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][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]

Sure, there are important limitations. I don't see what this has to do with the affirmation that the right to arms is a personal right. I don't see any issue with the "dangerous and unusual weapons" language. [b]This is why full auto weapons have been banned[/b]. I am not certain that the NY/MD/CA assault weapons ban would pass Supreme Court scrutiny if the same standard in Heller was applied to those bans. An AR15 fits the literal definition of "in common use at the time". There is no more common rifle in use. Even the NY/MD/CA does not ban current guns already owned. [/quote]
I think the point is that many of us believe that semi-automatic weapons are also dangerous, and the precedent for limiting based on that idea has already been established.

I actually think the "common use at the time" is pretty bold on Scalia's part because it essentially allows for gun manufacturers to be the leaders in what weapons become common. The "common use" language has no existence in the text or structure or even history of 2A. Would you agree? Certainly nothing about that could be pulled from the constitution "exactly as written."[/quote]

Well, any weapon is dangerous in the broad sense of the term, so either being dangerous alone is not enough (e.g. dangerous <b>AND</b> unusual), or that "dangerous" refers to some additional level of menace. At the time of the short barrel shotgun ban, it was not a commonly used weapon among legal and lawful private users. The same is true for full auto weapons - it was not common at the time the bans were put into place.

I am not sure why you think "common use at the time" is such a bold standard. First it tracks with the textual purpose of the 2nd amendment, which is for privately armed citizens to protect themselves, and it would be rather important for people to be armed with weapons "in common use". US law and judges largely defer to "the will of the people" in practical matters such as this. [/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