Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Isn't that the point?
|
No. Is there a initiative worthy of noting to do away with any NFA-34 regulations other than removing suppressors from Title II? Is there any court case pending that is challenging the NFA-34 restrictions on machine guns?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Heller acknowledged for the moment the individual right to a gun for defense,
|
"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). "
DC v. HELLER, 478 F. 3d 370, 2008 (Breyer, S., dissenting)
Essentially the 4
Heller dissenters signed on to two opinions that said the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right and Breyer's dissent (which the other three dissenters signed) states that individual right interpretation is a continuance of the Court's precedent. So, your "for the moment" is actually "forever".
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
but not a universal right to any weapon for any reason.
|
Correct. The right to possess and use arms that fail the protection criteria is not protected by the 2nd Amendment. These are sometimes refereed to "dangerous and unusual" arms which is a legally specific term, not an descriptor that the government gets to argue for restrictions, see
Aymette v State as cited in
Miller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I don't think you'll find many on this board who want to take away handguns from law abiding people.
|
Congratulations! Of all the questions about the constitutionality of "gun control",
that one, "taking away the handguns from law-abiding people" has been answered unequivocally.
If you are saying that to try to assuage gun rights supporter's fears that you don't want "too" much, well I'll just say, good for you, at least you're gonna save yourself
that embarrassment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
The context of this thread is mass shootings...which are increasing dramatically and usually involve an assault weapon.
|
Semi-auto detachable magazine rifles -- sometimes refereed to as "assault weapons"-- are
NOT machineguns under any applicable law . . . Which again forces me to ask, why are you bringing full-auto guns into the conversation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
|
It certainly is a pro-gun control commentary.
I appreciate that for some detrimental public issues it is acknowledged that we should do "everything we can do" to stop some problems. If only that was applied to the criminal misuse of guns. Of course all that's proposed to reduce gun misuse is the same-old-same-old, demanding laws we already have and doing stuff that's already mandated in law.
Yawn.