What constitutes a "brearable arm" as thet term is used with regard to the 2nd?

Which does not change the fact that the understanding of yourself is still at fault in the matter.

Heller spoke about prohibitions in the carrying of weapons that may amount to being dangerous and unusual. It said nothing about basic ownership, otherwise known as possession with regard to such. There is a significant difference between the two standards. This was already pointed out once before in this discussion.

 

I presented no question to myself, but if you're referring to what you asked then please reword your question in a way that would lead to my answering what it is you want answered.

 

Your posts ##281 and 287. You refer to "presumptively lawful" in both posts.

 

it isn't though.

 

The matter has been explained as to how it is.

 

The question presented to yourself, was what legitimate, measurable good would come about from legally prohibiting the carrying of rifles and shotguns in a public venue, that would justify such a course of action being taken in the first place?

 

The origin of the term is not known. The first noted usage of such a standard appears to be the Heller ruling, but it cannot be found at any point prior to such.

 

And I’ve thoroughly demolished that. You’ve been given the ruling by the Supreme Court. Pretending otherwise is just silly.

 

To which I answered, "A small concealable weapon does not pose a visible threat to law abiding citizens and should be adequate to defend ones self if the need should arise."
No visible threat would/should eliminate complaints about law abiding citizens who are armed.

 

There is no such standard announced in Heller. I just re-read the whole thing.

There is this, however, which perhaps means the same thing:


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

[I take this to mean virtually the same thing: if a 2nd Amendment challenge is made to a restriction on firearms, then it is up to the State to come forward with evidence to try and justify the restriction.]


Since I just tortured myself re-reading Heller in its entirety, I may as well share this language as well, as it seems to have clearly read Miller as half of us here do: it declared a "type" of weapon (sawed offs) to be ineligible for 2nd Amendment protection. I don't really see a difference between a class and a type of weapon


The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection.

 

Citing the passage of any particular court ruling, while lacking an understanding of what is actually said within it, does not prove a valid understanding of the matter.

 

The presence of a firearm, visible or otherwise, regardless of the type of firearm, does not automatically constitute a threat to anyone. Feeling uncomfortable at the sight of something that is legal, does not amount to there being an actual threat to the safety of anyone. Those who do not understand such, and complain about what is a legal practice, are those who are devoid of an understanding of what the law does and does not say. Having their preconceptions of the world around them challenged does not amount to an act of harm. To the contrary, realizing that the world is far more vast and complicated than originally believed can do a measurable good.

 

Such is correct. The burden of proof is on the state in such a case.

It is a matter that is highly technical, but the difference between class and type are there. Class describes the particulars that define the category of firearm, while type deals with what makes a specific example of a subset of the class.

What was glossed over, however, was the fact that the defendants in the case were in violation of federal statutes relating to interstate commerce, such as trafficking illegal alcoholic beverages while in possession of the sawed-off shotguns. Miller was also decided after the defendants had died, and thus could not take part in the court process, making the whole ruling an exercise in intellectual dishonesty, to uphold the expanded reading of the commerce clause by the Roosevelt administration.

 

but I don't lack understanding. It's why you can't own nukes, or machine guns made after 1986.

 

It's called inciting panic. Here in NC, open carry is legal. However, you can be arrested for inciting panic, if someone calls the police and reports you. I do not agree with this law, but it happens. At least in my State.

This is why I always concealed carry. I don't need the headache.

 

Indeed.
Rifles > repeating rifles > Semi-auto rifles > 'assault weapons'

 

Anyone else think this thread has about reached the "nanny, nanny boo boo" point?

 

Not really.
I wait in vain to hear how -none- of the firearms noted above constitute "bearable arms".

 

Perhaps by virtue of certain examples simply being too cumbersome to make bearing a viable option?

 

Simply repeating a false notion continuously does not make it factually correct, nor does it bestow any measure of legitimacy. Heller never addressed matters such as newly-manufactured fully-automatic firearms, or nuclear weaponry, therefore it does not support either standard. No matter how many times the claim is repeated, nothing changes such facts.

 

The idiosyncrasies of the legal landscape of a single state do not change the fact that such does not apply in the other states that have allowed to for the open carrying of firearms since the time of their founding.

 

Are you guys at some point going to realize that you simply disagree and move on? This is really getting ridiculous. I keep getting notices that people have posted in the thread and then I see "you can't carry machine guns and sawed offs" versus "Miller was wrong."

How about some fresh arguments.

Be great like me!

 

Ok.... how are we going to be invaded?
Mexico, Canada, paratroopers, amphibious landing, space aliens?

 

Dirty commies. They'll insinuate themselves in every institution and gradually steal our precious bodily fluids.

 

If you think it's not possible then you are the problem. We do not have an invisible shield around our nation.