View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:35 AM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Jeerleader Jeerleader is online now
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 683
Thanks: 539
Thanked 868 Times in 415 Posts
Default Re: John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
SCOTUS has plainly stated that restrictions on types of guns are legal.
Yes, but only the types of guns that are not part of the ordinary military equipment, of a type not usual in civilized warfare or of a type that their use would not contribute to the common defense or of course a type that are not in common use by the citizens.

But of course that's not what you meant . . . Because you can not allow yourself to argue the truth and actual law.

Of course we on the gun rights side know what you are talking about, Heller's oft quoted list of "longstanding prohibitions" and most importantly, the "laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms" and it stands to reason, laws criminalizing certain simple gun possession and use.

But, Heller, when mentioning laws not being examined by the Court in Heller, characterized them as being merely "presumptively legal" . . . Which means of course that said presumption of constitutionality can be challenged. Even such 'unquestionable' restrictions like felon dispossession have been challenged because of Heller. In 2011 the 3rd Circuit said:

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted."

U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)

Of course felon disablement of gun rights were/are sustained because they are founded on legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional and common law.

On the other hand, hundreds of gun control laws that were upheld by citing the 1942 lower federal court opinions of Tot or Cases --which polluted the federal courts with "collective right" BS-- and reasoned upon the theories that the 2nd does not secure an individual right, are infirm and when examined, WILL BE STRUCK DOWN.

Always remember, when you wish to misrepresent Heller that inconvenient facts get in the way, like footnote 26 and the fact that the Court said that the very enumeration of the right to arms takes out of the hands of government the constant reevaluation of it, and that constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, and that enshrinement necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

So, your general statement that, "SCOTUS has plainly stated that restrictions on types of guns are legal" is at best, a purposeful over-reading and at worst, a blatant misrepresentation intended only to deceive.

At this point it really doesn't matter which one, whatever credibility you think you had/have, is a mirage.

Leftists just can't be trusted to be honest voices on the Constitution and SCOTUS holdings and the subset that are hostile to gun rights can't be trusted with anything, especially the protection original, fundamental rights. The principle of retained rights is anathema to the political model they want to impose on us.

Allowing an illegal border crosser to stay in the US with amnesty and start the legal immigration process
is like allowing a bank robber to go free and keep the money as long as he fills out a loan application.

Last edited by Jeerleader; 04-13-2018 at 01:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post: