Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > US Congress & The Legislative Branch
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

US Congress & The Legislative Branch Discuss The NRA Says Gun Permits Should Be Like Driverís Licenses. Hereís Where the Compariso at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by Jeerleader I'll give your post a comprehensive answer, not to show you any respect but to just ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2017, 06:57 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 74,587
Thanks: 53,412
Thanked 25,482 Times in 18,115 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: The NRA Says Gun Permits Should Be Like Driverís Licenses. Hereís Where the Compa

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeerleader View Post
I'll give your post a comprehensive answer, not to show you any respect but to just ensure that nobody who reads your post believes it to be true.

...
Be sure, just like the 1942 lower federal court decisions that ignored and dismissed SCOTUS and inserted the "militia right" and "state's right" into the federal courts, these decisions twist and misrepresent Heller to arrive at a decision that stands in direct opposition to Heller and SCOTUS precedent.

.

i do respect you and your opinion, though different from mine.
rebuttal:
Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While there have been vigorous debates on the nature of this right, there was a lack of clear federal court rulings defining the right until the two U.S. Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).

An individual right to own a gun for personal use was affirmed in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia. In the Heller decision, the court's majority opinion said that the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."

However, in delivering the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on the Second Amendment not being an unlimited right:

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.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
__________________
Humans Less Than 1% of Life on Earth, But Have Destroyed Half of Its Plants, More Than 80% of All Mammals
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2017, 07:58 PM
Manitou's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Texas
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,271
Thanks: 209
Thanked 5,491 Times in 3,979 Posts
Default Re: The NRA Says Gun Permits Should Be Like Driverís Licenses. Hereís Where the Compa

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
says SCJ GottaGo.
sorry but supreme law professionals outrank you.
No, they do not. That is a fallacy nursed by weenies who see an infallible, omnipotent group of baboons who do not understand the Constitution.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2017, 08:01 PM
GottaGo's Avatar
Sanity is overrated.
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Miles to go before I sleep
Posts: 11,288
Thanks: 9,083
Thanked 7,328 Times in 4,719 Posts
Default Re: The NRA Says Gun Permits Should Be Like Driverís Licenses. Hereís Where the Compa

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
says SCJ GottaGo.
sorry but supreme law professionals outrank you.
__________________
Your life is the sum total of the choices you make.
If you can't laugh at yourself, you might as well get embalmed
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 12-17-2017, 10:27 PM
Jeerleader's Avatar
Guide
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA
Gender: Male
Posts: 480
Thanks: 298
Thanked 589 Times in 292 Posts
Default Re: The NRA Says Gun Permits Should Be Like Driverís Licenses. Hereís Where the Compa

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
rebuttal:
Gun laws of the United States are found in a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
And the current state of some of those laws is, as I stated, infirm, for the reasons given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
The right to keep and bear arms in the United States is protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. While there have been vigorous debates on the nature of this right, there was a lack of clear federal court rulings defining the right until the two U.S. Supreme Court cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).

An individual right to own a gun for personal use was affirmed in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia. In the Heller decision, the court's majority opinion said that the Second Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home."
Ahhhh, Wikipedia . . . Worth every cent you pay for it.

Saying that "there was lack of clear federal court rulings defining the right" is nothing more than saying TLDR.

Besides saying that the 2nd Amendment protects "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home", (file that under NFS), the majority opinion said 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. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”"


Now that has significance. It tells us that perhaps the most important "nature" of the right WAS clearly stated is a previous SCOTUS case.

That the right is a "pre-existing" right and "not granted" by any words of the Constitution, (including those of the 2nd merely chosen to recognize and secure it), and that "neither is [the RKBA] in any manner dependent on [the Constitution] for its existence", tells us that any interpretation that theorizes that the right is dependent upon words like "well regulated" or that the right is conditioned upon a citizen's militia enrollment status, are illegitimate and should be dismissed out of hand.

That excerpt also tells us that the ONLY thing that can be "interpreted" from the 2nd Amendment is that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" (which is what GottaGo told you a couple posts back).

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
However, in delivering the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on the Second Amendment not being an unlimited right:

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:
That the right is "not unlimited" does not mean the powers of government to impact it are limitless. The majority opinion also said that "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table". It would be nice if you took note of that once in a while.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.
The reason prohibitions on concealed carry were upheld under the 2nd Amendment is that state laws were not restrained by the 2nd Amendment. That doesn't mean that all state carry restrictions are all permissible under the 2nd now. The majority opinion also said that the 2nd Amendment, "guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation".

You will see a federally enforced right for citizens to carry a gun in public for self defense but the method / mode of carry will be left to the states; either concealed carry with a "shall issue" type permit or open carry or what's being called, "constitutional carry", no permit needed for any citizen without unlawful intent to open or concealed carry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
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.
While the Court's opinion does not directly question other existing laws, the ALWAYS omitted footnote to that so often quoted paragraph has been the legally impactful statement. That footnote is what's been used to call into question even such unquestionable restrictions as felon dispossession in federal court.


Footnote 26) We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Courts have held that since SCOTUS called them only "presumptively lawful" the government's presumption that gun control laws are in fact constitutional, can be challenged.


"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 grounded in legitimate exercises of government authority which have been upheld many times using a wide range of legal reasoning under constitutional and common law.

Now, as I've been arguing, "presumptively lawful" gun control laws that were upheld by citing US v Tot or Cases v US (and their many "collective right" progeny) and reasoned upon the theories that the 2nd does not secure an individual right, WILL BE STRUCK DOWN.

Quite simple really, and quite myopic on the anti-gun side to ignore it. If anything Heller stands as a warning to the federal government and state and local governments to get the gun control that can be constitutionally justified onto good constitutional footing.

That's not happening of course, liberals continue to lie to the people and themselves about what Heller did and what it means.

When a majority of federal, state and local gun control laws are knocked away like a giant Jenga tower, don't come crying to me . . .

.
__________________
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:
Reply

Tags
compariso, driverís, gun, hereís, licenses, like, nra, permits, says, should, the, where

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 02:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0