The AR-15 follies: Here we go again!

Learn the difference between dicta and the holding.

Heller had exactly nothing to do with registration, and made no ruling on it one way or the other. They ruled specifically that the handgun ban was unconstitutional, as the 2nd applies to the individual unconnected with militia service, and that is all that they ruled on.

 

Regulations , are not bans unless you interpret a ban as one that keeps criminals form obtain lawful possession of a fire arm...is that what you’re doing, promoting unlawful possession of a firearm ?

. Heller SUPPORTS regulation.
Trot out your little dicta word to cya.
You have no evidence.
I have this lesson in civics re Heller.
https://www.civicsnation.org/2018/03/22/gun-rights-heller-second-amendment/
Read..
“But that doesn’t mean the Heller decision didn’t also acknowledge restrictions. In its deciding statement, the Supreme Court specified that the Second Amendment should not be seen to confer a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” It also stated that regulations on guns that prevent felons or the mentally ill from obtaining weapons, restrict gun possession in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and impose conditions on commercial gun purchases are “presumptively lawful.” The court also said that this list was not exhaustive, and that the Second Amendment doesn’t necessarily prevent laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” that might apply to military-grade weapons like M-16s.”

 

"The gun crowd" is getting smaller percentage wise. But number of guns is increasing. That means that, percentage wise, people who own guns are buying more, stocking up if you will. They will have issues with any legislation that wants to tax, assess, register, or even prohibit the possession and ownership of guns.
Someday, long after I'm gone, historians will be studying these times with amazement. I hope my descendants enjoy those times, and are also looking back and saying "thankfully it's not like that anymore!"
I love to target shoot, and actually enjoy shooting and learning about different types of guns and ammo, but there are too many guns out there to be secured.
Before one of you replies and says that they do all the right things, I honestly haven't found one person yet who doesn't have utility gun within easy reach, jic.
Don't tell me you lock up every one of your weapons and then say you want them at least partly for self defense. A gun locked in a safe doesn't work very well in self defense situations, unless the bad guys give you a heads up email!
Are law abiding, responsible gun owners suffering for the actions of the not law abiding, irresponsible ones? yes, they are.
That's why it is so important for those responsible gun owners to have an active role in formulating a good solution to some of the gun issues in this country.
Inaction will only produce undesirable effects.

 

The “stocking up” of firearms also means that this same crowd of legal buyers are engaged in unregulated dissemination of firearms which always have a greater risk of being used in a crime. Gun dealer support of the NRA and anti gun legislation has a profit motivation by expanding gun use INTO THE UNQUALIFIED CROWD of criminals, incompetent and under aged. Any additional regulation eventually cuts into their profits.

 

Let me just add this, I live in a open-carry state. Occasionally, someone walking around in a grocery store or whatever is carrying a gun in a holster, usually at the waist. It does not make me feel safer, it does add stress when in that situation. I feel more unsafe when even a law abiding citizen is carrying a gun in public places.
And guess what? Not a single time out of the literally thousands of times I was at the grocery store did anyone need someone with a gun.
If I was gonna shoot up a store, someone with a gun on their hip would be the first target. Simple logic to me, fewer guns, less danger.

 

Learn the difference between dicta and the holding.

Heller had exactly nothing to do with registration, and made no ruling on it one way or the other. They held specifically that the handgun lock requirement was unconstitutional, as the 2nd applies to the individual unconnected with militia service, and that is all that they ruled on.

 

Exactly. Law abiding gun owners in Illinois which has stringer UBC gun laws, have access to purchase cards and permits which are renewable and allow EASIER, go to the beginning of the line, access to guns and ammo instead of a BC at every transaction. It makes private sales easier as the holder has proof of a UBC in a private gun sale as well.

 

Talk about feeling unsafe. We have constitution carry which means even freeloaders with no BC can carry CONCEALED as well as open. Friends in the firearm business say it’s joke now. People come in to buy and easy confess they are buying a gun as GIFT and giving to someone for legal carry. HUH? This is someone getting a gun who can’t come in and get a back ground check.....why? They’re too busy ? Constitutional carry has now opened the door directly to the criminal from the dealer, no longer going through a private sale.

 

Aside, definite indicator you’re much better informed then the rest of us.....you correctly used “fewer” instead of “less” in talking about countable items. My wife has a major in English. She corrects me all the time. Good going.

 

Huh ? You want to do away with all registration, even that required for free speech and voting. ? Registration is part of a regulatory process in a plethora of requirements that are are numerated in the Bill of Rights. You obviously are listening to Tucker Carlson and not reading Heller. Now it’s just, make up sheeet time.

an opinion by the Supreme Court is an explanation followed by a DIRECTIVE on the part of the Court to the plaintiff and the municipality on how they are to proceed. For ten years, everyone has proceeded accordingly. Before anything is done differently, the court has to speak again,. They have not for ten years....keep dreaming.

 

Complete nonsense -- it ONLY affects law abiding citizens, and, like the background check we currently have, does so in the most insidious way.

 

Unsupportable nonsense - you claim has no basis in fact.

More unsupportable nonsense, more statements with no basis in fact.

 

Heller struck regulation put before the court; Heller upheld none of the regulations put before the court.
You know this, and yet you claim Heller upheld gun regulations.
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

Unsupportable nonsense; there is no basis in fact for your statement.

Restrictions upon the rights enshrined in the bill of rights requires the state to demonstrate the necessity for necessity and efficacy of said restriction...
EXCEPT the right to keep and bear arms - for is this were the case, 99% of said restrictions would not exist.

 

A statement of complete ignorance, above.
And...
A statement completely unrelated to any AR15 derived form the Colt Sportster

 

Heller struck every regulation put before the court - as such your statement cannot be true.
As you know Heller struck every regulation put before the court, you know your statement is not true.
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

The right to vote cannot be meaningfully exercised unless the state ensure everyone who votes ids legally able to do so, is voting in the correct location, and votes only once. The meaningful exercise of the right to keep and bear arms requires none of these things.
"Free speech" only requires "registration" so far as the use of public property is concerned
Thus, apples to oranges to tomatoes.

 

I typed in crystal clear English.

voting isn't a constitutionally protected right. gun ownership is.

no they aren't.

I never watch Carlson. I'm simply correcting you on Heller.

It doesn't matter how many times you say this, you remain demonstrably incorrect. Heller had nothing what so ever to do with registration and made no ruling on it one way or the other.

 

It's just the opposite. The gun makers didn't object to laws against pistol grips and flash suppressors. That opposition came from people who didn't like having their civil liberties violated.

It was only when the rank and file started boycotting gun manufacturers into bankruptcy that the manufacturers changed their tune.

I am not aware of any handgun regulations that Heller is likely to topple.

What Heller is likely to topple are the laws that cannot be justified as serving a compelling government interest -- like laws against pistol grips and flash suppressors, laws against .50 caliber weapons, and New Jersey's prohibition of hollow point ammo.

It depends on the details of the regulations. Regulations can be designed to prevent law abiding citizens from having guns.

DC's original regulations that Heller struck down, for instance, was an example of regulation that violated the Constitution.

 

That's what holsters are for.

 

It hasn’t toppled the requirement to register hand guns.

 

I don't expect it to.

 

Only on weapons that are decidedly more dangerous. You can still have explosive launching weapons, full autos even fire tank artillery and own one. There isn’t much in small warms that are banned. Bottom line, if you want to drop the really big stuff that can kill hundreds or thousands or play with Gatling guns, join up. There’s a place for you.

 

because registration had nothing to do with the heller case.

 

Of course it does ? The SC held that Heller must be allowed to have a permit and held that the handgun must registered, that’s the only way he could gain relief. Without those two things Heller can not have what he wants.

 

That is incorrect. Pistol grips and flash suppressors do not make a weapon substantially more dangerous. Having a .50 caliber does not make a weapon substantially more dangerous. Hollow point ammo is not substantially more dangerous.

Laws against such weapons are not compatible with Heller.