Federal lawmakers seek to deregulate gun silencers

It's from the Miller decision. And why was the SBS not protected?

 

Which means what precisely? Is there some sort of litmus test in place to determine either the legality, or the degree of constitutional protection that a particular firearm is subject to, based solely on how many rounds can be theoretically discharged in the span of one minute? How many is considered to be too many to be legal?

Beyond such, the above claim made on the part of yourself is without merit. Observe the following videos, and then come back to address this point once again.

Pray tell where is the origin for such a legal basis? Where was such determined, and when was it codified into law? When was such a litmus test crafted, and by whom?

 

Do you know what preemption is?

 

US v Miller, the case you have obviously not read

 

Can you own a machine gun made after 1986? Has that ban been ruled unconstitutional? The answer to both is no.

 

Because............

 

I'll take that as a "no reality, I don't know what preemption means" and "no I haven't read the case"

 

You'd have to ask the courts. They have yet to rule the bans are unconstitutional.

lol, no. It is a demonstrable fact that full auto's fire at a faster rate than non full autos.

Ok. Full autos fire at a faster rate of fire.

what legal basis?

NFA act.

 

My question, answered yours. I'm sorry you can't deal with the fact you can't own a machine gun made after 1986, and that such restriction is perfectly constitutional, but that doesn't change anything. The fact remains is that you can't own one, and no court has ever ruled such a ban unconstitutional.

 

The question is being presented to yourself on the basis that it was your statement, not the statement of the courts. The statement being made by yourself is that the rate of fire of fully-automatic firearms, the number of rounds that can be discharged in an arbitrary amount of time, is what causes them to be considered a unique public safety hazard. This is not the ruling of any court in the entire united states, this is solely your argumentative position. As such the question is yours to answer, not that of someone else.

Which has no bearing or relevance on the statement made by yourself.

It has already been demonstrated that such is false. Beyond such, it is of no relevance.

Indeed they do not, as has already been proven.

The legal basis for your claim. That the number of rounds able to be discharged in an arbitrarily selected amount of time, with little to no accuracy, somehow makes the current production of fully-automatic firearms more dangerous, and more of a public safety threat, than the currently existing fully-automatic firearms that are freely transferable to private citizens, despite their being absolutely no difference in the internal components used. You were asked what made the current production M4 carbine more dangerous than the M16 rifle, when one is transferable, and the other is not, despite all of the internals being the exact same. You failed to elaborate to any meaningful degree.

First you ask what legal basis is being referred to. Then without even waiting for an explanation for clarification as to what is meant, you are somehow able to cite where the legal basis was supposedly made. There is no consistency on the part of yourself pertaining to this argument. Where is the proof that you are engaged in this discussion for a legitimate reason, and are not simply annoying others for the sake of your own amusement?

 

Explain why the united states federal government has never gone all the way and totally prohibited the ownership of all machine guns, even those that existed before the implementation of the Hughes amendment. What is their reasoning for leaving these firearms not only legal, but available, to private citizens?

 

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"

The implication of Miller then is that firearms that do have a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is "that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon".

 

I'm Not sure what you want me to answer with? Firing as many rounds, as fast as a full auto is capable of, is a unique public safety hazard.

directly related.

lol, no. It's a matter of physics. Full autos fire at a faster rate of fire than non full autos.

physics. they fire faster.

asked and answered. public safety.

The NFA is the law stating you can't own full autos, made after 1986. You asked for the law, and you were given the law.

 

No idea. Ask them. I'm not arguing for a ban on machine guns. I'm pointing out those bans exist, and they are perfectly constitutional.

 

that is your inference, not their ruling.

 

Your question gave the definition of preemption? Do tell

 

Holy **** that's hilarious. Read the ****ing case dude, those are QUOTES from the CASE

 

Pray tell how? Who precisely is put at risk of hazard by such a manner of operation? How does public safety even enter the equation?

Then actually go about scientifically proving such. Demonstrate the evidence used to verify your position as being factually correct.

In the Heller ruling, the united state supreme court stated outright, that the second amendment is not to be subjected to a judicial interest balancing test, and weighed against vague and poorly defined concepts such as "public safety" in determining what restrictions are and are not constitutionally viable. They stated that the very notion of such a limiting approach to determining the protections of constitutional rights, was outright rejected. Therefore the assertion on the part of yourself is factually incorrect. Try again.

Incorrect on multiple levels. Firstly, the law you are searching for is the firearm owners protection act, not the national firearms act. The two are quite different from one another.

Secondly, neither law specified that the legality of a firearm was determined by the number of rounds that could be discharged in an arbitrarily determined amount of time. If you believe otherwise then cite the specific portion that does such. Show where it was codified into law, that X number of rounds being discharged per minute, was actually specified as being beyond the scope of the second amendment, and thus not subject to its protections.

If such prohibitions were indeed "perfectly constitutional" as is being claimed on the part of yourself, then there would be no legal reason for any machine guns to currently be available for private ownership to begin with.

 

My question shows that the law is constitutional. Your whining not withstanding.

I'm curious though, why haven't you taken your argument to court? Surely if the bans violate miller, the courts will swiftly side with you and declare the NFA unconstitutional.

 

Which you are makinf an inference, not supported by law.

 

Please stop obtuse. Firing rounds orders of magnitude faster, and inaccurately pose a significant risk to the public.

Asked and answered. It's simple physics.

Nope........2. 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

No, it's the NFA act. And it's the REASON they are banned.

And yet, they are perfectly constitutional, as they have not been ruled otherwise.

 

Pray tell how though? How does the manner in which an arbitrary number of rounds are discharged through a single firearm, in any way pose a risk to the safety of the public? How is such done? How is such achieved? What are the mechanics behind such?

Then actually go about proving such. Merely claiming that it is a matter of physics explains nothing.

Yet again, factually incorrect on the part of yourself. Also from the Heller ruling, and placed after the section that was cited by yourself, in the actual ruling rather than merely the summary.

JUSTICE BREYER moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. He proposes, explicitly at least, none of the traditionally expressed levels (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, rational basis), but rather a judge-empowering “interest balancing inquiry” that “asks whether the statute burdens a protected interest in a way or to an extent that is out of proportion to the statute’s salutary effects upon other important governmental interests.” Post, at 10. After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interest balanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would
not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Then cite the exact portion of the national firearms act of nineteen thirty four, that prohibited the sale to private citizens of machine guns that were manufactured fifty two years after it was first enacted into law.

Heller uses the term "presumptively lawful" rather than "perfectly constitutional." The two standards are not even remotely related to one another.

 

Are you all still bickering back and forth? I've already proven half the crap being spewed in here wrong.

 

so at what point does the second amendment no longer apply in terms of rapidity of fire. at what point does a magazine's capacity take it outside the Bill of Rights?

you are proving you really don't know much about firearms if you think a fully auto hand held carbine is even slightly more "dangerous" than a semi auto only one

 

you really are proving massive ignorance on this issue