsibilities of gun ownership and the types of legal firearms are up to the people to decide through their elected representatives. That is not tyranny, even though the NRA says it is; that is democracy.
When will Republicans learn the meaning of the words, "well regulated"?
As far as THEY are concerned, those two words are unconstitutional... and mutually exclusive...
Have you noticed that the gun rights people consistently refer to the government as "they"? Any controls on gun rights are accomplished through democratic processes. Maybe the great challenge is to get the NRA and the rest of the gun crowd to understand that democracy is all about "we."
He's a Texican, why be surprised he's a moron who was born with his head up his ass?
The 2nd amendment doesn't say you have the right to own firearms. It seems to me that if you are issued one, then you would have been given the right to keep and bear it.
It just seems to me that the original thought was about people being in a group and the supreme court changed the meaning to an individual.
The 2nd amendment is an anachronism.
As soon as NY chicago and los angeles allow will issue permits for handguns as per the heller decision (no felonies, no domestic violence per federal law) maybe then the people who represent those already heavily restricted gun rights states can set policy for the other 30-42 states that respect the constitution
@Alex123-7193051
The DC v Heller decision was a bastardization of the constitution and completely failed to respect it in the most basic way. Reading "well regulated militia" as "individual" shows a fundamental lack of reading comprehension and anyone who reads it that way should be laughed out of any decision making and allow the literate part of this nation to continue having discussions like adults.
well-regulated
Definitions
adjective
controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations, tradition
mi·li·tia [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA
noun
1.
a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2.
a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3.
all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4.
a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government
From the terming well regulated #4 of militia would have to be stricken, because any regulation would be government regulation, therefor the entire reason the founding fathers allowed the concept of guns would be national defense against an outside attacker or criminal organization. That's it. It says exactly nothing about an individual to possess a weapon. Removing those three words from the sentence is changing the amendment entirely therefor nullifying it if it isn't done with a proper amendment revision process.
Just because some extremist judges paid off by the NRA claim it to read one way doesn't make it true, they should have been removed from the bench for the assault of the constitution those 5 have done for their entire career.
what do you understand about" the rights of the people"
To me there is an interesting inconsistency in the Heller case. Scalia dissected the amendment grammatically and determined that the "keep and bear" arms language is effectively unrelated to the well regulated Militia. If we accept that, then what is the purpose of the Amendment. If, as most argue the purpose is to protect us from government overreach then couldn't a reasonable argument be made the handguns should be banned and M-16's permitted (as it's much more likely to protect us from the government overreach should a war be fought.). If we say the purpose is anything else then what is the point of the first sentence of the Amendment (is it just color commentary).
Can someone tell me why guns are not treated like automobiles? Why I don't have to have a license for which I must pass a test and proof of insurance? That would seem logical and right to me, but I don't see that being mentioned anywhere.
I would have to read Heller again, but Heller does stand for the proposition that the government can put reasonable restrictions on the ownership of guns. It just can't ban them entirely and any restrictions must meet general constitutional requirements. In short, if you want to take your glock out of the house, the state could require you to have a license. I know the government requires me to have a license if I want to hunt deer or turkey, or other wildlife. I also know that if I want to carry concealed I have to pass a test and obtain a license from the state. But those are state requirements.
You don't need a license or insurance or registration to have a car sitting in your driveway - You need those things to put your car on the road. The current situation with guns is similar - You don't need a license to buy one, but you do need a license to hunt.
This reinforces the idea that "hunting" type weapons might continue to be regulated in this way, but weapons that are capable of causing more damage more quickly should be considered separately - More like grenades, machine guns and rocket launchers - Limited, highly regulated access only.
Good points, all three of the above.
I'll just add something I have not heard directly addressed: ALL firearms manufactured in the USA have a serial number applied at the factory, and that number is recorded; the manufacturer knows WHERE that gun goes when it leaves the factory.
And that information could go a long ways towards "gun control." (Without abridging any "rights".)
I just read an op ed by Don Perata, erstwhile state senator in California, who said he had to take out and maintain for the duration of his ownership, a one million dollar liability insurance policy on that gun. This should be absolutely mandatory for all gun owners. They have a very dangerous instrument in their hands and they should be liable for any damages it causes. Period.
Good point, jjm. I was turned down by a prospective landlord because I own a pit bull mix and the landlord's insurance company wouldn't allow him to rent to me. Period.
Now, I'm not sure why my well-behaved and friendly dog presents a grave danger more fearsome than a gun. And that gun can be purchased by anyone who has no discernible restrictions (felony conviction, adjudicated mental illness, etc.) but also may not have any sort of training in how to store, maintain or use it. I agree that anyone who wants to own a gun ought to have to register it and declare it on his homeowners insurance.
But I would go further and say that, in the unfortunate instance where the gun is used in a crime, the gun's owner should be held partly responsible. After all, he should be keeping the gun properly stored and under his control, and the law should provide real penalties for not doing so. As with drunk driving, there would be the option for a hearing, and then if there were mitigating circumstances, they could be presented and the owner found innocent.
One thing to add to largenose in 3.1: Although you don't need to register a vehicle that's in your driveway, you do need to declare it to the DMV as non-operational. And that would not be the case with a gun. Whether you use it just in your house to protect against home invasion or take it outdoors for target practice, it's still operational. Unless, of course, you dismantle it and put it away somewhere. Then it could be like the car in your driveway--PNO, or Planned Non-Operational.
I've wondered about this myself. I'm no lawyer, but my understanding of the Heller decision, was that it said that just about any gun control legislation was unconstitutional. No matter where you stand on this issue, any new laws will have to be reconciled with the courts.
I think that's probably why any changes is going to have to be made at the state level for anything to work. I most certainly want to expand background checks and prevent the mentally ill from getting their hands on guns, but do it in a way that doesn't harm or demonize the mentally ill or strips them of their privacy.
How we do this is beyond me.
No Alva, the Heller decision says that we have a right to keep a handgun in our homes for protection. It then goes on to state in Section III:
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. …nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Here's a better link to the text of the Heller text:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Not even remotely close.
Not a lawyer indeed. What the decision actually says is that you can not ban ownership because that's nullified by the 2nd amendment but the ability of local authorities to regulate the sale and carrying of such weapons is not challenged. This is indeed by common sense and a little history a well established point.
The assault weapons ban? How did that happen?
What about these various concealed carry laws, they vary state to state. How is that happening?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/
Haddie, make sure and pay attention to pages 54-56 and Scalia's statement that blanket bans would be unconstitutional. The laws that can be passed would be things like carry laws.
And Cynical, the so called AWB didn't ban any weapon. It banned features. AKs and AR were built and sold that met those regultions, but they were still AR and AKs. A ban time AR could have a pistol grip and retractable stock, but not threaded barrel. Or fixed stock and threaded barrel. As long as it didn't meet 3 or more of the criteria it was good.
In case any have never seen this (like myself and I'm astonished) here's a youtube video of a man shooting a glock handgun with a 100 round clip. Look fast because it takes about ten seconds. If you want a double take you'll need to refresh the page.
That Glock has a full auto conversion. Here is the thing that amazes me. A full auto Glock is legal. However, to get one, you have to pay something like $500 just in taxes alone, sign a ton of paperwork, and I believe receive regular visits from the ATF. These regulations are enough to keep most people from ever purchasing them. A few ranges and related businesses will purchase them, but that's about it.
Technically, full auto is practically useless. The faster a gun fires, the less control you have. It makes it harder to hit your target, and is an incredible waste of ammo when ammo is getting quite expensive.
Alva: You posted baloney. The gun in the video is a Glock 18, which is not and has never been available in the USA. The ATF has not even had a Director in six years, let alone agents that make house calls.
Lebowsky, not a Glock expert. I'm not a fan of polymer guns with sticky triggers. As to your later point, review the requirements just to buy a suppressor.
Ted Cruz - another Republican weasel.
Do they have a cloning machine?
The only crime defined in the Constitution is treason and it specifically defines that as taking up arms against the government. That pretty much disproves the idea that the purpose of the 2nd ammendment and the right to bear arms was to protect against tyranny. There are plenty of protections in the Constitution to prevent tyranny including the separation of powers and the right to vote. This has been tested many times including the civil war, and the U.S. always wins - most militants are killed or imprisoned and branded as domestic terrorists. The armed forces are not afraid of our puny weapons and our right to bear arms is not protecting us against someone seizing power to instill a tyrannical dictatorship - that is pure fantasy - made for Hollywood stuff. Personally, I'll be on the side of the U.S.A. if someone decides to take up arms against the country.
Thank for bring this up! It is a VERY important point.
Here is what the U.S. Constitution has to say about this in Section I article 8: "The Congress shall have Power...To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections." Square that with "2nd Amendment remedies." The U.S. Government wins because the Constitution gives it the authority and, more importantly, the power (as in force) to do so.
Besides, the whole Constitution was set up so the new government could NOT be tyrannical. Doing this was the whole point of the Revolution!!
The words above reflect the confidence they had in the checks and balances they crafted to prevent tyranny. They obviously didn't want some other government from without (I left out "...and invasions" from the above) or within to mess up what they fought and worked to hard to achieve. In other words this clause clearly means they wanted the government to have the power to protect itself from anyone. That includes those thinking the 2nd Amendment bestows some "right" to "protect" themselves from the Government. That's called insurrection, not protection.
oops. Bring = bringing
Well that's a matter of opinion. I would say the second amendment is very much for protection both public ad private including against tyrannical government. The founders were not so arogant as to think that the system they were creating would be impervious to corruption. It is about checks and balaces if the idea is that if the government knows the citizens can fight back they will not so easily be able to attack their basic rights. Remember the founders had just launched an armed rebellion from a gov't gone bad.
Now of course today if you think you can take on the government, good luck buddy. "Oh it's an abrams tank I'll go get my pistol and I will fight them"......yeah not gonna happen......you'd have to be one dumb SOB to think if such a broken mirror orwellian scenario was to take place that you'd have a chance in hell of succeeding.
I do think it was part of the original intent but that it's an anachronistic concept at this point. The people talking about armed rebellion now are talking or advocating for insurrection and terrorism.
If there was ever a real tyrannical government murdering its own people like Syria or Nazi Germany than people should fight back but ayone who thinks we've ever come anywhere close to that in this nation after slavery and especially civil rights movement is bat-crap crazy and stupid.
No constitutional right is so absolute that no government regulation can be passed (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater scenario). It is a waste of bandwidth, space and time arguing with idiots like Cruz. He knows less about the constitution than a 4th grader. In fact, most of the idiots in the Tea Party don't have a clue about the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War, other than what other people in the right wing bubble tell them or they believe. Most have never read the documents and/or history and even if they did, they do not comprehend anything beyond their own beliefs.
This "individual" right to own an "arm" as applied to guns will last only as long as there is a conservative Supreme Court.
"The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns."
Felons are denied their rights routinely because of "due process of law".
The rest is likely unconstitutional. All of it.
Courts can rule incorrectly, and they have in all these cases.
I'm not HAPPY about it, but the damn 2nd amendment makes no allowances for being sensible and we'd do well to amend it to allow SOME abridgement.
Until that day, do what the NRA says to do "Enforce existing law" and do it really well so that they CAN'T stop bringing up that excuse for why gun violence persists. Make them come up with a constitutional reason or agree to amend the 2nd to allow some measures that could work.
If the gun violence stops and everyone in the country owns a tank, do we CARE how it got done? They want to keep guns so bad, it's THEIR job to make gun rights harmless to society. They CLAIM they're on our side in this matter. Let's prove that they're lying OR let them succeed in our mutual goal. Both are worth doing.
The current trajectory of the Democrats does not strike me as likely to be fruitful and it plays into their electoral strategy in the most plain fashion imaginable. Why are we helping them this way? This is so obviously "No win" for us.
No sir, the government has a core function in keeping the population safe, thats why machine guns and bazookas are illegal. This rises above "electoral strategy" as well IMHO. Doing nothing is admitting we are so afraid of the gun lobby we will allow massacres to continue on. I say fight the gun lobby if it saves one single human being... and it will...
What is constitutional or unconstitutional is what the Federal courts decide. Until overturned by a higher or later court, if a lower Federal Court decides something is constitutional it is. What you, the NRA, or I say is speculation. I will tell you that even after Heller there are lots and lots of constitutional restrictions on firearms.
There is no constitutional right that can't be subject to reasonable restrictions protecting the rights of others. No constitutional right is better than any other.
Lebowsky, you may find this interesting.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html
Alva: Are you saying the government is not mandated to protect it's own citizens? Why then, do we have armed forces, the FBI, Customs, Homeland Security, police, firefighters, or the Coast Guard? The well being of the citizens is job numero uno for government.
Are the armed forces there to protect the citizenry, or to protect the state? The only ones you list that I would say with certainty are there to protect the citizenry are firefighters.
Besides, you're playing with a dangerous argument. "To protect the American People" was the same excuse Dubya used to spy on American citizens, launch an endless bloody war on terror, and enact the Patriot Act.
I believe that under normal circumstances most people behave like decent human beings. They don't need to be policed. When it comes to protection, I've always been more of a do-it-yourselfer. :)
Alva makes a good point. Of those only the fire deartments are their to actually protect citizens. FBI track criminals basically (after the fact, not preventative). Armed forces and the Coast Guard are to protect the nation. Not the indivdual citizens. Police are their to enforce laws and good order. Not protect citizens. DHS, well they are there to further the current government's agenda of stripping us from our rights. And Alva and any others, please note yes GWB started this crap, but Obama extended it and has been adding to them. Sure, we stopped one war but I am certain we will be in another by mid-2014 (the time we're supposed to be out of afghanistan). Those in power gain too much power and money during war for them to actually want us out of it completely.
How can someone that sells guns discover if they are selling a fire arm to someone that is mentally ill? Will they ask the customer what type of medication they are taking? How can states indeed keep track of such people - especially when there are cases of those that can become "Mentally Ill" overnight or in a short period of time. (Jovian)
Thats the point of alot of this, to restrict and modify private gun sales, which are 405 of all sales. Of course there is no stock or easy answer about the mental health aspect of this, and how it relates to privacy rights. Giving up is no longer a sustainable option IMHO.
I believe that the provision is "adjudicated mentally ill." That is, there's been a hearing, from which the conclusion is that the person is deemed mentally ill. I would assume that there's a corresponding process for removing that distinction, too, if the person's mental health is later restored.
Automobile owner is responsible financially and morally vehicle usage
Gun owner is responsible financially and morally of all owned guns usage
Driver test for drivers license, must show registration at window
Gun safety test for gun license, must show registration at window
In person registration for gun ownership permit, not by proxy as is for automobile
Gun ownership requires credentials checked against database for anomalies,
Annual Registration fee set for size of automobile,
Annual Gun registration fee set for caliber of gun,
Mandatory Drivers insurance, uninsured motorist, property damage
Mandatory Gun insurance, accidental gun shot, wrongful victim coverage
Drivers safty class for insurance,
Driver neglegence is cause for license suspense and car impoundment
Gun owner neglegence is cause license suspension and gun impoundment
Gun Safety classes for gun,
Luxury tax/fee on high gasoline usage cars,
Luxury tax/fee on High caliber weaponry,
Driving, drunk/drugged is suspension of license and jail time
Carrying gun, drunk/drugged is suspension of license and jail time
Gas tax for Gasoline,
Ammonition Tax for Ammonition,
Suspension of drivers license for unlawful driving,
Suspension of gun license for unlawfull gun safety,
Tobacco companies sued for state cost of medical care for cancer victim,
Gun companies sued for state cost of medical care for gun shot victim,
All assult class weapons must anhear to military/maltia gun safety usage and storage guidelines
When not in use, must be stored in an armory that is approved by Military Master of Arms
You can have anything in America, just don't comp;ain when it comes time to pay for it.
you shoot it you buy it
tobacco and driving have not been determined by the us supreme court to be individually protected rights
I'll buy a license to own firearms and insurance on them when people have to prove they are a citizen to vote and buy insurance that bails the country out when they vote in idiots that attempt to bankrupt us.
I don't believe that the second amendment gives the individual the absolute right to bear arms. The 2nd amendment speaks of a militia, a militia is made up of persons, but a person is not a militia. I don't know why the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct, all the others have been trampled on, so why is the second sacred? We have to keep in mind that the arms industry is a very profitable one, so remember the golden rule.
The 2nd Amendment is an odd beast. It begins by offering a justification for its being written. But that is all the militia stuff is, an explanation of the Framer's reasoning. And it is poorly stated. No doubt, it was crystal clear to them but today...not so much.
The second element of the 2nd Amendment is the actual substance of the Amendment. It is an ABSOLUTE prohibition on the State implementing ANY laws infringing on the right of citizens to keep (own and store in home) or bear (carry around as deemed needed) arms. It is the simplest and clearest of all Amendments. The fact you don't approve doesn't change the wording of the Amendment. There is absolutely NOTHING vague about that whatsoever.
What you are doing is basing an attack on the body of the Amendment solely on the preface. It just isn't valid as an argument. The left is by this issue as the right is about abortion, gay rights and immigration. Neither side can be rational about their "special" issues.
How about this for a regulatory standard...you can have any rule you can demonstrate would have prevented Sandy Hook and/or Columbine. We can start with one that would have kept Lanza from murdering his mother and stealing her legally owned weapons. Yeah, that is the best place to start.
Driving is not a constitutionally protected right, its a state issued priviledge(see 2nd amendment/heller)
Gun companies can only be sued if the their product MALFUNCTIONS(Bernie Sanders voted for this for petes sake!!!)
If you're not to the right of the only actual SOCIALIST in the US government enough already
Do Ted Cruz and other conservatives apply the same test of Constitutional validity to his proposals to restrict abortion rights? That's the real test of their sincerity.
I don't think that is such a black and white matter. Some people believe in God and believe the soul enters the fetus at conception and since it is then a living person, to abort would be murder and unconstitutional since you would be depriving that unborn child life without due process.
Others believe that life begins later...at what point I couldn't really say but it's not a life so it's the right of the mother to choose.
Others still, just don't care about life at all (other than their own).
So the whole thing is not about restricting a person's right to choose, it's about if the unborn baby is a life worth protecting under the the 5th Amendment.
So really the whole thing hinges on when a fetus is granted it's rights under the Constitution. Not for me to decide, just trying to break it down through a Constitutional view of the matter.
A look at how those writing proposals for the U.S. Bill of Rights during the Founding Era actually used language can be helpful for understanding what their intentions were. Here is period information that helps illustrate what "shall not be infringed" was understood to mean by those who actually wrote Second Amendment related protections:
http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/meaning-of-shall-not-be-infringed.html
Heller was an excellent decision, very carefully thought out. I especially enjoyed the line that those who think hunting was the intention of the 2nd amendment need a seat at the table with the "mad hatter." The gun control nuts were just destroyed by this ruling, Thank God. I don't see how any ban of high capacity magazines or military style rifles can stand after this ruling, since millions of people own them and use them for recreation and hunting and defense. Further the ruling clearly leaves the door open for equating any weapon carryable by infantry as viable for the citizenry, since the militia itself is deemed to be already in existence via individuals bearing arms, and not by any act of Congress or the military. From my cold, dead hands, you liberal, marxist fools.
The Progressives (Code for Communist ) strain at a nat, make mole hills into mountains trying to take our liberties from U.S. and they think they are smart..... LMAO LMAO.....!
The Second (2) Amendment as well as the Bill of Rights was written in plain language. Any attempt to limit our freedoms will be met with a full force of Americans called We the People. This Government works for U.S. not the other way around.
We have fought the Communist, Socialist and the Fascist and will do so again to preserve our liberty's.
If you don't like it here why don't you leave and go live in China or some other Socialist country and run your big mouths there...! But you want do that cause your cowards......! They would Kill you in a second........!
Understanding the original language for the Second Amendment, who wrote it, and why make its purpose and meaning clear. The Purpose of the Second Amendment - What was the Original Language, Who Wrote It, and Why? is a post at On Second Opinion Blog that provides historical evidence rarely relied on by those providing modern definitions for Founding Era language.
You neglect to point out that Sen Cruz argued the Heller case in front of the supreme court for 31 states. Feinstein's argument is based on emotion as evidenced by her defensive retort on on the constitution.
Look at this site.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNUhWoIdFb4
dickonrag
Justice Scalia, the most conservative of the Supreme Court justices agrees with Sen Feinstein more than with Cruz.
Look at the syllabus of the Court’s brief that he wrote:
That is not "emotion" ..... that is a Supreme Court decision.
Yes, that was a SCOTUS decision. And the decision was the right to keep and bear arms was not dependant on serving in a militia. Period. The right is an indivdual one, not collective. That was all that really came from Heller. Scalia's remarks only support the facts that states have the right to ban criminals and such from owning, and have the right to pass laws regarding carry and such. Nothing in there that says congress may ban a few specific firearms because they look like they might be more dangerous than others, but aren't in any way, form, or fashion.
Jay
You can say what you want it to mean if you wish, but I repeated Scalia's words for you and they seem damn clear to me. After all, it was the Supreme Court that DID NOT OVERTURN the previous assault weapons ban.
They didn't overturn it because no case made it's way to the SCOTUS over it. Reread what you just posted, "keep and carry IN ANY MANNER whatsoever". It doesn't say it's not a right to own whatever you want, it says laws can be made concerning the carrying of firearms.
And if your going to quote it...try adding the entire thing so you can actually get an idea of the meaning. Don't worry though I found it for you.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 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.
So see, it refers to conceal laws, "gun free" zones, criminals, mentally ill, and mentions Miller's dangerous and unusual standard I mentioned below. No where does it even hint that the federal government can ban firearms because of the way they look.
And sorry, didn't see when I posted that that you had quoted the entire passage above...still though you seem to be missing the whole point of it.
I guess being a selective reader is better than being completely illiterate. The man made a statement, which could stand on its own, then gave one example. Just because he did not give an example of everything that could be covered by his statement should not be interpreted to limit his statement: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". That is a clear unambiguous statement.
And the reason that the assault weapon ban stood for ten years without challenge is BECAUSE THE ASSULT WEAPON BAN WAS CONSTITUTIONAL. If the NRA had grounds for challenge they would have challenged. It's not like they lack the funds for a legal battle.
But of course there was #3 as well
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
Take special note on "The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense."
Isn't that what the Feinstein bill is basically doing? So, but the very decision you quote as your basis for gun control, Scalia states that would be unconstitutional.
Not to mention the 1994 AWB, didn't ban any actual firearm. It banned certain "parts". So modified ARs and AKs were made that were legal under the law, just not as "tacticool". The new bill, outlaws not only those types of weapons, but many other firearms because they share some comestic design. And the kicker is I can go to Wal-Mart, Academy, Gander Mt, Cabelas etc etc and buy those same type "features" that somehow make an AR15 more deadly than it's brother the ranch 14 and add them onto most rifles available today. A pistol grip on a 12 gauge pump is ok, but on a semi would be illegal? How does this make any since or do anything? That's the main point here.
I hope you and your war weapons are very happy together and I am happy you are not my neighbor.
War weapons? As I stated, go do your homework. My AR-15 is no different in how it operates than my ranch 14. So why is it a war weapon? Or do you mean my beretta 92fs? Because it is the same as the Beretta M9 I was issued in the Corps. My AR-15 though, is nothing like my M-16 I had. The AR-15 is NOT capable of automatic fire as my M-16 was (although it was just 3 round bursts). But humor me a bit, if my semi-automatic firearm is a "war weapon", why do no military forces anywhere in the world use them? Hell, they aren't even good enough for DHS, which are getting M-4s. And I am also glad you aren't my neighbor. I would hate the property value to drop in such a way. I can tell you though the police office who lives 2 houses down and the other 4 LEO's who live in my neighborhood all like the idea that there are so many responsible firearm owners around. We've discusses the matter at length in the past, and several of us even go out to the range together from time to time.
Any "homework" I do will not be wasting time researching firearms. I don't want guns. I don't care about guns. I only care that we have laws that keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people as much as possible.
Then perhaps you should encourage the government to actually enforce current laws instead of passing arbitrary bans based purely on comestic features that can be added or taken off on a whim and purchased as "aftermarket upgrades" for most rifle types available. I don't care if you want guns or not. That doesn't matter. But because you don't want them, doesn't give you a right to attempt to strip me of my right to own them. Now, my motto for the past few months where firearms are concerned is education before legislation. But, as you have shown you don't care to be educated (or incapable???) I see this tactic will not work, and instead you will gladly repeat the false mantra of the liberal left and media on how one rifle is soemwhow more dangerous than another based purely on looks instead of any actual functionality. Now, as far as your idea on keeping guns from the wrong people...you do realize we currently have laws against the "wrong people" from buying guns right? We just don't have the time, money, or people to actually enforce them and the federal government does nothing to get states to comply with the release of information. So instead of actually addressing the real issues (not to mention the clear correlation between mass shooters and misuse of psychotropic drugs not to mention the poor state of mental care in this country. But yes, of course the only logical response to those issues is to pass more laws that will affect responsible citizens and oh maybe .000000001% of people who actually commit a crime with firearms. (yes, I made up the number, it is not meant to represent any actual stat, simply make a point). Now, yes Sandy hook was a tragedy. We all agree on that, but how many children have been murdered with AR-15s in the past 10 years? Less than 50. Now, how many have been murdered using handguns? In 2003 alone 56 pre-schoolers were murdered by firearms. Now, compare that with FBI data and you can see handgun violence makes up over 90% of all firearm related violence. So, if this was about protecting children or protecting people they would be going after handguns, not semi-automatic rifles. Use your brain for a change and wake up. This proposed ban is just like the DHS, it's a bandaid applied to sucking chest wound. It is simply a measure to give the people a false sense of security because the government cannot and will not address the real issues.
The current background check laws are insufficient. More than 40% of all guns are purchased without background checks. That is not good enough.
Straw purchases are far too common. The law must be improved and enforced.
This is my last response to you. I never said I wanted to strip guns from you or anyone else. You insist that that is my intention. You are irrational and a waste of my time.
I am not irrational, but yes I suppose a dose of reality and common sense would be a waste of your time.
40% of firearm sales are done without a background check? Source please, since the governemnt doesn't "track" firearm sales I would love to see the source on this. Now, all firearm sales through a dealer are done with background checks. The ones that aren't are stolen ones sold on the black market and person to person sales just the same as if I sold you a TV or PC through a Craigslist ad. How do you intend to stop this? How would you track this? Without a full out gun registration, it would be impossible. And since a large number of gun owners do fear that registration leads to confiscation, the chances of it passing are slim, and a large number of people would fail to register previously owned firearms. We would be creating a new class of "criminals" just as we did with drug laws that punish users as much as dealers. That is not the answer. And no, the current checks are not good enough, do you know why? Most states fail to comply with federal law and disclose information of people with mental health issues. So, again how about we enforce the current laws before enacting new ones that will be selectively enforced? And straw purchases are far too common? Who told you this? Oh wait, let me guess, this came from the people who set up a straw purchase "ring" to arm Mexican Cartels? And when the gun store owners called in their concerns, the ATF agents (who knew of the operation) told them to sell the firearms anyway? Now, are some straw purchases happening? Yes. There is no way to stop this from happening though short of full registration with random inspections of people's homes. Not going to happen. So, here's another novel idea besides actually enforcing the current laws...let's stop locking people away for minor drug charges and creating lifelong criminals in the process and only lock away dangerous criminals...and then not release those hardened criminals, and check the FBI stats on that, most firearm violence cases are committed by people with priors.
And another quick note. You stated "I only care that we have laws that keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people as much as possible." If this is a true statement, then we are on the same page. We're just looking at it from different angles. I can tell you, a ban of a few types of weapons based purely on looks will not do this. After all were AR type weapons or high capacity magazines used in either Columbine or Virginia Tech? No, they weren't. The type of firearm is not the issue and arbitrary bans will not do anything to curb the violence. It will ONLY create new criminals as people will cling to the firearms as their rights, but be labeled criminals for doing so. New laws are not the answer, enforcing current ones and making states provide the information under federal law is the answer. Keeping repeat offenders off our streets is the answer. A new approach to mental health care in this country is the answer. Tough sanctions and regulations on psychotropic drugs is the answer. This is even more important with children and young adults. Like I said before, education before legislation. To call for bans on any type of firearms based on looks is idiotic. To call for new laws that mirror current laws the government refuses to enforce is as well. Enforce the law, and treat the problem, not the symptoms.
For those opposed to the 2nd Amendment, just like pro-choice people say, don't like them? (being either guns or abortions) Don't get one.
Now, seriously though The ONLY thing Heller actually decided on was that the right to bear arms was an indivdual one and not tied to militia service. Period. End of Discussion. Now, When Scalia speaks of restrictions he does mention M-16's which are fully automatic firearms that are NOT readiliy available for sale in the USA. A M-16 is NOT the same as an AR-15 and never will they be the same. The difference in in how the function. There is a true difference in the firearms. Now, an AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm, not a "machine gun" for those who lack the basic knowledge of firearm terminology. An AR-15 is basically a coyote gun with flair. The way it looks does nothing to change the way it operates or functions. So why is it deemed so dangerous when a rifle that fires the same exact ammo in the exact same way and can hold the exact same amount of ammo is fine even under Feinstein's assassine bill? Because people like her and the media are basically uninformed idiots and want you to believe their lies. Now, MOST of us 2nd Smendment supporters are not arguing for the right to own "machine guns" which were outlawed under the 1934 National Firearms Act. We just don't see a reason to ban firearms on looks. I mean, should we do that for people as well? Do your research and see the difference between and M-16 and an AR-15...and while your at it look up Ranch 14s and see how they are basically the same gun as an AR-15 (they just don't look as "cool"), and how Feinstein leaves them off the banned list...well all except one model. Again, they are attempting to ban on the basis of looks and not function (which was behind the NFA). Banning on function makes sense, whereas looks does not. Banning handguns before rifles would have made sense if they were actually trying to protect anyone, as they keep claiming. Look up the FBI stats on deaths by rifle vs pistol. The proposed laws make no sense whatsoever, that is why so many are against them. Well, that and the fact it goes against the 2nd Amendment and previous SC cases. Now Scalia's statement about unusual and dangerous goes back to US vs Miller and that has been the "bar" to measure what can be banned or not. Now, since Heller states it is an indivdual right and not a collective one and Miller gives us the unusual and dangerous standard let's look at those. Any person, militia or not, may privately own a firearm. (Heller). The firearm must be as stated in Miller "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Now by this statement in the 1339 case (after the 34 NFA banning "machine guns" it states the people should supply their own (basis for Heller) and they should be the kind in common use at the time. Common use by who? If we say the military, then that makes it legal for all Americans to own "machine guns" and tosses out all your anti-gun arguments. So I guess we can say in common use by the people who use firearms. 300 million + AR-15 type rifles made and sold in the US in the past 10 years makes them pretty common, so they meet that qualification. Now, it was the Miller case as I stated where the courts began to use the dangerous and unusual test for legality of firearms. Since the AR-15 is so common today, it cannot be deemed "unusual". Now back to my statements on it's function. Since it operates in the same exact manner as every other semi-automatic firearm made and available to day (you can start checking these on that 900+ type list that Feinstein says is OK to keep..even though the "banned" ones are all basically the same as the "keepers"). So, since they operate in the same manner as any other semi-automatic firearm they are not any more dangerouis than any other rifle. So, by the SCOTUS rulings in Miller and Heller you can see that any ban on AR-15's is unconstitutional. Now, banning the import of AK's and the such would be a different story and legal....until we start making them here as well. (actually a few companies already do...).
Pure hyperbole ....... it is not about being opposed to the 2nd Amendment ..... it is about responsibilities that accompany the 2nd Amendment.
So you're saying they only want to take firearms away from those who are criminals or irresonsible and not the millions of responsible gun owners? Oh, what a relief. I thought it was because the government CANNOT and WILL NOT enforce the current laws (even crazy uncle Joe Biden agress and has said this), they are going to try a blanket ban on firearms that look a certain way. Yes, because this will increase responsibility among those remaining firearms.
Earth to Jay ...... there is no current proposal to take any weapons away from anyone. You've been listening to the NRA too much and it has warped your feeble mind.
Yet. And don't start slippery slope with me. The main person pushing to ban me from buying a new AR-15 has stated before she wants to confiscate all firearms. So have several in the NY state assembly. So have a few others. So yes, first they outlaw the new purchase, then they outlaw them completely. Or at least they make it so when I die and leave my firearms to my son, he would then be a felon for having an "illegal" firearm.
Also, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment I keep hearing things like "it's not unlimitied, just like the 1st, you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre". Now this is the biggest misconception or outright lie (you decide) I have ever heard regarding the Constitution. Not only is it legal to yell fire in a crowded theatre, it is your duty to do so when and if there is a fire. Alert the people, the workers, and the fire dept. Only an idiot would try and tell people they can't yell fire. It is however not "protected" speech to yell fire when there is none for the purpose to cause harm or disorder. See the difference there? When there is a fire, yell it. When there is no fire, shut your mouth and watch the movie. Now, let's apply this properly to the 2nd. Since we did not ban the yelling of fire, and in fact consider it a duty then I consider it a duty of Americans to remained armed. But responsibly. Now, if I walk into a bank with my AR-15 fully loaded and a sidearm in a holster on my leg, some people may be upset and think it was a robbery or worse. This would cause disorder and possibly harm to others. That is why it is illegal to do such a thing (in most states anyway...not 100% sure on all). States have passed various laws on the carry and discharging of firearms. This is in line with the Constitution and the limits on yelling fire. Banning the firearms would be akin to banning the use of the word fire at any time.