I do. I have said as much in my recent posts. You simply choose to ignore it. I am convinced that I know quite a bit more about how SCOTUS works than you do, and I am happy to have led you away from your initial false belief that SCOTUS gave “advice” and “consent” to these laws. Don’t worry, I’m not going to demand that you admit your mistake—and I know you really don’t want to. I believe we are already past that error anyway. We now both agree that Heller did not consider or rule upon the licensing scheme—and therefore did not give any “advice” or “consent,” or even so much as a wink and a nod to D.C. about its licensing scheme. And I’ll go even further. We can agree that no case—Heller included—has ever challenged this law before SCOTUS. We can also agree that no riot involving angry gun owners has stormed city hall and burned the paper the law is written on. So set your mind at rest. As of today the licensing scheme still exists. I already know how pleased you are with the licensing law. And, if I were a betting man, I would put money on you holding the belief that if the licensing law were actually challenged before SCOTUS then the court should rule it to be constitutional—even if the reason is merely that you like the law. The question is, do you have an opinion on how SCOTUS would (or should) rule on the constitutionality of this licensing scheme if it ever were challenged and brought before it—an opinion you are willing to share here in this free marketplace of ideas? It’s not a trick question. All I am asking is for you to explain the foundation of your rationale for why this law should exist and not be declared unconstitutional in a future case. As I am sure you have thought this through when you became a supporter of this law it should be an easy matter to explain your support to us. I know I have already offered to explain my opposition to it and am prepared to do so. I just want to see what each of us thinks and have a discussion about our respective positions. Now if you don’t want to share your reasons behind your opinion, then fine. Just say so. I would rather have you say that than continue to talk about a point you really want to make in which you and I have already agreed in all respects with this one exception—you refuse to see how irrelevant your point truly is. Now I have answered every question you have asked of me—regardless of how irrelevant they have been. Will you answer mine?
Exactly. I did not demand anything. However I have asked for something. Will you answer the question I have asked?
That's a good summary of the situation. I would add one thing however: The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right. And Strict Scrutiny is the standard that is used when dealing with a fundamental right. You are correct that the Supreme Court has yet to rule that Strict Scrutiny is "the standard" here. But it is plainly obvious that Strict Scrutiny is in fact the standard that has to be used. So such a ruling is coming one of these days.
Those historians may well be correct about the militia being the main focus of the RKBA provision in the English Bill of Rights. But they are completely wrong about there having been no private self defense component of the RKBA in English law back then. Note: Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty." Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family." Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game." Rex v. Dewhurst (1820): "A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."
I'm not sure what you mean by reserve the right to review its decisions, but I'm not at all worried. I also don't think that anyone will be banning the English longbow (a weapon of war).
Depends on the nature of the regulation. The Heller ruling does allow some regulation, yes. But the Heller ruling also struck down a regulation as unconstitutional. Clearly not all regulation is allowed. There will be at some point, however, as there is no question that banning pistol grips on ordinary rifles is unconstitutional. Banning pistol grips on ordinary rifles is incompatible with Heller. It is only a matter of time before such laws are struck down. Just out of curiosity, why is that hilarious? Note: I'm not entering into this fray over registration and licensing. I'm just wondering why you find it hilarious.
Please read the the phrase in context and not just the phrase itself. What is hilarious is the constant use of Heller by gun advocates as a reaffirmation of unfettered gun rights when in the final adjudication, Heller still has to be licensed, still has to REGISTER a “handgun”, just to carry it in his home. That doesn’t sound like Heller is any reaffirmation any greater regulation then it was originally for the successful restrictions on full automatic weapons. As a matter of fact, in practice, it seems identical. Couple this with the continued outright banning of assault weapons in DC and other jurisdictions that have yet to successfully challenged, and the overreaching “comments” by gun advocates becomes hilarious.....absolutely so. It’s the comments that are hilarious in that respect. I refuses to get into ANY DISCUSSION about what might or might not happen in future as far as passing of future laws other then to say this. . It’s irrelevant and totally dependent upon elections. But, the door is still open under Heller, for much more restrictive gun regulation including registration of firearms and universal BGCs, like it has always been.
Commenting on individual characteristics of regulations like this without references to the total definitions used for assault weapons in places where the bans have not been challenged, is a waste of time. “ ordinary rifles” is an undefined phrase too open to comment on.
I completely agree it is a fundamental right, and that strict scrutiny should be the standard. To me refusing to set this (or indeed any) standard in Heller was a major shortcoming of the opinion.
But, given the scope of the case, the SCOTUS seemed to narrowly opine within the bounds of that scope and given the hints supplied in the various opinions and dicta, set the stage to allow both the Standard for interpretation of the Constitution and of any broader review of the bounds of the Second Amendment to percolate in the laboratory of the lower courts, at least for the foreseeable future.
The Supreme Court is about a month away from deciding whether to go forward with their next gun case. The left is already in such a panic that a group of progressive senators have actually threatened the Supreme Court with "restructuring" if they go ahead and hear the case. http://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic-senators-threaten-supreme-court/
The SCOTUS did grant to hear the NY case. Given the scope, don’t expect any sweeping review of the 2a. The proposed “restructuring” threat, is another piece of a broader attempt by Dems to undermine the Constitution and shift the framework of the rules for governing to result in change that they think will benefit their power given their recent erosion of power they have experienced. They are concerned in general about various cases that might appear before the SCOTUS like those testing the limits of the 1st Amendment, abortion, separation of powers, and etc. particularly because they are concerned that a Court that leans toward a textualist interpretation of the Constitution will prevent legislating from the bench by a more liberal leaning court as a means reinterpreting the Constitution will be compromised. It’s the same strategy being applied to their advocating doing away with the Electoral College and moving election by popular vote (because they think they have the advantage) and changes they have fought to implement in the legislative rules in Congress. Like a child, when you lose playing by the rules... change the rules.
New York changed their law slightly. New York is now arguing that there is no more reason to hear the case since they changed their law slightly. Approximately one month from now, the Supreme Court will decide whether New York is right and they should drop the case, or whether they are still going to go forward and hear the case. It is this pending decision that those progressive senators issued the threat over. It's an opportunity to declare that Strict Scrutiny applies to the Second Amendment. It's also an opportunity to declare that the right to keep and bear arms applies to carrying guns out in public instead of just inside the home. Whether the Supreme Court will take one or both of these opportunities is unknown at this point. But it is noteworthy that the case was taken up almost immediately as soon as Kavanaugh was confirmed. It could end up meaning very little. But the possibilities are there, which is why those progressive senators are worried enough to actually threaten the Supreme Court.
While those, regardless of your political alliance, often would like the SCOTUS to ‘take opportunity to’ (and fill in the blank), but the SCOTUS traditionally expanded it’s reviews beyond the scope defined in the Writ of Centori. Given Heller was the result of an appeal, the question the Court chose to address was based on the specifics of decision being appealed, not a sweeping review of the 2A and not addressing how the proper standard of the level of scrutiny should be applied to cases involving Rights. Still, a number of clarifications did result, The bearing of the prefatory clause of the 2a. That the 2a recognized an individual right. That the 2a was not subject to interest balancing. Implicit affirmation of previous rulings, Specifically Miller. However, any expansion of the scope was limited (perhaps interrupted) by Heller’s concessions in oral arguments... “Because Dick Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the district must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.” While a considerable number of 2a related cases in lower courts have been heard since and referenced Heller, none have been elevated to the SCOTUS that are likely to result in a Writ of Centori that will be a broad review of the limits of the 2a or that will address a standard for the level of scrutiny to be applied. I suspect, such a review would only occur if a petition for Centori if submitted by the President or Congress if broad expansion of Federal is under realistic consideration that has major implications bearing on the 2A as opposed to those rising from lower court actions and I don’t see the NY case doing that. This is the petition submitted for a Writ of Centori and you can see the questions asked of the court that define the scope of the case. https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...332608_NYSRPA cert petition 9-04-18 FINAL.pdf Here are the documents and milestones of the progress of the case... https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/18-280.html
