New York City Is Still Running from Supreme Court Review of Gun Laws

[nortatoga]

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

So mentioning *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. Pp 54-56]* is Scalia giving he's seal of approval of the NFA? And yet the only dangerous and unusual weapon the SCOTUS has agreed with banning is a sawed-off shogun! (which Miller and his lawyer never show-up in Court for)

Scalia did not rule on the NFA! (Miller v US)
Scalia did not rule on concealed weapons prohibitions!
Scalia did not rule on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
Scalia did not rule on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings!

The Heller case did not fall under any of these.

 

[Marine Cpl]

So mentioning *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. Pp 54-56]* is Scalia giving he's seal of approval of the NFA? And yet the only dangerous and unusual weapon the SCOTUS has agreed with banning is a sawed-off shogun! (which Miller and his lawyer never show-up in Court for)

Scalia did not rule on the NFA! (Miller v US)
Scalia did not rule on concealed weapons prohibitions!
Scalia did not rule on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,
Scalia did not rule on laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings!

The Heller case did not fall under any of these.

Then what is this sir? It looks to me like they reaffirmed the Miller decision and defined the 2nd Amendment.


The Supreme Court held:[47]

(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.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. 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. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

 

[nortatoga]

Then what is this sir? It looks to me like they reaffirmed the Miller decision and defined the 2nd Amendment.


The Supreme Court held:[47]

(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.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
(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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. 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. Pp. 54–56.
(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

Very good and it is a shame you don't understand what you just posted!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Very good and it is a shame you don't understand what you just posted!

OK. Please retort.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Heller doesn't define "dangerous or unusual."

 

[nortatoga]

Heller doesn't define "dangerous or unusual."

Exactly!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Exactly!!!

It doesn’t have to. Dangerous and unusual is whatever a politician says it is when he passes a gun law. Afterwards if challenged, the liberal circuit court judge will quote Scalia and Miller and say that their law is constitutional. It’ll stand until SCOTUS picks up the case which they won’t as evidenced in past AWB cases.

How could you guys not know that? Nevermind trying to beat me in an Internet Argument because you don’t like me. Just use your head.

 

[nortatoga]

It doesn’t have to. Dangerous and unusual is whatever a politician says it is when he passes a gun law. Afterwards if challenged, the liberal circuit court judge will quote Scalia and Miller and say that their law is constitutional. It’ll stand until SCOTUS picks up the case which they won’t as evidenced in past AWB cases.

How could you guys not know that? Nevermind trying to beat me in an Internet Argument because you don’t like me. Just use your head.

In what year since the Heller decision would a AWB case have had a chance of being ruled in our favor?

 

[BDinPutnam]

I like you, in the first instance, @Willjr75.

I disagree with you on Scalia's use of Miller in Heller and I do not think a Court with the make up it currently has would accept a use of Heller in an anti-semiauto or a pro-AWB case as probative of anything. We disagree on it perhaps. I'm not sure why or where you get the idea that Scalia was somehow anti-2A (or secretly so) when Heller was the first time in more than a hundred (or more?) years that the Federal government explicitly said in binding precedent that the second amendment is an individual right.

 

[nortatoga]

Very well said @BDinPutnam !!!!

 

[Marine Cpl]

You aren’t getting the point. The point is that Scalia’s words are there for the lifetime of this country. He reaffirmed Miller. He added through his interpretation that the 2A isn’t unlimited. He said that dangerous and unusual weapons aren’t protected. That’s there for the lifetime of this country for any subsequent judge to reference.

As far as the makeup of the Supreme Court, you don’t see the problem there? Judges are supposed to be unbiased. If all the judges were liberal, the same ruling is supposed to be rendered as if all the judges were conservative or vice versa.

The problem here is that you guys have accepted their corruption.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Very well said @BDinPutnam !!!!

You’ll agree with and like a post from anyone against my posts no matter what is said. It’s so transparent.

I have people here that I’ve disagreed with in the past. But when they are right, they are right and I will say so. I’m no hypocrite.

 

[BDinPutnam]

Where do you get that Heller is about "affirming" Miller? And I'm not sure you're using the word "corruption" correctly but maybe I haven't paid enough attention to these arguments previously.

All Heller says about Miller is basically that the Heller court is not persuaded by the District's use of Miller as precedent to uphold their total ban on handgun possession at all, anywhere.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Where do you get that Heller is about "affirming" Miller?

Read the Heller decision. It clearly states the Miller ruling and then later he reaffirms it. I posted it above in a previous post.

As far as corruption goes , if you are a judge that cannot rule based on what the Constitution actually says and instead vote based on what your party stands for regardless of what the constitution says, then you are corrupt. You are voting based on towing the line. You were put there for that very reason.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I dont think you know what "affirm" means.

Heller was not about rejecting or affirming Miller.

 

[Marine Cpl]

I dont think you know what "affirm" means.

Heller was not about rejecting or affirming Miller.

Affirm.
2: to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court

 

[BDinPutnam]

Affirm.
2: to uphold a judgment or decree of a lower court

Right.

Precisely.

Miller was not in jeopardy of being "overturned" by Heller and therefore Scalia was not "affirming" anything.

Tell you what though, I hate arguing in a vacuum and I dont want to speculate either. You could very well be right. Tomorrow is Friday and it has been awhile so I will try to pull a copy of Heller and read it in full this weekend. Plus I almost always have to do this from my phone so I'm at a disadvantage in pulling citations.

 

[Marine Cpl]

Right.

Precisely.

Miller was not in jeopardy of being "overturned" by Heller and therefore Scalia was not "affirming" anything.

Tell you what though, I hate arguing in a vacuum and I dont want to speculate either. You could very well be right. Tomorrow is Friday and it has been awhile so I will try to pull a copy of Heller and read it in full this weekend. Plus I almost always have to do this from my phone so I'm at a disadvantage in pulling citations.

The reason why I said affirm is because Scalia cited Miller. He then on section 1,2,and 3 of his oral argument went on to define the 2A saying that you cannot have any arm you want just like Miller said. Only those in common use for lawful purposes.

 

[Acer-m14]

(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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. 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. Pp. 54–56.

that right there will bite us in the ass ..

he is dead wrong .. the last 3 words of the 2A ..

 

[nortatoga]

You’ll agree with and like a post from anyone against my posts no matter what is said. It’s so transparent.

I have people here that I’ve disagreed with in the past. But when they are right, they are right and I will say so. I’m no hypocrite.

No @Willjr75 ! @BDinPutnam is correct in what he posted! I really don't think you have ever read the whole Heller v DC Ruling and Opinion.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

I suggest you read through section E all about what Scalia had to say about the Miller Ruling.

 

[Marine Cpl]

No @Willjr75 ! @BDinPutnam is correct in what he posted! I really don't think you have ever read the whole Heller v DC Ruling and Opinion.

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

I suggest you read through section E all about what Scalia had to say about the Miller Ruling.

I have. Even posted most of it. Dispute what I have posted in coherent paragraphs that will show me why I was wrong rather than just saying that I do not understand or haven’t read it.

Paragraph E states that he affirmed previous court rulings. What they are, nobody knows. I’ve yet to see a ruling from 1775 or 1776 or 1778 or even 1780 for that matter. The rulings that are out there are after the founders died in the 1800’s and are just as perverse as this Heller ruling is since they go against what the Founders have been directly quoted against saying.

I can directly quote words from the founders recorded in the Federalist Papers like I have in past threads but they will fall on death ears with you since you seem to prefer the ruling of a court well after the founders died rather than what the founders actually said in direct quotes and what they actually wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights themselves.

 

[nortatoga]

I have. Even posted most of it. Dispute what I have posted in coherent paragraphs that will show me why I was wrong rather than just saying that I do not understand or haven’t read it.

Paragraph E states that he affirmed previous court rulings. What they are, nobody knows. I’ve yet to see a ruling from 1775 or 1776 or 1778 or even 1780 for that matter. The rulings that are out there are after the founders died in the 1800’s and are just as perverse as this Heller ruling is since they go against what the Founders have been directly quoted against saying.

I can directly quote words from the founders recorded in the Federalist Papers like I have in past threads but they will fall on death ears with you since you seem to prefer the ruling of a court well after the founders died rather than what the founders actually said in direct quotes and what they actually wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights themselves.

Yes you like to Quote the Federalist Papers I know, But it was the Anti-Federalist that forced the Bill of Rights! Which did not apply to the States (I know you will say it did, Post proof!) until the Amendments were incorporated through the 14th Amendment which came about well after the founders died! " rather than what the founders actually said in direct quotes and what they actually wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights themselves. "

Does the Second Amendment Bind the States? | FindLaw

he Original Bill of Rights Limited the Federal Government, But Not the States

Two provisions of the Bill of Rights--the First Amendment, which specifically refers to "Congress," and the second clause of the Seventh Amendment, which refers to federal courts--make clear by their language that they are only limits on federal action. The balance of the Bill of Rights, however, sets out rights of the People that, taken at face value, could be said to bar infringements by the states and their sub-divisions as well as by the federal government.

Yet that was not how the Bill of Rights was originally understood. In the first Congress, James Madison proposed an amendment that would bar states from violating "the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." The proposal was defeated, largely because Madison's fellow representatives saw the Bill of Rights as a check on the federal government alone. State constitutions, they thought, already provided whatever rights were needed against state (and local) violations.

The Supreme Court confirmed that the original Bill of Rights only limited the federal government in the 1833 case of Barron v. City of Baltimore.

So the court cases from the 1800's though 2010 when McDonald v City of Chicago incorporated the 2A!

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, ET AL. | FindLaw

(b) The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government, not to the States, see, e.g., Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 247, but the constitutional Amendments adopted in the Civil War's aftermath fundamentally altered the federal system. Four years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, this Court held in the Slaughter-House Cases, that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only those rights "which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws," 16 Wall., at 79, and that the fundamental rights predating the creation of the Federal Government were not protected by the Clause, id., at 76. Under this narrow reading, the Court held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only very limited rights. Id., at 79-80. Subsequently, the Court held that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government in Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, Presser, 116 U. S. 252, and Miller, 153 U. S. 535, the decisions on which the Seventh Circuit relied in this case. Pp. 5-9.

Lets see Proof and Facts not your opinions!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes you like to Quote the Federalist Papers I know, But it was the Anti-Federalist that forced the Bill of Rights! Which did not apply to the States (I know you will say it did, Post proof!) until the Amendments were incorporated through the 14th Amendment which came about well after the founders died! " rather than what the founders actually said in direct quotes and what they actually wrote in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights themselves. "

Were Amendments legally passed? Yes. They were legally passed so even if it didn’t apply previously, they sure as hell do now. What’s your point?

 

[Marine Cpl]

So the court cases from the 1800's though 2010 when McDonald v City of Chicago incorporated the 2A!

Again. Decisions after the founders died.

 

[nortatoga]

Were Amendments legally passed? Yes. They were legally passed so even if it didn’t apply previously, they sure as hell do now. What’s your point?

And each and every law would need to be challenged in Court to be changed! They don't automatically get changed, So until the Courts rule them Unconstitutional they stand!

 

[Marine Cpl]

And each and every law would need to be challenged in Court to be changed! They don't automatically get changed, So until the Courts rule them Unconstitutional they stand!

Not disputing that. They have us by the balls with their corrupt rulings based on partisan politics. That’s my issue. Our government is comprised.

So we can one of two things. Just take it, or take up arms. But you are for gun regulations so we are at a disadvantage.

 

[nortatoga]

Again. Decisions after the founders died.

Yes when the BOD only applied to the States!

You I to make Hypothetical Scenarios, Had there not been a War between the States there would have not been a 14th Amendment as the Original Founders had planned!

 

[Marine Cpl]

Yes when the BOD only applied to the States!

You I to make Hypothetical Scenarios, Had there not been a War between the States there would have not been a 14th Amendment as the Original Founders had planned!

Honest question. Do you think the founders wanted the citizenry to have their gun rights infringed upon by the states rendering the militias useless?

 

[nortatoga]

Honest question. Do you think the founders wanted the citizenry to have their gun rights infringed upon by the states rendering the militias useless?

Honest answer is no!

But there were trying to put together a frail new nation and were not going to give to much power to the new National Government. Why the BOD only applied to the Federal Government. Most of the former Colonies now States had there own BOR's protections.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

 

[Marine Cpl]

Honest answer is no!

But there were trying to put together a frail new nation and were not going to give to much power to the new National Government. Why the BOD only applied to the Federal Government. Most of the former Colonies now States had there own BOR's protections.

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions

It was a flaw that has since been corrected.