Well the Supreme Court allow the Trump Bump Stock ban?

No one's opinion, on this forum, or any internet forum, 'matters', and so your comment is worthless as a debate point.

Flatter yourself all you want, you are a legend in your own mind.

 

Bruen is unworkable, so say a number of judges.

But, terrible rulings are par for the course for this hard right wing court, the worst court in history.

 

Self-aggrandizing, self-puffery, posturing, bloviating, etc., are not arguments.

Comment dismissed.

Bruen is unworkable, period, it's premise is absurd. This has been addressed, and I will provide links if you require it.

 

In my view, the only gun control laws that have any chance of working are federal, because on a state law, one can just circumvent it by going to another state where the law doesn't exist. It's like the restaurant that had two table no smoking section in the middle of the restaurant and everyone around them could smoke. Either you ban cigs in the entire restaurant, or you don't.

I could live with Heller, but not Bruen.

You've brought up some strong points about federal gun control laws and how you feel they've been pushed too far, especially under FDR's administration and reflected in recent Supreme Court rulings. But, there are a few key things about constitutional interpretation and how laws evolve with society that might be missing from your argument.

First off, let's talk about why the federal government gets involved in making laws that deal with nationwide issues. The Constitution lets Congress regulate trade between states (that's the Commerce Clause for you), and this has been interpreted to include laws on guns that move across state lines. This makes sense because some issues, like gun trafficking, really can't be handled by just one state alone.

Now, about historical context—it's crucial to remember that the Founders designed the Constitution to be flexible enough to handle changes over time. Yes, they were wary of a too-powerful central government, but they also set up things like amendments and judicial review, betting on the fact that future leaders would need to tweak their government setup as times changed.

As for the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller, they don't shut down all gun control. What they do is make sure any gun laws don't step on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as originally intended. This doesn't mean there can't be any gun laws—it just means the laws have to really be justified without crossing the line of what the Second Amendment protects.

You mentioned how guns used by civilian law enforcement might set a standard for what's publicly available, according to Heller. That's an interesting point, but remember, it doesn't stretch to all military or law enforcement weapons. The Heller decision even said it's okay to keep certain guns out of the hands of felons or the mentally ill, and to ban guns in places like schools or government buildings. So, it's clear that the right to bear arms has its limits.

Lastly, your worry that the Supreme Court might now threaten legitimate state powers with recent decisions—it's a valid concern. But the Court is really trying to find a middle ground that respects individual rights while keeping everyone safe. As new issues pop up, they're rethinking old rules. I do believe, however, that the entire premise of Bruen is not based in sound legal reasoning.

Overall, while I get your concerns about the federal government overreaching or the impact of Supreme Court decisions, we need to balance these against the Constitution's broader goals and the need for laws that adapt to keep society safe. Your 'all gun control laws are BS' argument just doesn't appear to me as sound legal reasoning.

 

Except when the civilian policy use weapons more common to military. If Bruen allows it, then I disagree with Bruen.

 

Good to see you understand your response does nothing to address, much less negate, what I said.

 

Your opinion of Bruen is not an argument, especially not one that addresses or negates what I said.
Comment dismissed.

 

Your opinion of Bruen is not an argument, especially not one that addresses or negates what I said.
Comment dismissed.

 

Your opinion of Bruen is not an argument, especially not one that addresses or negates what he said.
Comment dismissed.

 

Comments that go 'your post is bad', or some semblance thereof, are not saying anything, so 'negating' nothing isn't logical.

I mean, think about it.

You say, 'your post it bad' (or some semblance that doesn't rise above it).

So, how should I respond? Say, 'no, it's good'?

What kind of debate is that? There is no real debate happening, so responding, 'negating' ,etc., is pointless.

I do response to substantive posts. If you see no real response, that would be the reason.

 

I couldn't possibly do better than Justice Breyer, so, feel free to provide a counter argument that is more compelling than his, because his is more compelling than the majority ruling, in my opinion. If there were a majority liberal court, there would be no Bruen.

Justice Breyer's dissent in the Bruen case criticizes the Court's reliance on historical tradition for gun regulation, arguing that it dismisses modern legislative objectives and is impractical in practice. Breyer points out flaws in the historical-tradition test and questions its applicability to gun laws. He also challenges the Court's rejection of means-ends scrutiny in evaluating regulations. Breyer finds historical support for New York's law and highlights the nuances within shall-issue permitting regimes. The dissent raises concerns about how lower courts will apply the historical-tradition test to future gun regulations.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2022/0...ls-of-searching-for-historical-means-and-ends

 

what sort of weapons do you think the founders contemplated? military style rifles or goose guns? If the CIVILIAN police use it-that means the government has determined those firearms are SUITABLE FOR SELF DEFENSE IN A CIVILIAN ENVIRONMENT. sure sounds like a lawful purpose. The problem with you gun banners is you cannot tell us why some guns need to be banned and others should not because deep down, you want to ban everything-sooner or later. I have yet to see an objectively honest line that gun banners draw. Instead, they use weasel words like "weapons of war" (which are what the founders contemplated citizens having) or "assault weapons" (even if the firearm is lacking the one required feature for a small arm to be useful for military assault tactics)

 

Justice Breyer is an outcome based anti rights jurist. Now, I believe that the founders would have had no issue with state governments requiring "shall issue" licenses to carry concealed. However, NY has abused this standard and it became a game of arbitrary and capricious practices. Anti gun leftists like the NY Times publisher and some well known leftwing celebrities were able to get carry permits, while oft robbed convenience store owners or cab drivers could not

 

when you strip away the spam and diversion, all they can do is complain that they don't want a second amendment

 

You mean the guy in the minority? Sure you can.

If you aren't willing to work within the legal framework surrounding the 2nd Amendment, then you aren't serious about resolving whatever issues you see with regards to firearms in the US -- you will never get anywhere until you recognize the right to keep and bear arms and the protections afforded it by them 2nd --- as they stand, not how you wish they were.

 

two problems. Federal gun control is of dubious validity under the tenth and second amendments
secondly, you reject the entire idea of federalism. Don't like archaic laws on abortion-move to a state where you can have abortion on demand. Don't like being hassled for smoking herb-move to a state where recreational weed is legal

 

well not all military weapons. the underlying right was the right of self defense. stuff like anti aircraft missiles, claymore mines, mortars are area weapons that wouldn't meet the second amendment protection. but any police weapon (yeah I know SS has SAMS protecting the white house and those wouldn't count) that is normally used in civilian environments are protected. hand held automatics for example

 

You don’t need beltloops or any other assist. A simple technique can be learned technique which works on demand.