Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

Thanks for weighing in, subbie.

quote:

---

I suspect this is caused by Justices on both sides of the issue struggling to reach the conclusions they want. This, I think, is an artifact of a disturbing trend in judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, in focusing more in ideology than judicial temperament and reasoning.

---

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

quote:

---

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.

---

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:

---

I still haven't read the decision closely, but my initial impression is that I find Breyer's reasoning more unconvincing that Scalia's.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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 FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

wow you have me agreeing with subbie on this one.

---

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 FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I hate tea and refuse to drink the stuff. Lemoned or otherwise. 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. Well if people don't have guns they cannot shoot each other is the very obvious aim here. 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. Well define "violent crime".
Like I said, I would gladly increase my chances of being punched at the expense of chances of being shot. 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? 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?

Really? On what rationale?
Are missile launchers and grenades allowed too?

Recreation. Each state is different 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)

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?

quote:

---

Each state is different

---

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 FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Are there any states where the personal ownership of an armoured tank is allowed?

---

I suspect yes, but without weaponry.

quote:

---

Where exactly is the defining line in terms of acceptability with regard to personal weaponry in the US?

---

Remains to be seen.

quote:

---

Does it even exist or is it (at least potentially) a case of anything goes?

---

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 FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Why without weaponry? 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?

quote:

---

Why without weaponry?

---

Because I'm fairly certain that ownership of the armaments that a tank would use would be prohibited by federal law.

quote:

---

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.

quote:

---

Is there anywhere where a personal thermonuclear device would be considered acceptable?

---

I'm quite certain not, but cannot give you support.

quote:

---

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.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Fairly certain?
Fuck!! (Again) 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? 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!!! 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.

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

quote:

---

Who decides (or if historical - decided) this code and what or who gives them the authority to do so?

---

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:

---

K 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?

---

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 FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Yes, look up Jacques Littlefield on google, and there are others who own various WW2 tanks and armored vehicles with the weapons deactivated. 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 LawsFederal LawAs for tank aramaments they would fall under the Destructive Devices category and as such might be banned from civillian ownership in some statesedited 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 linksEdited 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