Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
07 04, 22, 05:54:12:AM

Login with username and password


Search:     Advanced search
2495372 Posts in 280947 Topics by 302 Members
Latest Member: Jason
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: USSC says you don't have to justify a reason for owning guns 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 Print
Author Topic: USSC says you don't have to justify a reason for owning guns  (Read 74 times)
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 61085

Let's go Brandon!


« Reply #12 on: 06 23, 22, 07:11:55:PM » Reply

Why this incursion on liberty and our Constitution took 100 years to correct is flabbergasting to me.
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #13 on: 06 23, 22, 07:31:50:PM » Reply

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling.

US Supreme Court Justice Scalia
Dan
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

Johnwalsh is a homosexual


« Reply #14 on: 06 23, 22, 07:52:07:PM » Reply

Quote
WHY would SOME Rights in the US Constitution require "compelling" reasons and others NOT?

Aren't ALL Rights of Citizens in the Constitution EQUAL?
[/HIGHLIGHT][/SIZE][/FONT]



That’s exactly right.  Can you imagine having to argue to a government official to get permission to go to church?


Our inherent rights are UNALIENABLE.  They are absolute.
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 61085

Let's go Brandon!


« Reply #15 on: 06 23, 22, 08:17:40:PM » Reply

We can always count on commies to find out where the limit is, and push it.  But the extent they can do that is likewise limited.  Thus, Americans will always keep and bear arms to some guaranteed extent.  And there is nothing commies can do to end that.
D2D
Republicans believe every day is the fourth of July! Democrats believe every day is April 15!
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

#SayHisName Cannon Hinnant


« Reply #16 on: 06 24, 22, 01:19:35:AM » Reply

District of Columbia v. Heller

Decision
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.

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.[48]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #17 on: 06 24, 22, 01:23:29:AM » Reply

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  In its decision, authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court was careful to stress the limited nature of its ruling.

US Supreme Court Justice Scalia
D2D
Republicans believe every day is the fourth of July! Democrats believe every day is April 15!
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

#SayHisName Cannon Hinnant


« Reply #18 on: 06 24, 22, 01:24:21:AM » Reply

Democrats, why do you believe a law-abiding person who meets or exceeds all legal requirements should be denied a concealed carry permit? 

Why do you believe the government has the arbitrary right to strip Americans of their rights without any trials or convictions?
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 61085

Let's go Brandon!


« Reply #19 on: 06 24, 22, 01:25:39:AM » Reply

Semi-automatic (aka assault) weapons have been, and are, in common use in America, and thus use of them is protected.
seahooker
Sr. Member

Posts: 11433


« Reply #20 on: 06 24, 22, 01:58:19:AM » Reply

The next SCOTUS decision will be there must be a compelling reason to have an abortion
wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #21 on: 06 24, 22, 02:16:57:AM » Reply

but abortion would still be legal a available in all the states right hooker?
seahooker
Sr. Member

Posts: 11433


« Reply #22 on: 06 24, 22, 03:12:16:AM » Reply

yep
D2D
Republicans believe every day is the fourth of July! Democrats believe every day is April 15!
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

#SayHisName Cannon Hinnant


« Reply #23 on: 06 24, 22, 03:33:02:AM » Reply

Democrats have no answer!

Democrats, why do you believe a law-abiding person who meets or exceeds all legal requirements should be denied a concealed carry permit?  

Why do you believe the government has the arbitrary right to strip Americans of their rights without any trials or convictions?
Pages: 1 2 3 Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: USSC says you don't have to justify a reason for owning guns
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.68 seconds with 39 queries.