Missouri Senate in a 23-10 Bans ALL Federal gun control

[Marine Cpl]

Sorry but no you did not!

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(2) 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:

(F) 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.

This clearly tells you that military weapons aren't protected or else you'd be able to keep and carry an M249 SAW. Those are banned because they are dangerous and unusual.

And if you read the whole Heller decision from the top, he clearly says that the preparatory clause about militia use does NOT define the second clause. Then he goes on to explain that it's for self defense.

At the time that the second amendment was written, it pertained to all weapons. The citizenry had the same arms as the militia. Scalia tore that apart by injecting that it wasn't unlimited and that you can't keep and carry any arm you wanted.

What does that tell you? It tells you that they can ban whatever gun that they see fit which isn't in common use. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure M249 SAWS aren't in common use. They are banned and will continue to be banned.

Prove me wrong and go tomorrow to your local gun shop and put down a down payment on a military M249 SAW for militia use. It's been 11 years since he ruled as such. Surely you'd be able to purchase military weapons by now for service in a militia.

 

[nortatoga]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(2) 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:

(F) 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.

This clearly tells you that military weapons aren't protected or else you'd be able to keep and carry an M249 SAW. Those are banned because they are dangerous and unusual.

And if you read the whole Heller decision from the top, he clearly says that the preparatory clause about militia use does define the second clause. Then he goes on to explain that it's for self defense.

At the time that the second amendment was written, it pertained to all weapons. The citizenry had the same arms as the militia. Scalia tore that apart by injecting that it wasn't unlimited and that you can't keep and carry any arm you wanted.

What does that tell you? It tells you that they can ban whatever gun that they see fit which isn't in common use. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure M249 SAWS aren't in common use. They are banned and will continue to be banned.

Prove me wrong and go tomorrow to your local gun shop and put down a down payment on a military M249 SAW for militia use. It's been 11 years since he ruled as such. Surely you'd be able to purchase military weapons by now for service in a militia.

Can you provide a link to the case that the SCOTUS has upheld a ban on M249 SAWS?

And Scalia didn't inject anything that was not already ruled from previous case's, So go park your Trojan in the barn!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Can you provide a link to the case that the SCOTUS has upheld a ban on M249 SAWS?

And Scalia didn't inject anything that was not already ruled from previous case's, So go park your Trojan in the barn!

Where NFA laws repealed after the decision?

Like I said, "Go to your gun shop and try to buy one." Then when they tell you, "no!", call the BATF and tell them that Heller said that it applied to military weapons.

 

[nortatoga]

Where NFA laws repealed after the decision?

Like I said, "Go to your gun shop and try to buy one." Then when they tell you, "no!", call the BATF and tell them that Heller said that it applied to military weapons.

Where NFA laws challenged in the Heller case?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Where NFA laws challenged in the Heller case?

Did Scalia interpret the 2nd Amendment? If so (which he did) if it included dangerous and unusual weapons used by the military to be allowed for the citizenry, we would be able to buy them.

No one challenged it because that's not what is interpretation says. His interpretation says that firearms can be regulated despite the clause of "shall not be infringed" in the actual second Amendment.

 

[nortatoga]

Did Scalia interpret the 2nd Amendment? If so (which he did) if it included dangerous and unusual weapons used by the military to be allowed for the citizenry, we would be able to buy them.

No one challenged it because that's not what is interpretation says. His interpretation says that firearms can be regulated despite the clause of "shall not be infringed" in the actual second Amendment.

You really are clueless!!!!

 

[ArmedCorgi]

The way I see it, is that what Missouri is doing is inline with the text of the 2nd amendment. It's sticking it to the feds for not upholding the Bill of Rights which was incorporated to the states via the 14th amendment. @Willjr75 I understand your point of setting bad precedent should Missouri's law stand, however, I think what you aren't considering is that, as stated above, Missouri's law is inline with the supreme law of the land (all other court rulings aside). I think you would agree that Missouri's stance is completely in compliance with the 2nd amendment, am I wrong? So comparing it to the whole sanctuary state/city issue, isn't quite the same. Those states and cities are not acting in accordance with the supreme law of the land. There is nothing in the BoR that backs them. To the contrary, there is immigration law that they are clearly violating so to that, if those cases are allowed to stand, then yes you'd be right there is no constitution or credibility to law. When it comes to the second amendment however, it very clearly written in our founding documents. Missouri is right.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You really are clueless!!!!

Negative. His decision is in plain English. It allows the infringement of dangerous and unusual weapons in contrast to what the second Amendment says. It only protects common weapons. Are military weapons common weapons to the average man? Does the American populace have common access to belt-fed machine guns?

It is you that are clueless and I destroy your arguments and every thread.

 

[MadScientist]

Negative. His decision is in plain English. It allows the infringement of dangerous and unusual weapons in contrast to what the second Amendment says. It only protects common weapons. Are military weapons common weapons to the average man? Does the American populace have common access to belt-fed machine guns?

It is you that are clueless and I destroy your arguments and every thread.

The question shouldn’t be “does”, it should be “should the American populace have access to belt fed machine guns.”

The Heller decision was the particular opinion of a particular session of the Supreme Court. Let’s not pretend the Supreme Court hasn’t gotten it wrong before...

 

[nortatoga]

Negative. His decision is in plain English. It allows the infringement of dangerous and unusual weapons in contrast to what the second Amendment says. It only protects common weapons. Are military weapons common weapons to the average man? Does the American populace have common access to belt-fed machine guns?

It is you that are clueless and I destroy your arguments and every thread.

Destroy my argument not once!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Let’s not pretend the Supreme Court hasn’t gotten it wrong before...

That's my point.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Destroy my argument not once!!!

Okay.

 

[Grimscale]

Negative. His decision is in plain English. It allows the infringement of dangerous and unusual weapons in contrast to what the second Amendment says. It only protects common weapons. Are military weapons common weapons to the average man? Does the American populace have common access to belt-fed machine guns?

It is you that are clueless and I destroy your arguments and every thread.

What is "dangerous and unusual"?
What is "common"?
Common to whom? Did his ruling clearly state "by civilians"?
Is there a clearly marked difference between "civilians" and "civilian volunteers in the military"?

"Does the American populace have common access to belt-fed machine guns?"
The American populace doesn't even have common access to ammunition shipped to their home, and not because of some Law, but rather because the companies that would ship it are afraid of potentially breaking a Law, whether or not that Law says what they think it says.

If you take Scalia's statement as only common to "people who are not currently in the military" then you support all the arguments of 1) it only applies to muskets (the only "common" arms at the time it was ratified, and 2) you must be in a military to own a firearm.

You're not destroying arguments here. You're supporting arguments against our Right to bear arms. You're supporting the idea of different classes of citizens. You are, in effect, supporting tyranny.
Congrats. I'm sure Cuomo has a nice, cushy spot for you to sit on while he pats your head.

 

[nortatoga]

You can jump ahead to 3:40

 

[Marine Cpl]

What is "dangerous and unusual"?
What is "common"?
Common to whom? Did his ruling clearly state "by civilians"?
Is there a clearly marked difference between "civilians" and "civilian volunteers in the military"?

"Does the American populace have common access to belt-fed machine guns?"
The American populace doesn't even have common access to ammunition shipped to their home, and not because of some Law, but rather because the companies that would ship it are afraid of potentially breaking a Law, whether or not that Law says what they think it says.

If you take Scalia's statement as only common to "people who are not currently in the military" then you support all the arguments of 1) it only applies to muskets (the only "common" arms at the time it was ratified, and 2) you must be in a military to own a firearm.

You're not destroying arguments here. You're supporting arguments against our Right to bear arms. You're supporting the idea of different classes of citizens. You are, in effect, supporting tyranny.
Congrats. I'm sure Cuomo has a nice, cushy spot for you to sit on while he pats your head.

You should read my posts more. If you did, you'd know that what I'm talking about is corrupt Supreme Court judges who skew the 2nd Amendment by injecting personal bias and conjecture into their decisions.

I'm actually chastising Scalia for inserting the Trojan Horse of common and unusual that will ensure gun control for the rest of this country's life.

If you did read my posts, you'd know that I'm an absolute constitutionalist. But that's what happens when you assume or read quickly.

 

[Marine Cpl]

You can jump ahead to 3:40

It's funny how you defend him. He's clearly for gun control in that video. He defends past and future gun control.

You are too dense to realize that they infringed on people's right to bear arms in the past against what the 2A actually said. Some of those infringement were struck down rightfully so and others were upheld by whatever corrupt judge was making the decision at the time and others weren't ever challenged. It depended on whether a judge was for gun control or against it just like today.

So what he's doing is saying, "Well since they infringed in the past, we can too!"

Do you understand that? Do you understand that another corrupt judge who wants gun control can do the same thing 50 years from now and say, "in the past many states regulated rifles with military features." So yes. There is historical precedent that arms with military features can be regulated."

And it's funny how you like anyone's post that seems to be on the other side of my post even if they're wrong. It's so transparent. You need help. Aren't you an older guy? Quit acting like a child. You clearly knew that I wasn't defending Scalia's decision like he thought based on our own interactions in the past yet you liked his post anyway.

 

[Acer-m14]

wish Scalia would have put this Heller trap on the 1A .. we all would be back to the ink well and quill ..

 

[nortatoga]

It's funny how you defend him. He's clearly for gun control in that video. He defends past and future gun control.

You are too dense to realize that they infringed on people's right to bear arms in the past against what the 2A actually said. Some of those infringement were struck down rightfully so and others were upheld by whatever corrupt judge was making the decision at the time and others weren't ever challenged. It depended on whether a judge was for gun control or against it just like today.

So what he's doing is saying, "Well since they infringed in the past, we can too!"

Do you understand that? Do you understand that another corrupt judge who wants gun control can do the same thing 50 years from now and say, "in the past many states regulated rifles with military features." So yes. There is historical precedent that arms with military features can be regulated."

And it's funny how you like anyone's post that seems to be on the other side of my post even if they're wrong. It's so transparent. You need help. Aren't you an older guy? Quit acting like a child. You clearly knew that I wasn't defending Scalia's decision like he thought based on our own interactions in the past yet you liked his post anyway.

I guess like you don't understand Heller v DC you also don't understand Miller v US!

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

Decision[edit]
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

So it would seem the the only Firearm banned by the SCOTUS is Sawed-off Shot Guns!

Also notice- 1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. This is because the 2A was not incorporated yet!

 

[Marine Cpl]

What don't you understand about biased court decisions against the 2A? Why isn't an SBR or SBS suitable for militia use? Is close quartered battle not within the scopes of militia use? Is an SBR or SBS not suitable for close quartered battle for home defense?

That decision makes no fucking sense yet you quote it as if the Founder's intended it or the 2A had restrictions written into it. If this corrupt panel of judges thought SBR's and SBS's weren't suitable for militia use because the barrels are too short then I guess that should apply to pistols too based on the logic used by the corrupt court to allow infringements on them.

It is you who doesn't understand. It is you who doesn't understand the 2A. It is you who doesn't understand court corruption. It is you who constantly defends gun control by quoting these sham cases that go against what is written actually written in the Bill of Rights. There are amendments that have clear limitations on them with language and phrases copied from British law. Phrases like "as prescribed by law." There are amendments that have no restrictions written into them. The 2nd is one of them and the phrase "shall not be infringed" has no such language in it or hidden meaning that says unless it is dangerous, unusual, uncommon, has a short barrel, beared concealed, etc.

A person who goes out of their way to quote decisions that favor gun control is a person who is for gun control. That's you buddy.

 

[@thewheels]

I guess like you don't understand Heller v DC you also don't understand Miller v US!

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia

Decision[edit]
On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held:

The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[1] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. The conclusion was in the favor of the NFA.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Miller case and it's decision are a mess and shouldn't have been cited for anything by any court after the fact.
The fact that it was cited at all in the Heller case with the justices being well aware of its history and shortcomings as a reasonably adjudicated case should raise all kinds of flags.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

I highlighted the important stuff.
The defendants and their counsel weren't even present and the court NEVER heard their arguments/side of the case.
Of course they "cannot take judicial notice" as they put it - the defendants weren't even there to attempt to provide it.
The intensely careful doublespeak to lend credibility to their BS ruling should be evident.

 

[nortatoga]

The Miller case and it's decision are a mess and shouldn't have been cited for anything by any court after the fact.
The fact that it was cited at all in the Heller case with the justices being well aware of its history and shortcomings as a reasonably adjudicated case should raise all kinds of flags.

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

I highlighted the important stuff.
The defendants and their counsel weren't even present and the court NEVER heard their arguments/side of the case.
Of course they "cannot take judicial notice" as they put it - the defendants weren't even there to attempt to provide it.
The intensely careful doublespeak to lend credibility to their BS ruling should be evident.

Well at least you read the case!

Had the defendants been there maybe the ruling would have been different and then again maybe not. Still the Court had to hear the case and rule on it. And as a SCOTUS ruling it then holds precedent for future case's. The only way for it to not be cited in future case's would be for it to be over rule, and that would take a challenge to it's ruling. (Someone challenging the NFA of 1934)

 

[Marine Cpl]

Well at least you read the case!

Had the defendants been there maybe the ruling would have been different and then again maybe not. Still the Court had to hear the case and rule on it. And as a SCOTUS ruling it then holds precedent for future case's. The only way for it to not be cited in future case's would be for it to be over rule, and that would take a challenge to it's ruling. (Someone challenging the NFA of 1934)

There you go defending Scotus corrupt rulings on gun control as kosher. Well as long as nobody challenged their corrupt ruling, it's good to go! Yay!

 

[nortatoga]

There you go defending Scotus corrupt rulings on gun control as kosher. Well as long as nobody challenged their corrupt ruling, it's good to go! Yay!

If a defendant does not show a Court must rule against them! It is that simple. That is not supporting a ruling, that is understanding the steps the Courts must go though! Until a case like Miller is challenged and over-ruled Courts must look to them when making other rulings!

You continue to tell others what is and isn't legal on there AR build's is that because you support the Safe-Act? I don't think so!

 

[@thewheels]

If a defendant does not show a Court must rule against them!

Do you see a problem with this statement as it pertains to precedent?

Whether the missing defendant would have won or lost isn't the sole issue.
The merits of the case are never properly argued but the case sets a precedent and is then cited by later courts.
Miller wasn't exactly a thorough 2a examination and everybody knows it but by golly, the courts still cite it as if it was. THAT's a problem.

 

[nortatoga]

Do you see a problem with this statement as it pertains to precedent?

Whether the missing defendant would have won or lost isn't the sole issue.
The merits of the case are never properly argued but the case sets a precedent and is then cited by later courts.
Miller wasn't exactly a thorough 2a examination and everybody knows it but by golly, the courts still cite it as if it was. THAT's a problem.

I don't necessarily disagree, So the only remedy it for it to be challenged! And that is not the Courts job to bring forward case's is it?

 

[Marine Cpl]

Do you see a problem with this statement as it pertains to precedent?

Whether the missing defendant would have won or lost isn't the sole issue.
The merits of the case are never properly argued but the case sets a precedent and is then cited by later courts.
Miller wasn't exactly a thorough 2a examination and everybody knows it but by golly, the courts still cite it as if it was. THAT's a problem.

He doesn't see a problem because he defends government corruption all the time.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I don't necessarily disagree, So the only remedy it for it to be challenged! And that is not the Courts job to bring forward case's is it?

Actually it is. When a case like Heller afterwards comes to their doorstep and they have to define the 2nd Amendment to provide revelance to the case, that should be the end of it.

Unfortunately, Scalia fucked that one up by declaring that "shall not be infringed" applies only to certain guns that are commonly owned and not against dangerous ones or unusual ones against what the actual words of the 2A actually say.

With that phrase they can ban black powder guns because they aren't common and are fairly unusual in these times by the general public along with belt-fed machine guns, fully automatic rifles, ect.

 

[nortatoga]

Actually it is. When a case like Heller afterwards comes to their doorstep and they have to define the 2nd Amendment to provide revelance to the case, that should be the end of it.

Unfortunately, Scalia fucked that one up by declaring that "shall not be infringed" applies only to certain guns that are commonly owned and not against dangerous ones or unusual ones against what the actual words of the 2A actually say.

With that phrase they can ban black powder guns because they aren't common and are fairly unusual in these times by the general public along with belt-fed machine guns, fully automatic rifles, ect.

The Courts might not seem Corrupt if you knew what you were talking about!

Dick Heller suing for a premise permit in DC is no way going to overturn Miller v US!

And Scalia declared nothing that was not already a ruling! And remember 4 other Justices signed on to this ruling! Had Kennedy gone the other way we would have no individual right and McDonald would have not incorporated the 2A! But that there would make you Happy Right?

So as of right now the only firearm that the SCOTUS has ruled against is a Sawed-off Shot Gun with a barrel under 18 inches.

The only way to overturn the NFA is from someone charged under it not from a case for a premise permit or a CCW or Open Carry!

 

[Marine Cpl]

The Courts might not seem Corrupt if you knew what you were talking about!

Dick Heller suing for a premise permit in DC is no way going to overturn Miller v US!

And Scalia declared nothing that was not already a ruling! And remember 4 other Justices signed on to this ruling! Had Kennedy gone the other way we would have no individual right and McDonald would have not incorporated the 2A! But that there would make you Happy Right?

So as of right now the only firearm that the SCOTUS has ruled against is a Sawed-off Shot Gun with a barrel under 18 inches.

The only way to overturn the NFA is from someone charged under it not from a case for a premise permit or a CCW or Open Carry!

Did he not define the 2A?

 

[Chicken Shoot]

a State law cannot supercede a Federal law,

So ... states that refuse to enforce federal laws are allowed to create and pass laws that supersede the US Constitution, as in NY and all other democrap run states on gun control, illegal voting, illegal aliens etc, and all is well??? BULLSHIT!!!