They Want to Take Your Guns

Remember that Heller only provided for the protection of the right to possess a handgun in the person's home and not in public.

Additionally Heller also included this caveat:

 

OMG. After being soundly defeated by the facts, you have to make this a personal attack, claiming that I'm playing down the decision of the Court. Let's give you a legal lesson:

"The holding is a court's determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case. In other words: under this law, with these facts, this result. It is the same as a 'decision' made by the judge; however "decision" can also refer to the judge's entire opinion, containing, for example, a discussion of facts, issues, and law as well as the holding. The holding is the "legal principle to be drawn from the opinion (decision) of the court."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_(law)

In other words, the "opinion" portion of the ruling is how the Court arrived at their decision while the HOLDING is the bottom line.

Nobody is downplaying anything. You're simply out of ammo.

 

You are desperate aren't you? What I have in my home (and the law in Georgia expands on that to include your house, place of business, motor home, boat and automobile) is none of your business nor Uncle Scam's. If the store or restaurant don't want me in there with a gun, I have two choices: respect their property Rights OR shop elsewhere. Public venues are within the government's control. But, again, what I own and have within the confines of my personal property (home) are not your business.

 

It is not cell phones themselves that are being compared to firearms. Rather it is the data that is on your phone that is being compared. Every message you have ever sent, every contact you have in your address book, every picture you possess, every video you have viewed. All of that data, protected by the fourth amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures. Unless you have done something wrong that requires secrecy, what possible reason would you have for needing such a protection for such data in this day and age? What do you have to hide, that makes such protection just as relevant today as it was over two hundred and thirty years ago?

 

You are factually incorrect. The Heller decision did not state at any point that the second amendment was limited exclusively to the confines of where one resides. It merely stated that such was one such example of using a firearm for a traditionally lawful purpose.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

Note the bolded section, such as. That means self defense within the home was not the absolute scope of the second amendment. If such were the case, there would be absolutely no need for the united state supreme court to go out of its way to speak of traditionally lawful purposes, as there would be only one legal purpose for firearms if their legality began and ended within the confines of the residence.

 

Of course. Have you never paid taxes? Or your car is personal property but yet for you to use it you need a drivers license, and insurance and it has to meet government specified safety standards.

Are we done with stupid analogies yet?

 

I didn't notice that right away. Thanks for a very clear insight I hadn't seen.

 

Ah, the old lame arguement that unless you have something to hide you shouldn't be concerned about your and other peoples privacy rights.

 

This is almost ironic guys:

The right has no sense of the Fourth Amendment and the left cannot understand the Second Amendment.

 

The decision specifically struck down laws that prohibited or that would prevent the possession of a loaded handgun in the home for the purpose of self defense. It acknowledged the self defense right of a person but it also reinforced the authority of government laws and regulations related to firearms.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/right-own-gun-under-heller-30295.html

Heller confirmed that the government can restrict who can own firearms, it can restrict where firearms are carried outside of the home, it can impose restrictions related to commerce in firearms, it can ban certain types of firearms, and it can restrict or prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

There's an interesting point that some seem to misrepresent about Heller. Hillary Clinton (not a person I've ever generally supported) has been cited as opposing Heller but this isn't quite accurate because Clinton did not expressly oppose Heller. In the Heller decision the court ruled that the DC law that imposed the restriction that lawfully owned firearms “unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device” were unreasonable because it rendered the firearm basically unusable for self defense and it struck down those previsions.

Clinton's objection was that the decision of the court in Heller might be too broadly applied where reasonable firearm storage provisions necessary to prevent the misuse of firearms by minors would be considered unconstitutional.

While not defining what "reasonable firearm storage provisions" might be it wasn't long after Heller, on October 24, 2014, when 15-year-old freshman student Jaylen Fryberg took his father's unsecured .40 caliber Beretta Px4 Storm handgun to school and shot five other students at Marysville Pilchuck High School, fatally wounding four, before fatally shooting himself.

This provides a perfect example of a compelling argument based upon providing for the public safety that justifies "reasonable firearm storage provisions" and arguably it should be the pro-gun advocates that develop those reasonable provisions that would effectively prevent this from happening in the future. If you're going to have firearms in the home with a minor how does the owner, that's responsible for the minor under the law, prevent the minor from obtaining and using those firearms for nefarious criminal purposes that can include mass murder? The gun control advocates shouldn't have to come up with these provisions, the pro-gun advocates need to come up with these provisions.

 

Not following the discussion between two other members can I assume that this is in reference to background checks? If so then no Fourth Amendment privacy rights are involved because the listing of a person on the FBI NICS database as a prohibited person is based upon public records.

Few that I'm aware of oppose the requirement for commercial dealers in firearms (FFL's) being required to run a background check. This is not an invasion of privacy because the background check will only reflect information in the public records and the requirement is a "commerce" regulation imposed on the seller, not the buyer, and the buyer voluntarily agrees to the seller running the background check. ,

I have a slightly different approach to background checks on private sales. The seller should have the ability to run a background check online and for free but currently that access is not available. The seller has the authority to impose any conditions they choose related to the sale of the firearm, that the buyer can either agree to or not voluntarily, and it's very reasonable to assume that a law abiding firearms owner doesn't want to inadvertently sell/transfer a firearm to a prohibited person. I would not make the background check mandatory because that would be unnecessary for a responsible law abiding gun owner that's selling/transferring a firearm to another person. What I would do is make it a felony for a person to sell/transfer a firearm to any person currently listed on the FBI NICS database at the time of the transfer because to not run the background check is an act of irresponsibility. The penalty would be the loss of the right to possess firearms!

 

IF the left would agree to not introduce any future anti-gun legislation for fifteen years, and then only if the agreed measures don't work, would Americans agree to sensible "gun laws?"

"Sensible" gun laws do not include gun bans, registration, limits on who owns what, etc.

The way to protect children is to require owners to be in control of their weapon. My weapon, at home, is loaded and ready to go. If visitors or kids are present, the weapon is under my direct control at all times or put back into the safe. When I leave the house, the weapon is in the safe or with me. Now, if everybody practiced that, the number of incidents like you describe would be highly diminished. Yes, there should be a law requiring loaded guns to be under the control of an adult within any home where children 18 and under are present. NOBODY would show up to protest that IF the liberals wanted to do it. But, we all know they don't want that.

Gun stores could help the situation IF they required all NON CCW holders to take a brief 15 minute course in weapon handling, safety and storage techniques before transferring the weapon to them. They could do this voluntarily and there would be no need for all this knee jerk reaction.

 

You're a hoot. You sound like Hitler on steroids.

I made up my mind many years ago. I'm not undergoing any more background checks. They are a violation of the Fourth Amendment and that is NOT debatable. In order for you to understand that, you'd have to apply the principle to every part of the Bill of Rights.

Try telling people that they cannot access web sites without a permit, background check, etc. What do you think would happen? What would happen if booksellers had to force you to undergo a background check? So, you don't think selling the Koran to a convicted felon isn't risky?

The left are the ones who are idiotic. You keep crazy people in protective custody; if a "criminal" cannot be trusted, they belong behind bars. "Unsafe" people should not be running amok in our society. For those on the fence, this seems to cover all the bases:

http://counterpoint.forumco.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=14

And more of Shiva's rantings have been debunked. He makes this way too easy.

 

I live in hurricane country. In the next few months I could get plunged into a situation where the technology of modern society is temporarily suspended. For that reason, I need to have a gun (or guns) for self and home defense. I can't rely on the police being a phone call away 24/365. Almost everywhere in the U.S. the possibility of such an event temporarily happening exists, be it hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsnunamis, volcanoes, or blizzards.

 

Nah, you think we just met I posted a graph, Obarry mouth was the biggest contribution to firearm sales in the last ten years. Every time the dunce flirted with the notion of gun control sales went thru the roof. Sales records are public information, Gun manufacture production records are public record and they all reflect record sales and production during President "Never Learns" tour In fact the insanity he broadcasted out to the world that he would not deport and the nightmare he created at the boarder is another example of King "I don't think before I speak" stupidity!

 

It protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Thus, it is quite relevant.

 

Nowhere does it equate "the people" to "the militia" or "people in the militia".
Nowhere does it limit "the right to keep and bear arms" to "while in service with the militia".
You continue to push an unsupportable position, a fact you know more and more to be true.

 

None of this changes these facts:
-Miller pertained to short-barreled shotguns, not any other weapon.
-Miller had nothing to do with machineguns;
-Miller did not grant any authority to anyone
-Miller recognized that the 2nd protects a right of a citizen not related to the militia.

Thus, Miller does not support any of the positions you have taken.

 

Funny how you ignore the good arguments against what you said.
Tel us again now easy it will be to repeal the 2nd when just 7% of the population can stop the attempt.

 

Without question.

Assume Miller possessed a BAR w/o the tax stamp required by the NFA
Assume Miller did not die before the case and was properly represented.
Assume said representation proved the suitability of the BAR for militia in the service of the militia by proving it is in current service with the US army as a personal weapon at the squad level , and had been since 1918.

Look at the ruling in Miller.
Soundly argue that the SCotUS will not find that the 2nd protects the right of the citizen to keep and bear said BAR.

 

What kind of sentence would you place on a known gang member with multiple violent felony and drug convictions who tried to buy a firearm?

Or would you never even bother to hear the case?

 

Nothing in the Constitution or the case law surrounding it supports this position.

 

The only responsible thing to do was to call for gun control, and the only responsible thing for congress to do was to develop and pass gun control laws, but they didn't. So it was the Republican congress that is responsible for the gun sales growing. Or do you believe the responsible thing to do was to just grieve over the children and others killed, wring our hands, and go on with our lives until the next shooting and do it all over again?

Previous congresses decided to ignore illegal immigration. Laws against it and those designed to control it were ignored by government order. So the problem built to what we have now, and you want to blame it all on one president??? LOL!!! He wanted to deal with it and about all he could do with congress wanting to make sure he got nothing done, was to pass executive orders and such to protect those who should be protected, like "Dreamers".

You're not being rational. To much partisan loyalty.

 

How do you know "We no longer do", crystal ball? Since Trump has been elected all we hear from the left is this huge concern with corruption in Gubmint and civil discord at an all time high! It would seem to me if the Libby is actually committed to Gov overreach and is clearly willing to use force to sway a party they credit this Gubmint with, then at what level of uncertainty and lack of safety do you finally justify self protection and a civil militia?

Seems this is just what the second was written to address! Personally, after what I have seen of the progressive, left or democrat, I believe them to be more a adversary and cant even trust them to know my political affiliation!

Yes, I'll be keeping all my guns, not from concerns abroad but protection from national loons

 

You made this claim before.
Then as now, it was demonstrated false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force

Legally, there is no distinction; Miller was charged for possession of shotgun with a barrel less than 18"; the means of creating that barrel length is irrelevant.

It does where restriction on that commerce infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.