|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Thanks for weighing in, subbie.
quote: This is sort of the impression that I got, but I don't have any legal training. But then, as I mention, it's probably tough when there isn't a lot of previous case law [is that the correct term?] to rely on. I still haven't read the decision closely, but my initial impression is that I find Breyer's reasoning more unconvincing that Scalia's. And considering the problems the justices had with this, I find it highly amusing how people weigh in on this with very emphatic opinions when they don't have any legal training or, and this is the good part, when they haven't even bothered to read the decision to begin with. Not that I don't have opinions on this, but at least I recognize my own limitations. And I remember the first time I read a Supreme Court decision with which I disagreed -- and was amazed at how the Supreme Court (at least at that time) was definitely not just making up law out of thin air. Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes. -- M. Alan Kazlev
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Yes, case law is the correct term. I have always thought it unusual that there's so little case law on the Second Amendment. IIRC, Breyer mentioned a some decisions from the Courts of Appeals, but even those seemed rather sparse to me.
quote: Often, after reading Scalia, I come away with a good first impression that is usually revised down after further consideration. I attribute this to the fact that, IMO, Scalia is an excellent writer. There's no doubt in my mind that the caliber of writing affects one's opinion of the merits of an argument. The main thing that turns me off about his writing is his penchant for sniping at other Justices. There is simply no good reason for doing this, that I can think of.
quote: Well, it's a polarizing issue about which people on both sides have firmly held ideas, often regardless of the legal merits of the matter. This I understand, and, to a degree, I even understand those who criticize of the decision from a policy point of view rather than a legal one. What does bother me is those who criticize the judicial abilities of judges who ignore policy matters when deciding a legal question. That's not to say that there aren't cases that raise policy issues that judges must answer to resolve the case, but that's the exception rather than the rule.
quote: I've read many opinions I disagree with. There are very, very few where I felt there was no legal basis for the decision. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: If I have a choice, I'd just as soon not have you as a disciple. Thanks. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
You need to quit putting lemon in your tea. I hate tea and refuse to drink the stuff. Lemoned or otherwise.
Jamaica tops the list. This would seem to prove that ineffectual gun laws gives rise to the worst of both worlds!!!! I have been to Jamaica and, legal or otherwise, everybody has guns.
If I am not mistaken England disarmed the public for their own protection. Well if people don't have guns they cannot shoot each other is the very obvious aim here.
That experiment proves gun ownership has nothing to do with violent crime's. What constitutes a "violent crime"?Violent crimes with guns are likely to be a whole lot more dangerous than violent crimes without guns. I would rather be punched than shot any day. Citing England, for instance, they reveal that "when it had no firearms restrictions [in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries], England had little violent crime." By the late 1990s, however, "England moved from stringent controls to a complete ban on all handguns and many types of long guns." As a result, "by the year 2000, violent crime had so increased that England and Wales had Europe's highest violent crime rate, far surpassing even the United States." Well define "violent crime".Like I said, I would gladly increase my chances of being punched at the expense of chances of being shot. Aren't the intenational murder and gun crime statistics firmly against you regards this? Depends on whose report's you go by. Well which stats show the US as having a lower homicide rate than the UK?Which stats show the US as having a lower rate of gun deaths than the UK? Should we all just have the right to own a personal thermonuclear device? What does thermonuclear device's have to do with owning a handgun, a shotgun or a rifle? If everyone having the right to own a weapon makes a nation safer then logically the right for everyone to own an even more destructive weapon makes a nation even more safe. No? If not why not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
If by "machinee gun" you mean a fully automatic weapon, then yes dependent on the state. Really? On what rationale?Are missile launchers and grenades allowed too?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3940 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
If by "machinee gun" you mean a fully automatic weapon, then yes dependent on the state. Really? On what rationale? Recreation. Each state is different
Are missile launchers and grenades allowed too? Missile launchers I highly doubt. Even if they were, they would be quite cost prohibitive. Grenades are though as are grenade launchers. In NM I think you have to have a gunsmithing licence and be registered with your nearest sheriff office to have weapons of a certain class like those with explosive munition and fully automatic weapons. Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are missile launchers and grenades allowed too? Missile launchers I highly doubt. Even if they were, they would be quite cost prohibitive. Grenades are though as are grenade launchers. In NM I think you have to have a gunsmithing licence and be registered with your nearest sheriff office to have weapons of a certain class like those with explosive munition and fully automatic weapons. Fuck!!Are there any states where the personal ownership of an armoured tank is allowed? Where exactly is the defining line in terms of acceptability with regard to personal weaponry in the US? Does it even exist or is it (at least potentially) a case of anything goes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: This is a very significant point. Gun laws vary wildly from state to state, and sometimes from community to community. What's more, I think it's quite likely that this decision will have a rather limited impact. All Justices seemed to agree that, notwithstanding that there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, that right does not prevent some level of regulation. The exact parameters of regulation that will be permissible remain to be determined by further court action. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: I suspect yes, but without weaponry.
quote: Remains to be seen.
quote: Well, there are federal laws and regulations that would apply everywhere, which would be the outer limit of what anyone can possess in the U.S. Heller establishes that there is also an inner core of gun ownership rights that no federal, state or local laws or regulations can infringe upon. Beyond those extremes, at least in theory, each state or city is free to do as they see fit. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Are there any states where the personal ownership of an armoured tank is allowed? I suspect yes, but without weaponry. Why without weaponry?
Well, there are federal laws and regulations that would apply everywhere, which would be the outer limit of what anyone can possess in the U.S In specific practical terms what are these limits? I.e what is banned and what is not at the extreme end of the spectrum?Is there anywhere where a personal thermonuclear device would be considered acceptable? If not what is the most detructive weaponry allowed and in what state is this permitted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Because I'm fairly certain that ownership of the armaments that a tank would use would be prohibited by federal law.
quote: Dunno. The answer could probably be found in the U. S. Code, probably in Title 18 Chapter 44. quote: I'm quite certain not, but cannot give you support.
quote: No idea. To determine this would require a full 50 state survey. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 94 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why without weaponry? Because I'm fairly certain that ownership of the armaments that a tank would use would be prohibited by federal law. Fairly certain?Fuck!! (Again) In specific practical terms what are these limits? I.e what is banned and what is not at the extreme end of the spectrum? Dunno. The answer could probably be found in the U. S. Code, probably in Title 18 Chapter 44. I looked on these links and could not make head not tail of it in terms of answering my question.Who decides (or if historical - decided) this code and what or who gives them the authority to do so? Is there anywhere where a personal thermonuclear device would be considered acceptable? I'm quite certain not, but cannot give you support. Double fuck!!!I was only half meaning to be faecetious. I honestly thought there would be a definite, if seemingly arbitrary, limit to weaponry. Apparently there is not!!!!!!!!!!!! Triple fuck!!!
If not what is the most detructive weaponry allowed and in what state is this permitted? No idea. To determine this would require a full 50 state survey. Surely not?OK then as a rough approximation can we take that which is perceieved to be the most "gun friendly" state and see what the most detructive weapon they allow might be? Would this give an indication, if not a definitive answer? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
As an outside observer the American obsession with gun ownership and the seemingly obvious violent society that this results in is really quite baffling. Nothing baffling about it. It is a violent society, which is why law abiding Americans want their arms. Of course, this violent obsession doesn't come by the gun, but by Hollywood's glorification of violence. “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1283 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
quote: Congress. In my humble (and extreme minority) opinion, they don't have authority for most of it. The rest of the country believes they have the authority to do it under the Constitution.
quote: Possibly. I presume your next question will be what state is that. I have no idea. I'm not particularly interested in gun law. Maybe you can find some of what you want here. But be warned, there is a lot of demogoguery there, and some would say misinformation, and down right lies. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Are there any states where the personal ownership of an armoured tank is allowed?
Yes, look up Jacques Littlefield on google, and there are others who own various WW2 tanks and armored vehicles with the weapons deactivated.
Does it even exist or is it (at least potentially) a case of anything goes?
Again the laws vary widely from state to state and community to community so it hard to say exactly where the cut off line is. Anything .50 calibre and under is classifed as "small arms" and is generally unrestricted.
State Laws Federal Law As for tank aramaments they would fall under the Destructive Devices category and as such might be banned from civillian ownership in some states edited again to add: Fully automatic weapons, or "Class 3" weapons, aside from being illegal in most states are really expensive because civillians are only allowed to own those that were in the US and registered with the ATF before May 19, 1986. So the supply is limited and the demand is high, just googling around for a little research I found a company in Texas selling AK-47s for $16k. The average person wont be (legally) owning one. Edited by DrJones*, : added some links Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given. soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024