No I get that but he may also follow through with it we dont know yet
New York City Is Still Running from Supreme Court Review of Gun Laws
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
No I get that but he may also follow through with it we dont know yet
Also the dangerous and unusual is not a ploy by the left. It is what Scalia wrote in defense of the NFA and keeping short barrel shotguns/rifles, suppressors and machine guns regulated the way they are
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Scalia's defense of the NFA aside, I'd posit that it is a term intentionally misused by the left to steer public opinion. I also think it worth mentioning that those weapons deemed under the NFA as dangerous and unusual, wouldn't be if it weren't for the very law regulating and declaring them as such. Without the NFA, SBS's, SBR's, suppressors, Etc. would be in common usage.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Hell under the Miller case "weapons of war" would be the only weapons allowed, no?
(Edited to correct name of case)
Last edited:
Of.course they would be common in this day. Hell SBRs arent that unusual but are becoming more so now thanks to braces and suppressors are well were becoming very common
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Scalia really fucked us instead of doing the right the thing. He knew what he was doing and all you people praised his good decision.
You have an unrealistic expectation and understanding of how solid legal precedent is set. We want a decision that will last centuries, not until the next appeal.
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Not going to happen 
spat
.700 Nitro Express
As long as they agree that nothing the police use is "dangerous and unusual" Then I'm OK with it.
If they decide that full auto is "dangerous and unusual" then someone needs to sue some police departments for issuing such dangerous items.
Make the government defend it's own inconsistent position.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Who?
You!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I don’t understand what you mean. What does me pointing out Scalia’s Trojan Horse have to do with what you said about unrealistic expectations?
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
I honestly have ZERO expectations when it comes to this lawsuit.
Bob
6.5 Creedmoor
I honestly have zero expectations when it comes to SCOTUS.
Maybe I misread what you expected from Scalia.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
The NYC was stupid on its face. NYC is worried about guns on its streets but someone who has a residency permit can take it to a range IN NYC but not take it out of NYC is just stupid, even to people who are against CCW
I thought you were smarter the this!
Just where in Dick Heller's case was he challenging the NFA or Miller v US?
* The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns. It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. See D. C. Code §§7-2501.01(12), 7-2502.01(a), 7-2502.02(a)(4) (2001). Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods. See §§22-4504(a), 22-4506. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device" unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities. See §7-2507.02.1
Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of "functional firearms within the home." App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent's complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense,2 reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city's total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399-401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. *
And wasnt it the Heller case the Scalia wrote that the 2nd like all other amendments was not above regulations specifically when it comes to unusual and dangerous weapons referencing NFA items
All those laws and restrictions and Court rulings/opinions in my signature are a summation as to if any of them pertain to Heller's case (Non did, Did they?)
Where any of those laws/reg's a Disqualifier for Heller to obtain a premise permit?
If Dick Heller wanted a sawed off shot gun or to conceal a weapon then it would have applied to those laws and rulings! But he wanted a premise permit and was not challenging DC ban on CCW's at that time!
Scalia stating what the law is for dangerous weapons was not part of the ruling! (No Trojan Horse) It was not being challenged.
Scalia also said this-
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
Notice it only says Short-Barreled Shotguns!
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Yeah but it's an example which can be extrapolated on.
Yes it can be or until it is ruled it can't!
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
"In common use" at the time included rifles, muskets... and cannon. Not to mention rudimentary grenades.
You are missing the point of my orginal statement just to try and argue Heller like I'm will or some shit
No I am not!
You say he wrote in defense of the NFA! He wrote what it is! The NFA was not being challenge in Heller.
Watch at about the halfway point.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
He loves Heller and Scalia. What he fails to realize is that Scalia defined and interpreted the 2nd Amendment in the Heller decision.
Anyway, he is for those restrictions. He’s said as much numerous times. A true Fudd. That’s why he has it on his signature and never takes it off. He just defends it.
Last edited:
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
It looks that way, like the law doesn't apply to them.
Imagine if the right in question was the right to free speech or the right to vote that I am starting to believe one should quality for so one
could be critical and vote for oneself and not a corrupted system powered by a brain-washing machine that preys in the ignorance of the populus.
Those who restricts rights of any kind should be put on their place sooner or later so the people can restore faith in the checks and balances
and due process.
It doesnt have to be part of the challange it set legal precedent and such of the highest order. Any time anyone ever tries to argue the NFA there will be arguments citing Heller and Scalias ruling and him writing in black and white
meketrefe
.450/400 Nitro Ex
I have ZERO faith in totalitarian NY having any respect for the laws should the SCOUTS decide on our favor.