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

I literally quoted them doing exactly that.

 

And both the quotation, and the understanding of yourself, are factually incorrect. As has been explained.

 

Nonsense. The words quoted were perfectly clear. It’s why you can’t own nukes or machine guns made after 1986

 

Neither of which were at issue in the Heller ruling, thus meaning it did nothing to decide either item. Heller dealt exclusively with the matter of handguns, which were outright prohibited from ownership by the district of columbia. Nuclear devices, and fully-automatic firearms were never ruled upon, as they were never brought up during oral arguments at any point in time, as they were not what was at issue in the matter. Therefore it cannot be claimed that Heller addressed either one of the above.

 

I showed you otherwise. They were pointing to regulations/restrictions on the second amendment, and showing you they are constitutional.

 

The majority ruling of Heller specified that certain restrictions were presumptively lawful, simply because they chose not to use Heller as the case for determining the constitutionality of each and every firearm-related restriction in the united states that was ever enacted. The standard of presumptively lawful is a long, long way from being ruled as actually constitutional.

 

A long way from what being ruled as actually constitutional? A prohibition on machine guns? Bazookas?

Heller is really all about establishing once and for all that the 2nd Amendment protect's the individual's right to keep and bear arms, irrespective of his membership in a militia.

The operative language that warns readers not to assume by this holding that this means it's the Wild West again is here:

III
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts rou tinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For exam ple, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.

There's also something in the opinion about prohibitions of unusually dangerous weapons, I think is their term. But I cannot reconcile the bolded language above with what I read as 2nd Amendment absolutism in this thread.

You're free to believe Heller was too weak in its denunciation of firearms restrictions, and you can go try to start a new country with broader and more absolute guarantees than what the 2nd Amendment establishes. But let's live in reality, guys. You're not likely to get Supreme Court Justices more conservative than Scalia, he wrote Heller, and Heller explicitly reaffirms the power of states to limit the reach of the 2nd Amendment.

 

Any and all firearm-related restrictions that were not addressed during oral arguments. More specifically, every firearm-related restriction.

What was conveniently left out, was the statement about such being presumptively lawful at the time, meaning that they will still need to be ruled on at a future date.

Since the united state supreme court did not specify what "dangerous and unusual" actually translates to, the matter is currently unresolved, and will need to be addressed at a later ruling.

Except for the fact that Heller did not reaffirm such. At present time it is nothing more than a mere assumption.

 

So the bans on certain weapons isn't unconstitutional, like I said. thank you.

 

You were just given the quote of them reaffirming it. I've given it to you about 5 times.

 

Okay, let's try this: what firearm, type of firearm, or class of firearm, that is currently or likely to soon be viewed, by a substantial number of congressmen, as unusual or dangerous, do you suppose the supreme court might find deserving of protection?

If you say "we can't know that at present," we all agree. Not specifically. But what good does it do to hold on to the hope that the supreme court might find The Terminator CX-12 or whatever will find protection in the Court?

The 2nd protects people's rights to be armed, not the guns' rights.

On edit, Heller specifically tells you not to suppose that certain long standing restrictions/limitations are not imperiled by the decision. I cited that language somewhere above. Who on the court, in this lifetime, is going to find such language too restrictive?

Here it is again: nothing in our opinion should 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.

It sounds like you are talking from Heller exactly what Scalia warned you not to take from Heller. If so, why?

 

As has been explained, no such statement was ever made on the part of myself. To the contrary, it has been pointed out that the assessment of yourself is factually incorrect. Presumptively lawful is not the same thing as being constitutional, and it is intellectually dishonest to be claiming otherwise in the matter.

Beyond such, your interpretation of the matter pertaining to newly manufactured fully-automatic firearms is factually incorrect. Let us examine the quotation on the matter:

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.

Note the bolded word. What precisely does it say? It says carrying. Is carrying a firearm the same thing as owning a firearm? Indeed it is not. Does one need to carry a particular item in order to legally possess said item? Indeed they do not. A prohibition on carrying a weapon that may be considered dangerous and unusual, does not amount to a prohibition on the ownership of what may be considered a dangerous and unusual.

Perhaps the argument could indeed be made that Heller does not support the notion of carrying a newly-manufactured, fully-automatic firearm in public. But there is nothing in the quotation to suggest that the same standard would apply to basic ownership itself.

There are a great many firearms that are legal to own that cannot be readily carried in public, due entirely to how cumbersome they are in nature. The Barrett M82A1 rifle is perfectly legal to own in nearly every state in the united states, it is legal to carry in any venue where rifles are not restricted, but it weighs in at nearly thirty three pounds when empty, and is fifty seven inches long, thus making it far too impractical to carry in the same manner someone would an AR-15.

 

And as has been explained those five times, your interpretation of the quote is incorrect. It does not state what is being claimed by yourself as to it saying. Heller did not empower any state, or any government, to implement any restrictions on firearms. To the contrary, it did the exact opposite and limited just what government may do when it comes to restricting firearms.

Heller specified that any prohibition on an entire class of legally available firearms is unconstitutional. It stated that mandatory storage requirements that render firearms as inaccessible are unconstitutional. It stated that any restrictions implemented on firearms cannot be arbitrary or capricious in nature. That last one alone is quite significant in this particular matter, as it prevents a great many firearm-related restrictions from legally being implemented, or otherwise maintained.

Because restrictions on firearms can neither be arbitrary nor capricious, that means a complete review of each and every restriction currently in place, from top to bottom, must be performed before any said restriction can be regarded as being constitutional.

 

Should we begin the hypothetical discussion with the overly broad, extremely vague category of so-called "assault weapons" which have been expanded in recent years to the point of absurdity, in a manner to be as overly inclusive as possible? Depending on which statute of which state is examined, the definition applies to handguns which have a threaded barrel that could accept a sound suppressor. In the state of California, the diameter of the bore is grounds enough for classifying any firearm, even a bolt-action rifle, as being a so-called "assault weapon" even if no other identifying and determining features are present. The term has been expanded to constitute quite literally anything and everything, meaning the term ultimately means nothing from a legal standpoint.

In the majority of these restrictions, one common aspect is shared universally throughout them. The definition of what constitutes a so-called "assault weapon" applies exclusively to semi-automatic firearms, and feature certain cosmetic aspects that do not, in any way, affect the functionality of the firearm. It is difficult to comprehend any standard of scrutiny under which these prohibitions would pass constitutional muster if the matter were to be reviewed by the united state supreme court, especially if it is pointed out that semi-automatic firearms are a technology that has been widely available for private ownership since their inception, and have been for approximately one hundred and twenty five years now.

The district of columbia, in the wake of the Heller ruling, attempted to prohibit the purchasing and registration of semi-automatic handguns, arguing that they met the definition of what constituted a machine gun. But they chose to reverse this course of action when the threat of further litigation was realized, as they were not confident that the matter could be won in court.

Hyperbole aside, there are two significant issues with such a scenario that would need to be addressed. First, for such to become a possibility, it would be necessary for the device colloquially known as the Terminator, the endoskeleton itself, to first be marketed and made available for private ownership, rather than be maintained exclusively by the federal government.

Second, it would depend on whether or not the endoskeleton in question was equipped with weapons, or if it was not. If not, and the device is made available for private ownership as an advanced form of mechanical aid, what would the legal classification be if the owner/operator were able to equip it with firearms after the fact, and program it to engage in a combative role?

The district of columbia attempted such an argumentative position during the briefs for Heller, arguing that the handgun prohibition was constitutional because the ownership of shotguns and rifles was still allowed. The united state supreme court ruled that such was not a good enough basis, and that allowing for the ownership of certain firearms, could not be used as the basis for prohibiting the ownership of others.

Which does not change the fact that such are still operating under the standard of "presumptively lawful" until further notice, when they are actually challenged in a court of law. Until such matters are addressed, it remains unresolved.

 

Not to dodge your question, but I didn't check "assault weapons" on the poll above as being one of the weapons the 2nd Amendment does not reach. It is a ridiculous designation, doomed to failure in the courts.

 

Well, we of course can't assume that everything the Congress does to regulate weapons in the future will be constitutional, I'll agree to that extent. If I were a gun manufacturer, however, I wouldn't spend a lot of money developing any weapon without asking appellate experts as to the likelihood of the weapon surviving (via a 2nd Amend. challenge) an act of Congress prohibiting it.

If you owned stock in the corporation, you wouldn't want them doing it either. How about a sawed off automatic shotgun with a big drum clip. Smart to develop it? After all, there's something in Miller to please everybody, and Heller doesn't say they are undeserving of protection.

Honest question, too: is "presumptively legal" a term in 2nd amendment jurisprudence? I've never seen the term, though I don't at all deny it exists.

 

While I own quite a few guns, many more suitable for war than game hunting or normal self protection, I have no problem with someone bearing a small weapon which can be concealed for their own protection and simply making it illegal to threaten or employ such weapon against another person without just cause. Misuse of any weapon should be illegal, owning or inconspicuously possessing a weapon in public should NOT be illegal. As a general rule I would support the banning of carrying large weapons, long guns, etc. in public.
The way I see it, a dead victim and a live criminal produces a cost burden upon our society, while a live victim and a dead criminal eliminates a cost burden while retaining a productive member of our society.

 

Which would ultimately achieve what beneficial goal that would justify such a course of action?

 

There is very little in the world of firearms technology that hasn't been developed already. It is difficult to comprehend what new reimagining could be undertaken, that does not still rely on existing nineteenth and twentieth century technology.

Beyond that matter, it is the ATF that is authorized with determining if a particular product is legal for sale and import into the united states. Courts are only authorized to review the determination after the fact.

Such is not known at present time. All that is known for certain, is that the standard of presumptively lawful, in the context it was given, is a long way away from being determined as constitutional.

 

Right, but I'm asking who referred to that as being a standard, either in this thread or on the courts.

It matters because if it really exists in law, then the government if challenged will have to prove that a given restriction does not violate the 2nd Amendment. If it does not exist in law, then the citizen will have to prove that it does violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

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.

 

it isn't incorrect. I literally quoted them saying so.

 

no it isn't, which is why you cant own a nuke, or machine gun made after 86

 

Such was not the question that was presented to yourself, nor does it actually answer such.

 

The above is not understood. What is being referred to?