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

T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,622
Location
Nys
pjzwtl said:
Yet basic common sense says wrong? Right protected for the people are applied to the states. The state does have it own right to administer itself provided it doesn’t infringe on the rights of the people which are in the constitution particularly the BOR.

Your actually arguing that the state has a right to trample any right which would be in direct conflict with the intent of the framers and the cause of revolution to begin with.

That’s all I’m going to say we can post others conflicting l enlightened legal info all day but I suspect it would be time wasted
Click to expand...

I think you should read Mapp v Ohio .

Mapp v. Ohio - Wikipedia

And look at the year the decision was made.

The 4th admendment did not apply to the states until 1961
 
nortatoga

nortatoga

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,428
Reaction score
19,181
Location
Saratoga County
nortatoga said:
@BDinPutnam I do believe the reason Miller was brought up was in response to Justice Stevens Dissenting Opinion? It was what he opened with.

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, "n 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." Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller--that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons--is both the most natural reading of the Amendment's text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
Click to expand...

@Willjr75 you quote me as saying *Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.* in post #115! When that came from Justice Stevens Dissent (which I posted again above!) you either don't know what a Dissenting Opinion is or you just argue disingenuously like a Liberal!

Sorry this thread has gotten derail! But some on here are like Joy Behar who finds every problem is Trumps fault! Every gun case is the Heller ruling problem!
 
Marine Cpl

Marine Cpl

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
20,631
Location
Orange County
nortatoga said:
@Willjr75 you quote me as saying *Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.* in post #115! When that came from Justice Stevens Dissent (which I posted again above!) you either don't know what a Dissenting Opinion is or you just argue disingenuously like a Liberal!

Sorry this thread has gotten derail! But some on here are like Joy Behar who finds every problem is Trumps fault! Every gun case is the Heller ruling problem!
Click to expand...
They told us to stop arguing this. We can do so in another thread. Feel free to create it and I will engage you if you wish.
 
T

Truebeliever

6.5 Creedmoor
Messages
2,490
Reaction score
1,622
Location
Nys
spat said:
States can contradict anything the feds let them get away with too. See Marijuana.
Click to expand...
Yes they can if the law is not under federal powers such as the commerce clause.
Go look up the original school gun free zone and why it was thrown out.

Thank god the SCOTUS recognizes the case of McDonald to incorporate the 2A to the states via the 14th Admendment.

And Thank god they seem to see thru the attempt to get this case dismissed so they just go and change the law back to its wrongful ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top