United States & Gun Control discussion.

- Mod Hat On -

@ThunderHorse -

Look man, I keep telling you this; you keep blowing it off. When you "hate" a post on an internet forum (as you did in @policemedic 's post#3164), it is no different than being in the same room with someone and saying, "Dude! What you just said is fucking bullshit! I don't agree at all!"

At a minimum you owe the person the most basic of explanation. "Hate because....my daughter's friend's mom is a lawyer and that's not what she said." Something. The writer should have an opportunity to know what you 'hate' so he can choose to either respond and further his point, or simply blow it off. It is those small courtesies that make an online community work.
 
policemedic said:
Certainly. It’s an important case.



Here is the crux of the problem. Heller does not grant an unlimited right to possess firearms because (amongst other reasons) the Court is quite clear that no right is unlimited.

In its opinion, the Court said:

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.

While there are people who take the opposite view—as @ThunderHorse has above—that position is neither supported by Heller nor legally sound.

The bare bones essence of Heller is that Heller, a DC special policeman (essentially, an armed guard with very limited arrest authority), wanted to register a handgun in the District. He was denied because DC banned the registration of handguns except for those who received a discretionary one-year license from the chief of the Metropolitan Police Department. DC also had a trigger lock requirement that would prevent a gun from being kept ready for use; those lucky enough to get the one-year license would have to render their guns useless for self-defense in the home. Heller filed suit, and the case see-sawed its way to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS held that a ban on entire classes of firearms i.e. handguns was unconstitutional, as was the trigger lock requirement. The Court did not have to deal with the licensing issue because Heller conceded this point (as long as licensing was done fairly) during oral arguments.

It did not establish an unfettered right pursuant to the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...


At which point did I attempt to say Heller applied to Felons?

Much better than a one liner.
 
ThunderHorse said:
At which point did I attempt to say Heller applied to Felons?

Much better than a one liner.
Click to expand...

You didn’t, and it’s irrelevant. It’s also obfuscation. You stated, “So DC Vs Heller is the Law based upon Judicial review. That means a state cannot restrict my access to firearms.” You’re demonstrably wrong.

States can, do and will exercise significant control over which firearms you may own, how they must be purchased, how (or if) they can be carried, what kind of ammunition and how much (magazine limits) you can carry or load.

That control extends even to those of us exempted by federal law from most state laws regarding possession and concealed carry of firearms. For example, while I can carry hollowpoints in New Jersey and carry a gun in places like DC, NYC and LA, I do have to respect their magazine size limits if I’m not on business.
 
Last edited:
Ooh-Rah said:
That whole thing is a sticky-wicket. My fear about those types of rules is having men and women who need help, but are afraid to ask because they are worried about losing their guns.
Click to expand...


Recreational shooting/hunting can be good therapy for PTSD. It was and is for me.
 
Red Flag 1 said:
It does leave the door open for surrender/confiscation of banned weapons. This can be a very slippery slope. Today under this administration the AR-15, & bump stocks could be banned and confiscated. The path to banning and confiscation is there, and it will make a similar move more likely for other weapons under a future administration. The 2A still stands, just not for certain weapons. The writing on the wall is for all semiautomatic weapons being banned.}:-) Bye, Bye Glocks, et al.:mad: It will happen and there will be nothing that we can do about it. We will be left with black powder ball and cap for hunting, things you do not need a permit for.
Click to expand...

Yeah...it we'll be narrowly defining of arms as swords, bows, and spears...:mad:
 
Red Flag 1 said:
It does leave the door open for surrender/confiscation of banned weapons. This can be a very slippery slope. Today under this administration the AR-15, & bump stocks could be banned and confiscated. The path to banning and confiscation is there, and it will make a similar move more likely for other weapons under a future administration. The 2A still stands, just not for certain weapons. The writing on the wall is for all semiautomatic weapons being banned.}:-) Bye, Bye Glocks, et al.:mad: It will happen and there will be nothing that we can do about it. We will be left with black powder ball and cap for hunting, things you do not need a permit for.
Click to expand...

You mean .50 caliber rifles? 🤓
 
During the 1994 AWB, weapons already in the hands of citizens were not touched. If I recall they could not be sold or transferred and unless in a trust were to be destroyed upon the death of the owner. From what I have read the proposed 2018 AWB has similar verbiage.

I decided to sit down and read all 157 pages of D.C. v Heller. While it was very dry and sometimes confusing, it was very insightful. A ban on a particular type of weapon is considered unconstitutional, not that this fact will stop the left.

Here is what I found regarding types of weapons on page 58:

“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”

I have attached a copy if anyone would care to read it.

I am sure there would be many lawsuits to gum up the works of a ban should it occur.

Judge Andrew Napolitano: In defense of the right to keep and bear arms
 

Attachments

Last edited:
@CDG , the only reason I think the age anecdotes relate is just to point out what you mentioned: Young men have suspect judgment. Honestly I don't know where I stand on the age and gun ownership debate, but if it stays at 18 for a rifle, then lower the age to buy a handgun to 18, too.
 
Devildoc said:
@CDG , the only reason I think the age anecdotes relate is just to point out what you mentioned: Young men have suspect judgment. Honestly I don't know where I stand on the age and gun ownership debate, but if it stays at 18 for a rifle, then lower the age to buy a handgun to 18, too.
Click to expand...
IMO, the choice to restrict hotel room rentals or insurance coverage has come from verified data (thousands of data points) that verify that drivers under the age of 25 and hotel renters under the age of 21 cost those private companies more to serve than those of higher age. It's most certainly age discrimination; done for a reason that can be demonstrated. I suppose we could say, "younger people have worse judgment" and you're not wrong, but that's not the reason the companies charge younger people more or don't allow them to use the service at all- it's a proven risk to their business model.

I agree with your stance on rifles and handguns though- don't fully understand why the age for possessing a firearm changes when the length changes.
 
Dicks will certainly lose customers whether by boycott or simply through supply and demand. No ARs and the age increase will send customers in another direction. Of course, you will have the hardcore 2nd Amendment boycotters as well. How much loss they can accept remains to be seen.
 
Topkick said:
Well, I just found this article. Apparently, it could be partly considered a publicity stunt because Dicks hasn't been selling ARs in a lot of their stores for years.

Dick's Sporting Goods AR-15 Discontinuation Announcement Is Likely More Show than Substance
Click to expand...

Another likely reason corporate boycotts very rarely succeed - executives and marketing firms who are able to calculate risk prior to making such decisions and announcements. X-D

And if this is, in fact, a marketing stunt - kudos to Dick's for seeing these chances.
 

Similar threads

Ooh-Rah
Anyone familiar with Aphantasia?
Replies
17
Views
768
Topkick
Topkick
Marauder06
Illinois Dem lawmaker pushes bill to legalize attacks on police for people having mental health episode
Replies
6
Views
2K
Box
Box
Devildoc
House discussing citizen-only voting bill...
Replies
19
Views
672
The Quartermaster
The Quartermaster
Box
The Trump Presidency 2.0
128 129 130
Replies
3K
Views
74K
amlove21
amlove21
G
Considering Enlistment, Questions + Concerns
Replies
6
Views
698
Diamondback 2/2
Diamondback 2/2
Back
Top