Civil Rights

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Young cited a landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision that found that “weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like” are not protected under the Second Amendment and “may be banned.”


not sure why Conservatives only respect the law they want to respect I see this alot

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

The rifles in common use, at the time, were military grade of that time--e.g., muskets.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by wdmso

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…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.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

[TheSpecialist]

Just to be clear 'Arms " refers to personal weapons easily carried, not tanks, jets, missile launchers etc.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Justice Scalia also wrote:

“. . . But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

And that's what the left just doesn't get.



Redefining, reworking and remolding the original, fundamental, pre-existing, never surrendered right to arms is not within the purview of any court or legislature.


Scalia expands on this principle multiple times in Heller:

"The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad."

And that scope of protection, of prohibiting government gaining a foothold to restrain the right, is not diminished with time, technological advancements or especially, the aggrandizing opinion of liberals about being enlightened and unburdened by the framer's intent.

"Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, . . . and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . . 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."
(internal citations removed)

"Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."

While the right to arms is not an "unlimited" right, that doesn't mean that government's constitutional ability to restrain the right is limitless:

" . . . the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table."

.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by wdmso

look who wrote this shocking! or was his a closet progressive judge???

the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

All Scalia is doing here is reciting the law and the unremarkable legal condition as it relates to the public carriage of arms by private citizens. Your chopping of the quote stomps the subject being discussed into a mudhole.

Originally Posted by wdmso

“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.”

And what has become the most significant part of that paragraph is always left off by the left:

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Originally Posted by wdmso

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

LMAO. When you learn what all that actually means, especially what "dangerous and unusual" weapons are, and why "dangerous and unusual" weapons are not protected arms, you will be much less likely to quote that passage.

Originally Posted by wdmso

The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”

There are two reasons that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were not considered to violate the 2nd Amendment -- First is that the 2nd Amendment had no effect on state laws (until 2010). Second, establishing in law the manner of carriage of arms by citizens has always been a power of the state.

Recently, federal courts have held that the rights that the 2nd Amendment does protect (to keep and bear arms) secures a right to openly carry a gun in public for self defense and states are bound to respect that right. https://www.nationalreview.com/news/...utional-right/

Whether that forces a state in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction to institute a 'shall issue' concealed carry permit because they don't want to see a citizen's gun, is up to those states. One way or another, the state must recognize the citizen's right to be armed in public for self defense.


This, like state assault weapon bans, will soon be before the Supreme Court; you should enjoy your illegitimate laws while they last.


.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that "weapons that are most useful in military service" are exactly what the Second Amendment prohibits the government from denying the people's right to own and carry.

It is obvious, to a "Conservative," that Progressive Judges have rendered verdicts which rewrite the words in and added others to, the Second Amendment, thus circumventing the proper Amendment process, in order to unconstitutionally legislate gun laws from the Bench.

"Conservatives" respect Constitutional law, not fiat law construed by Progressive judges.

Plain as day obvious to people with a brain, not just conservatives.


This is exactly what AG Healy has done in this case and if they get away with this, what is next?

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by wdmso

local states cities refusing to do federal law enforcement job with out compensation and the term Sanctuaries city's was created by the Right who love to yell states rights again until they disagree

Under federal law, it is a crime for anyone to enter into the US without the approval of an immigration officer -- it's a misdemeanor offense that carries fines and no more than six months in prison.
Many foreign nationals, however, enter the country legally every day on valid work or travel visas, and end up overstaying for a variety of reasons.
But that's not a violation of federal criminal law -- it's a civil violation that gets handled in immigration court proceedings.

but please change the topic ...the law is clear in both cases and in both cases its the responsibility of law makers to fix or change the laws.

you just dont like push back comments.. on soap box threads you agree with..

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

(a) Improper time or place; avoidance of examination or inspection; misrepresentation and concealment of facts Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.


Yes - it is against the law. Full Stop.

So what is your point?

Originally Posted by Nebe

Lmao
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

95% of "AR" style sport rifles would not stand up to the duty cycles of issues combat rifles, ohh, and then that full auto thing too...

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

95% of "AR" style sport rifles would not stand up to the duty cycles of issues combat rifles, ohh, and then that full auto thing too...

So if the argument is there're necessary to repel a tyrannical government who is armed to the teeth with combat issue rifles what was the point again?

Not to mention, how often are selective fire weapons used in full auto?