100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Georgia town approves mandatory gun ownership law | |
|---|---|
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 04/06/13 09:56 AM
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only requirement I think there should be on owning a gun is you need a class on how to handle and use a gun. If you are unskilled in using a gun, it can be more a harmful to yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 04/06/13 10:18 AM
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only requirement I think there should be on owning a gun is you need a class on how to handle and use a gun. If you are unskilled in using a gun, it can be more a harmful to yourself. In times past the Young ones used to get free Rifle-Training before it became politically Incorrect! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 04/06/13 10:33 AM
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, And who arms it? You are dancing around the Issue as usual! If the Right to Arms weren't a Right,it wouldn't be mentioned in that Amendment!It stems from the Right to Life! And the Right to Life isn't worth the Paper it is written on if I am not allowed the means to defend it! Simple! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, And who arms it? thats the debate,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, And who arms it? thats the debate,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, And who arms it? thats the debate,, sidestepping is what gunlovers do when they repeatedly ignore the words 'well regulated',,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 04/06/13 10:50 AM
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, And who arms it? thats the debate,, sidestepping is what gunlovers do when they repeatedly ignore the words 'well regulated',,,lol Seems they ought to vote you to the SCOTUS then! 
and you still haven't answered who will arm,train,regulate,pay the socalled Militia,neither have you explained what the Militia is! you only ride on the Well Regulated Thingy! But don't say what and by whom! you really don't have a Leg to stand on with that Well Regulated Stuff! Supreme Court took no cognizance of it in their Decision either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, And who arms it? thats the debate,, sidestepping is what gunlovers do when they repeatedly ignore the words 'well regulated',,,lol Seems they ought to vote you to the SCOTUS then!
and you still haven't answered who will arm,train,regulate,pay the socalled Militia,neither have you explained what the Militia is! you only ride on the Well Regulated Thingy! But don't say what and by whom! you really don't have a Leg to stand on with that Well Regulated Stuff! Supreme Court took no cognizance of it in their Decision either! are you referring to this: The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment. http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php lol anyway dude, my point is that its not so CLEAR the details under which people have a 'right' to arms, or which regulations on firearms violate that 'right' I am proponent of regulations, others are on the extremes of complete and unregulated access, or complete bans the courts, most recently, also favor regulation and find that it doesnt impose on ones 'right' to bear arms,,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 04/06/13 11:20 AM
|
|
I agree. I dont like guns in the hands of the untrained, or impulsive, or paranoid people I'm fine with those trained and disciplined in actual protection of people,,,, The Constitution states clearly what the RIGHTS of the People are,and no Obfuscation can change that! it doesnt state too clearly, considering the history of legal argument surrounding it there is a right to bear arms thats undebatable whats debatable is , as long as you have arms (one weapon) is that right already fulfilled, or is it the right to own endless supplies of any kind of weapon as long as you have access to arms, does it mean there has to therefore be made available any and every type of arms possible? and, being that a well 'regulated' militia is mentioned as the reason for said access, should everyone owning a gun be considered a part of a 'regulated' militia? and whose role is it to regulate it..... ,,ya see, its not so clear its clear that there could never be a BAN on citizens owning weapons AT ALL but beyond that,, there is plenty left to debate... Owning Arms is a Right,NOT a Privilege! Get that through your Head,A Right! Not debatable! no kidding owning arms is a right, but it involves commerce , which is not a right therefore, although noone can be stopped from having access to weapons,, what weapons are manufactured or available is a commerce issue and NOT a right my head is perfectly right,, I have the right to be married too,,, but not to have several marriages at once,,, the fulfillment of my right happens the moment I am MARRIED< and the fulfillment of my right to a rmhappens the MOMENT I am armed with even one weapon,,,, and 'well regulated' militia is still part of that 'right' people love to keep quoting to argue there should be no regulations,,, Besides,who is the Militia? actually it does its IN the amendment that is constantly cited by gun rights activitsts A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. its the only right in the bil of rights with such a precursor,,,thats why its DEBATABLE,,,, And who arms it? thats the debate,, sidestepping is what gunlovers do when they repeatedly ignore the words 'well regulated',,,lol Seems they ought to vote you to the SCOTUS then!
and you still haven't answered who will arm,train,regulate,pay the socalled Militia,neither have you explained what the Militia is! you only ride on the Well Regulated Thingy! But don't say what and by whom! you really don't have a Leg to stand on with that Well Regulated Stuff! Supreme Court took no cognizance of it in their Decision either! are you referring to this: The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment. http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php lol anyway dude, my point is that its not so CLEAR the details under which people have a 'right' to arms, or which regulations on firearms violate that 'right' I am proponent of regulations, others are on the extremes of complete and unregulated access, or complete bans the courts, most recently, also favor regulation and find that it doesnt impose on ones 'right' to bear arms,,,,, Where you liberal Gungrabbers lost out! and Great for that second Georgia Town! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
seems like both sides 'won' in heller considering the decision: 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 (YEAH GUNLOVERS) 2. 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. (YEAH GUN CAUTIOUS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 04/06/13 11:59 AM
|
|
seems like both sides 'won' in heller considering the decision: 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 (YEAH GUNLOVERS) 2. 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. (YEAH GUN CAUTIOUS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision Those provisions been around a long time,and they are not what the Beef is about! The Beef is Idiots like Feinstein and others preparing for the big Gungrab! And People like you are abetting them! Besides,Gunfree Zones are the biggest Travesty of all by you Gungrabbers! Seems no one gives a damn when some Heel walks in and bags himself a few Humans! The only concern is how can we deprive the Populace of their Arms! "Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." -- Janet Reno this has been the Creed ever since! Politicians are Fraidy-Cats! Gungrabbers are Fraidy-Cats! Just pray you'll never get in a situation where your life would depend on having a Firearm! Regulation is not the aim,Confiscation is! Not just in the US,no,it's everywhere! Disarming the Citizen,and any Lie is good enough! and this is what you want to reduce the Citizen to!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decision
The Supreme Court held:[43] (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. Pp. 47–54. (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. The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44] [edit] Issues addressed by the majority The core holding in D.C. v. Heller is that the Second Amendment is an individual right intimately tied to the natural right of self-defense. The Scalia majority invokes much historical material to support its finding that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals; more precisely, Scalia asserts in the Court's opinion that the "people" to whom the Second Amendment right is accorded are the same "people" who enjoy First and Fourth Amendment protection: "'The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.' United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings...." With that finding as anchor, the Court ruled a total ban on operative handguns in the home is unconstitutional, as the ban runs afoul of both the self-defense purpose of the Second Amendment – a purpose not previously articulated by the Court – and the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision: since handguns are in common use, their ownership is protected. The Court applies as remedy that "[a]ssuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home." The Court, additionally, hinted that other remedy might be available in the form of eliminating the license requirement for carry in the home, but that no such relief had been requested: "Respondent conceded at oral argument that he does not 'have a problem with ... licensing' and that the District's law is permissible so long as it is 'not enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.' Tr. of Oral Arg. 74–75. We therefore assume that petitioners' issuance of a license will satisfy respondent’s prayer for relief and do not address the licensing requirement." In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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."[45] The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 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."[46] The Court did not address which level of judicial review should be used by lower courts in deciding future cases claiming infringement of the right to keep and bear arms: "[S]ince this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field." The Court states, "If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect."[47] Also, regarding Justice Breyer's proposal of a "judge-empowering 'interest-balancing inquiry,'" the Court states, "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach."[48] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alot of assumptions
clouds the issues and any chance at actual honest resolution,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 04/06/13 12:14 PM
|
|
alot of assumptions clouds the issues and any chance at actual honest resolution,,,, So now they are trying it with Under-The-Radar Actions,Executive Orders and the like! an honest Resolution which leaves the regular Citizen defenseless? |
|
|
|
|
