Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Gun Control/2nd Amendment
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss St Louis, MO Gun Ban at the General Forum; Originally Posted by saltwn IF I'm not mistaken that was a ruling on banning all guns from city limits in ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2016, 06:13 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 304
Thanks: 172
Thanked 345 Times in 182 Posts
Default Re: St Louis, MO Gun Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
IF I'm not mistaken that was a ruling on banning all guns from city limits in some town. That is against the constitution, however as voiced in that same SCOTUS ruling regulations are not.
Well, the last SCOTUS case on the RKBA / 2ndA applied (incorporated) the 2nd to the states.

The ballot initiative in 2014 revised the Missouri state constitution removing the power to forbid the concealing of arms, declaring that:
"The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. . . . "
So howsabout you give it another try . . .

Please explain how your statement in post 98, conforms to SCOTUS opinion on the right to arms and the separate and distinct 2nd Amendment as well as the Missouri constitution's protection of the citizen's RKBA. include in your exposition the 2014 ballot initiative -- see https://ballotpedia.org/Missouri_Rig...5_(August_2014) .
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #102 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2016, 08:07 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 304
Thanks: 172
Thanked 345 Times in 182 Posts
Default Re: St Louis, MO Gun Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
Thanks for the laugh.

This propaganda is titled:

"The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns"

And it opens with:

"Have you read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns? Probably not. "

Are you really presenting this BS as something I am supposed to treat as an authoritative instruction on DC v Heller?

This joker's title and opening stand in direct contradiction to what is the most fundamental point of the opinion affirming the most foundational principle of the Constitution.

As Heller says:

"it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. . . ."

So, while the title of this BS is absolutely true -- that the 2nd Amendment did not grant the citizens the right to keep and bear arms -- the anti-gun rights conclusion the writer hoped to instill in the mind of an unfortunate, gullible reader, is crushed by actually reading (and understanding) Heller.

To answer this buffoon's opening question, no I have never read the 2008 Supreme Court decision that gives all Americans the right to own guns . . . Because a decision stating such an absurdity does not exist -- except between this goofballs ears.

Again, thanks for the laugh . . .

EDITED TO ADD:

Do you want to delve into your source and examine the finer points?

There's alot of material there and some wonderful opportunities are presented to divest you of some of your woefully incorrect beliefs on the 2nd Amendment.

You game?
__________________
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; 12-09-2016 at 08:19 PM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
  #103 (permalink)  
Old 12-09-2016, 10:21 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,897
Thanks: 170
Thanked 4,954 Times in 3,600 Posts
Default Re: St Louis, MO Gun Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
As long as they don't ban all guns, Missourians per their representatives can do anything they want as far as types or regulations.
As long as gun weenies are afraid of guns, you can say anything you want. It will be ignored, though.
Reply With Quote
  #104 (permalink)  
Old 12-12-2016, 10:51 AM
Joe Shoe's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,848
Thanks: 710
Thanked 1,369 Times in 935 Posts
Default Re: St Louis, MO Gun Ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by WoodsChuck View Post
I have no argument against firearms education; in fact, I am an ambitious advocate.
The Second Amendment carries with it a massive responsibility that has long been ignored.
I remember beginning to learn firearms safety from family members at a very young age. I carried a stick instead of a gun, while hunting or target shooting with my dad, until he was convinced that I was conscious enough of where my 'gun' was pointed at all times before I ever got to shoot his (under close supervision). We also had firearms safety training as part of our PE curriculum from 5th through 8th grade.
I believe we should get back to that kind of training and education from a much younger age.
I agree firearms education is important, but I do not agree it should be some prerequisite to being able to partake in a constitutional freedom. We don't require people to take a course on free speech prior to being able to engage in 1st amendment freedoms--states also shouldn't require a course or set amount of training to carry a gun. Education is ALWAYS good when it comes to firearms. But where I disagree is it becoming a legal mandate, as it is in most states.
Constitutional Carry should be the law of the land. The constitution is the only carry permit anyone should need.
__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Joe Shoe For This Useful Post:
  #105 (permalink)  
Old 12-13-2016, 07:27 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 304
Thanks: 172
Thanked 345 Times in 182 Posts
Default Re: St Louis, MO Gun Ban

So it seems that saltwn won't be back to defend her source so I'll just return to the "meat" of the post and examine the reasoning. I love when anti's quote from Part III of Heller, it is always chopped-up and the most important part of the paragraph (two little tiny numerical characters, "26") is always omitted . . .

So, lets examine the propaganda she posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
On pp. 54 and 55, the majority opinion, written by conservative bastion Justice Antonin Scalia, states: “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.”
Whoop-de-do . . .

Every time I read Part III quotes from an anti (especially when it is bolded) I ask myself, 'what aspect of gun rights supporter argument is that part of the quote intended to rebut or defeat'? Chopping out the citations shifts the statement from Scalia just citing the law to the anti scolding and teaching the gun-humpers a new thing or two.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
“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.”
And of course, in usual anti-gunner fashion, footnote 26 is omitted. One of the things that later courts have found compelling and instructive in Heller is left out -- for what purpose?

Well, to present as fact that these examples of gun control are beyond question . . . This often morphs into a suggestion that Scalia actually made a blanket statement about the constitutionality of nearly all gun control laws.

Footnote 26 says: "We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive" and in real life has been the basis of directly questioning the validity of those types of gun laws, even criminal / felon dispossession:

"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. . . ."

US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, (7th Cir. 2009)​

__________

"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)

So, it is past time for anti's to stop presenting this Heller quote as any kind of endorsement of gun control or any statement of some unquestionable, constitutional status of gun control -- reality is quite the opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time”. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”
Scalia speaks to the interesting conundrum that arises because while technological advances in arms has never been a criteria to limit arms, future arms could be forbidden (and that ban would presumably meet constitutional muster) simply because that weapon never had an opportunity to become, "in common use".

Thankfully, the protection criteria is multi-pronged, so if the military rolls out a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range, perhaps a civilian model at 5 watts would be constitutionally protected . . . or not, as Scalia notes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
The court even recognizes a long-standing judicial precedent “…to consider… prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons.”
This article now descends into typical quote chopping / distorting / misrepresenting that is typical of these anti-gun propaganda pieces.

The 18th century state cases and legal treatises the Court mentions are not "precedent" for SCOTUS, it is history and a determination that from that moment on, should also be considered "presumptive" at best. The primary reason that prohibitions on concealed carry were not considered in conflict with the 2nd is that these laws were state or local laws and in the 18th Century as well as 2008, the 2nd had yet to be enforced on state action . . . McDonald changed that dynamic. We will see because a concealed carry challenge will certainly reach the Court in the future.


The rest of this propaganda piece is as bad and worse. It truly is despicable and inexcusable . . .

It sure would be fun if some anti would step-up and try defend it.
__________________
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ban, gun, louis

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0