Looks like gun advocates only care about the parts of the Heller ruling that conform to their dogma. And that anything that doesn't is heresy. Literally! I mean, believe it or not, I'm using the word THEY actually use to describe anything that doesn't conform to their belief system.
I am still asking you to show us where the federal government's gun control power was stated in the constitution. and how all the stuff you have the warm fuzzies for is going to survive BRUEN
We don't have any registration requirements here. We have no waiting periods, we have no magazine capacity requirements. Let the blue states that somehow love oppression and kneeling to their master fight it out. We have no such issues here in TEXAS! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!
All I see here is you misrepresenting what the Supreme Court has said about an issue. Restriciting dangerous and unusual weapons is not inconsistent with the tradition of regulating firearms per the Supreme Court.
DC gun registration was challenged in Heller 3. The court held that photographing, fingerprinting, and charging gun owners a fee was reasonable but struck down the requirement to re-register every three years and present the gun to the authorities for inspection. So basically gun registration is okay as long as it's not overly burdensome.
All we do here is go to a gun store, pick out a gun and pay for it. We wait a few minutes while the sales person makes a phone call for a background check. When they are finished, we thank them and take our new gun home. No registration, no waiting period, no fingerprinting, no photographing, no other impediments or fees. GEES! I LOVE TEXAS! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!
if a weapon is routinely issued to civilian police operating in civilian environments, it is neither unusual or unusually dangerous
If the NFA is a violation of the Tenth Amendment (because the power to regulate guns is reserved to the states) then it seems the federal government should not be able to stop states like California and Massachusetts from banning assault weapons.
Did incorporation override the Tenth Amendment? Standord history professor Jack Rakove comments: "Finally, the complete omission from the individual right interpretation of any discussion of the police power of the states constitutes potentially its most telling flaw, while simultaneously exposing a deeper dilemma in its dependence on originalism. If we read the Constitution intratextually, how do we triangulate the echoes between the people of the Second and Ninth Amendments, on the one hand, and the reserved powers of the states under the Tenth Amendment, on the other? Like the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment takes the form of an ambiguously stated injunction which arguably adds little if anything to the positive content of the Constitution. Yet it is impossible to conceive how the Tenth Amendment could have excluded the traditional power of government to legislate broadly for public health and safety from the reserved powers of the states. It is precisely because this traditional function was (and remains) so essential to our concept of governance that the individual right interpretation has to insist that the principal purpose of the Second Amendment is to provide a powerful deterrent against tyranny. Only by evoking that speculative threat to the republic itself can the individual right interpretation identify a danger more ominous than the actual costs annually incurred through the casual and deliberate use of firearms." https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu...httpsredir=1&article=3289&context=cklawreview
the old-we cannot believe the founders didn't give the new government certain "NECESSARY POWERS" so we pretend the federal government has them
A statement of utter ignorance or abject dishonesty. States do not have the right to violate the US constitution.
They let a lower court ruling on the matter stand. The court held that photographing, fingerprinting, and charging gun owners a fee was reasonable but struck down the requirement to re-register every three years and present the gun to the authorities for inspection. So basically gun registration is okay as long as it's not overly burdensome.
Racially neutral state gun laws are constitutional. It wouldn't make sense that as guns became a greater danger to public safety the government's power to prevent gun violence decreased. One historian explains: "The Civil War had a profound impact on gun violence in America. The trauma of the war and the enormous increase in the production of guns necessary to supply two opposing armies intensified the problem posed by firearms violence and gave a new impetus to regulation.... Rather than oppose an expansion of gun regulation, Reconstruction-era Republicans (including those responsible for framing and ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment) aimed to use racially neutral gun laws, including those designed to demilitarize the public sphere, to restore order and empower freed people to participate in civic life, most importantly elections. Republicans were committed to a vision of government that would protect the rights of recently freed slaves and promote the ideal of a well-regulated society.... The Reconstruction era formulation not only omits references to the dangers of standing armies and the need for civilian control of the military but merges the right to regulate arms and the right to bear them into a single constitutional principle.... The constitutional danger Americans faced during and after Reconstruction was unregulated firearms, particularly the danger posed by public carry.... The new focus on regulation was entirely consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment’s emphasis on the protection of rights. The author of Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment, John Bingham, reassured voters in Ohio that after the adoption of this Amendment, states would continue to bear the primary responsibility for 'local administration and personal security.' As long as state and local laws were racially neutral and favored no person over any other, the people themselves, acting through their representatives, were free to enact whatever reasonable measures were necessary to promote public safety and secure the common good." https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/online/55/files/55-online-Cornell.pdf
what utter bullshit. the incorporation of the second amendment, and other parts of the bill of rights do not allow "racially neutral" violations of the rights so incorporated. You obviously didn't read McDonald v Chicago. Saul Cornell is a paid whore of the anti gun movement, he doesn't have a legal education and he is a joke when it comes to objective scholarship on the gun issue.
FFS. The petitioner, Heller, specifically dropped the pleading challenging registration and STIPULATED that it not be part of the court's analysis in Heller v DC. So the reason they didn't find it unconstitutional is the same reason they didn't find every other gun law unconstitutional: Because it was not before the court to analyze as the parties had stipulated otherwise. Please attempt to learn how the law works, and read the actual case entirely, before commenting. Before you speak: "No you didn't read it. You looked at it. If you'd read it, you'd know." - FMR Dean of Thurgood Marshall School of Law, Dr. James Douglas
No registration required here. No waiting period. No magazine capacity restrictions. Just the required background check. TEXAS! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!
Only if the state can demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Else, the the Constitution presumptively protects the right to keep and bear arms from those laws.