Reply to Why do you want to own a gun, rifle, automatic weapon?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Why do you want to own a gun, rifle, automatic weapon?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OP here. Yes, I am curious about different opinions on the topic. I think it is very relevant and that it is my impression that the interpretation of "the right to bear arms" was far different from today's individual rights in 18th an 19th centuries. What I see today is NRA's interpretation of it as supported by a decision only in 2008. I would never interpret it as right to walk around schools, colleges, malls....armed.[/quote]

That's like saying the right to free speech is supported only by whatever the latest case is that affirmed it. That's not true. What the 2008 Heller decision affirmed is that the right to bear arms is a personal right, and not a collective right, exactly as is written in the constitution and was the generally understood interpretation throughout the US aside from the DC law and the Chicago law that ran counter to it.[/quote]
DP. Scalia also stated in Heller, the following:

[quote]“We also recognize another[b] important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.[/b] ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the [b]sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ [/b]307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the [b]historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’[/b]”[/quote]

As an aside, I am surprised by how many so-called constitutional conservatives support Scalia's Heller decision, as it was pretty activist-esque.

And yes, free speech has limitations, based on court decisions that followed after the establishment of the first amendment. [/quote]

Blackstone said the prohibition was as to "dangerous *or* unusual" weapons rather than "dangerous *and* unusual."

"[T]he offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land; and is particularly prohibited by the statute of Northampton[.]"

And, yes, Scalia's vaunted "originalism" wasn't in evidence during the Heller decision. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics