Do you know what a pronoun is ? It’s proper and more correct to use them in discourse then to keep repeating the same noun to insure proper reference. In the part of the ruling that discribed Heller’s and D of C’s obligation to fulfill the objective of the decsion, the word “handgun” IS exclusively used. That’s basic English I would assume. Th 2@ is a basic right that does insure Heller “gets relief” from his request. But, the 2@ does not allow him relief according to Scalia, unless he is qualified and fulfills his regulatory obligations to the D of C. The ruling explains all of that. You like to omit that part. Like wise, D of C has the obligation to allow Heller to register the hand gun for use in the home as long as Heller is qualified. It’s a two way street and functional only for the handgun that Heller wishes to carry in his Home.
Why is "firearm" used AT ALL in the case? Nope, I accept all of that. However I'm not sure how it means that in the future, states can limit people to a handgun for personal uses.
I don’t believe I ever stated that the ruling ever “ restricted” or limited the ruling to a handgun. It just never addressed anyother firearm type. I have no reference but I personally recall Scalia adressing that point; does the ruling restrict the use of other firearm types. I recall him responding, that it’s up to the next ruling the court makes. It certainly did nothing to dismiss firearm regulation, even to the point of gun registration.
Well no of course not, none of us are saying that it did, but you seemed to be having trouble understanding that the case made it CONCRETE CLEAR that the Second Amendment says that firearms are permitted for personal possession and use.
That I argree with. They are “permitted”. Not, everyone is permitted to carry any firearm in any place. IMO, I beleive in a personal right to protect myself...but it’s not absolute and is subject to regulation. My permit is for a handgun, not “a” or “any” firearm.
As per usual, the understanding of the Heller ruling demonstrated on the part of yourself is sorely lacking in a factual basis, or even understanding of basic grammatical rules of the english language.
Throughout the entire Heller ruling, there is not so much as even a single passage that in any way authorizes, or otherwise empowers the united states government to restrict firearms. This is especially the case in light of the passage where the united state supreme court rejected the notion of balancing the scope of the second amendment against vague concepts such as public safety.
According to you then, the entire country must be one cesspool of anti 2@ rhetoric of deceit. You won’t be happy till six year olds are coming to school with uzis.
Such does not mean the restrictions are either legal or constitutional. Government, regardless of type or nation, is known for being corrupt and an enemy to the people when it is more concerned with its own interests above all else.
The above is nothing more than a deliberate attempt as misinterpretation, as well as a fallacious appeal to emotional nonsense and hyperbole.
Originally https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Held: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
In Heller, the USSC held: "A firearm". Not "a handgun". That is, including, but mot limited to, self-defense in the home. You know, like... duck hunting. Hard to do - in fact, illegal to do - with a handgun. Which, of course, means more than handguns. Which, of course, means more than handguns. And then, the winner, form the ACTUAL majority opinion Which, of course, means more than handguns. Please note this was upheld in CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf Thus: Absolutely nothing in Heller supports your farce of an idea the 2nd only protects the right to a handgun. You know haven't a leg to stand on - but, by all means, keep acting like you do.
Actually it turns out that he does: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...in-d-c-v-heller.424197/page-3#post-1070779369 He somehow thought that we were saying that the Heller case removes regulations. It's basically been a big misunderstanding.
It removed the regulations that banned handgun ownership and required firearms to be locked up or disassembled - indeed, it overturned ALL of the regulations placed in question before the court. More importantly, it established the individual right not connected to service in the militia, and broadened the types of firearms protected by the 2nd from those suitable for service in the militia to those in common use for legal purposes.
Limits, restricts....these are all words you choose to use. I’ll repeat for the umpteenth time. The Heller decision makes no comment in the ruling one way or another on other types of firearms other then handguns in actionable part if the ruling. . If you want to say in some strange way, it supports the use of firearms in general, to this I laugh at you. The final decision requires that Heller be qualified, that he be licensed and that he register the handgun with the D of C in order to gain relief for his concern. And what does this gain him ? It allows him to carry the handgun in a useable manner in the home and , not be restricted by a trigger lock. Your assertions are laughable. Any connection you wish to make to any other type would require the same restriction. Wow....you want to say all legal firearms need to be registered to avoid being made inoperative ? Go for it. Get your vote in for registering all legal firearms. I don’t see one way or another.
TOTALLY WRONG AND INCOMPLETE . It only removes the restriction if the owner IS LICENSED and the handgun is REGISTERED. Unlicensed owners of unregistered handguns MUST STILL MAKE THE HANDGUN INOPERATIVE.
If your post was worded on a cogent manner, perhaps. You choose to fraudulently address the situation. It deserves no more comment.
