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

Here is the citation to the conservative 5th circuit's rejection of the (to me, ridiculous at this point) constitutional argument for possession of machine guns.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-10803-CV0.pdf

We restate our determinations. Hollis has standing, rendering his
arguments regarding amending his complaint moot. Trusts are “persons” within the Gun Control Act, and machineguns are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Again, the Supreme Court refused to even review this 2016 case. Does that tell you they are likely to reverse it in the foreseeable future?

 

Which ultimately means nothing. Various lower courts have refused to even regard Heller and McDonald as existing, much less binding precedent that must be followed in all instances.

 

I give up. You're in a world of your own.

 

And ninth circuit court ruled that the state of California is free to continue violating Heller with its mandatory storage requirements, and the supreme court for the state of New Jersey, in what would become the Caetano case, intentionally misread Heller to support the state prohibition on stunning devices intended for self defense.

 

I doubt seriously that any federal appellate court actually said "we don't care what the Supreme court said in Heller." This is your interpretation.

Anyway, I only cited the 5th circuit case to try to convince you that you will go to prison if you buy a machine gun today and get caught. You can scream "but the 2nd Amendment!" from inside your jail cell, but in your jail cell you will remain.

I see I failed in this.

 

Incorrect. Rather it is fact.

From the Heller ruling itself:

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense andis hence unconstitutional.

From the ninth circuit court of appeals in the wake of the Heller ruling:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2014/03/25/12-17803.pdf

The court of appeals determined that the mandate firearms must be stored in a locked container, or disabled with a locking device, even if such interferes with lawful self defense, does not violate the second amendment.

 

So many problems with your understanding of my post and of the law that it is scary ...

First, I only suggested above that "I doubt seriously that any federal appellate court actually said 'we don't care what the Supreme court said in Heller.'"

And I now see that I was, of course, right. What they did (did you read it?) was to let stand the particular locking device requirement in San Francisco, but they didn't say "We don't care what Heller said." And it would be absurd for them to do so, tantamount to secession from the USA.

What they said was that the requirement was not inconsistent with Heller.
And indeed, it is not.

To understand why, you have to understand Heller, and you mess up here as well. In Heller, Justice Scalia did not say "all locking device requirements are unconstitutional." He said the requirement in that case was unconstitutional because:

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. The District argues that we should interpret this element of the statute to contain an exception for self-defense. See Brief for Petitioners 56–57. But we think that is precluded by the unequivocal text, and by the presence of certain other enumerated exceptions: “Except for law enforcement personnel … , each registrant shall keep any firearm in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business, or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District of Columbia.” D. C. Code §7–2507.02. The nonexistence of a self-defense exception is also suggested by the D. C. Court of Appeals’ statement that the statute forbids residents to use firearms to stop intruders, see McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A. 2d 744, 755–756 (197.28

Do you see the difference now? The Heller law was found unconstitutional because it required the locking device to be in place at all times in the home.

The 9th circuit was reviewing a different law:

Unlike the challenged regulation in Heller, id. at 629, section 4512 does not substantially prevent law-abiding citizens from using firearms to defend themselves in the home. Rather, section 4512 regulates how San Franciscans must store their handguns when not carrying them on their persons. This indirectly burdens the ability to use a handgun, because it requires retrieving a weapon from a locked safe or removing a trigger lock. But because it burdens only the “manner in which persons may exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Chovan 735 F.3d at 1138, the regulation more closely resembles a content-neutral speech restriction that regulates only the time, place, or manner of speech. The record indicates that a modern gun safe may be opened quickly. Thus, even when a handgun is secured, it may be readily accessed in case of an emergency. Further, section 4512 leaves open alternative channels for self-defense in the home, because San Franciscans are not required to secure their handguns while carrying them on their person. Provided San Franciscans comply with the storage requirements, they are free to use handguns to defend their home while carrying them on their person.

Do you get it yet?

Look, I am not saying at all that the 9th circuit is right. Maybe they aren't. I am saying that a) they clearly did not say, as you claim above, that "the state of California is free to continue violating Heller"; what they did do was evaluate the law in San Fran in the light of Heller and concluded that it was not unconstitutional. And the reason it is a different animal from the D.C. law is that in DC there was no exception for self defense. The DC law required the citizen to keep the gun locked in his home at all times, under all circumstances, no matter what!

I notice that you don't cite to any ruling by the Supreme Court reversing this 9th circuit decision affirming the locking restriction in Jackson v. San Francisco. Guess why?

 

How exactly is any given individual supposed to know ahead of time, of precisely when they will need to have a firearm immediately accessible for the purpose of self defense?

According to the law as written for the city of San Francisco, the only time a firearm owner is legally allowed to have a firearm unlocked and immediately accessible, is when they are carrying it on their person, inside the confines of their dwelling. Concealed carry permits are next to impossible to obtain with the city of San Francisco, meaning one cannot legally carry the firearm with them wherever they may go. This means that if they wish to step outside for any reason, they must take off their firearm, put it in a locking safe, secure it, go outside to conduct whatever their business may be, go back inside, unlock the firearm, and put it back on again.

What this ultimately amounts to is the exact same result as the law of the district of columbia, simply without being written in the same manner.

If random speculation must be engaged in, one possible reason would be the four conservative supreme court justices were concerned that Anthony Kennedy would side with the four liberal justices unless they catered to the notion of the second amendment being more limited than they are comfortable with, as they were forced to do in Heller to assure his vote. Such was the reason that Antonin Scalia was forced to refer to how the second amendment is not an unlimited right, as refusing to do so would result in a ruling against the second amendment itself.

 

dude, I can explain this stuff to you, but I can't understand it for you.

 

The district of columbia, and the city of Chicago did their best to explain why their firearm prohibitions were constitutional, or otherwise would pass constitutional muster. However the justices on the united state supreme court did not agree with their explanations, despite the amount of effort each city put into trying to make the justices understand things from their perspective.

 

I claimed no such thing. I pointed out that hellar confirms that restrictions on "dangerous and unusual" weapons is perfectly constitutional. Nukes are dangerous, and unusual. It's why you can't own any.

 

The statement was indeed made by yourself.

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

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

 

no it wasn't

 

Nor did Heller speak on the subject of nuclear weapons, or fully-automatic firearms that were produced after a certain date. Stop claiming to the contrary when there is no evidence to support the claim being made by yourself.

 

Do you know what dangerous and unusual means?

 

The lower courts themselves do not even known what "dangerous and unusual" means, with attempts at reading the qualification as an and/or matter where only one standard need be applied, only to be later rebuked by the united states supreme court stating that such is not the case. The lower courts cannot even give a coherent definition of what exactly amounts to being an unusual weapon.

In the Caetano case, the state of New Jersey argued their total prohibition on electronic stunning devices was allowable under Heller because the first congress of the united states could not have possibly imagined the creation of such devices, thus rendering them unusual, and thus not protected by the second amendment. The united state supreme court eviscerated this argument in detail, explaining that the inability of the founding fathers to comprehend modern advances in technology did not amount to being unusual, before adding that even if such was the case, the weapon in question must be both dangerous and unusual at the exact same time, not merely one or the other.

All firearms are dangerous, do not claim otherwise, as such a claim is not supported by modern law. So the question must turn to exactly how is something determined to be "unusual" in addition to this preexisting standard of being dangerous. "Unusual" compared to what exactly? What exactly is the hard and fast unit of measure for a comparison to be made against, when the united state supreme court itself stated, in absolute terms, that the second amendment extends prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

If modern firearms cannot be considered dangerous and unusual on the basis that they are modern, it must be questioned just how the Hughes amendment would ever pass constitutional muster, when it is defined solely by date, and nothing else at all. What makes certain firearms produced after the arbitrarily selected date anymore dangerous and unusual than those that were produced before the date?

 

So you don’t know basic English. I can’t help you then.

 

Then explain precisely what the "dangerous and unusual" standard meant when the united state supreme court referred to such in the Heller ruling, so those present will know where to start the discussion.

 

Nukes and machine guns made after 86. That’s why you don’t have and can’t get either.

 

First, cite precisely where in united states it has been stated that nuclear weapons cannot be privately owned. If such restrictions do indeed exist, then present them.

Second, exactly how are fully-automatic firearms manufactured after the date in question, considered to be "dangerous and unusual" compared to fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to the date in question? Explain the process that was used in making such a determination to prove it was not decided in an arbitrary fashion based solely on spite.

 

Lol are you ****ing serious?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/831

Ask the Supreme Court.

 

The question is being presented to yourself because it is your argument. The united state supreme court did nothing to address the Hughes amendment in the Heller ruling. Even if the regulations implemented in the national firearms act were allowed to stand, that does not explain why the Hughes amendment would also stand. Even if the amendment were revoked or overturned, fully-automatic firearms would continue to be regulated in the present manner. Nothing about such would change except for the market prices.

 

Perhaps the question should be what was intended by those who wrote the second amendment? The right to bear arms, were those who wrote the second amendment, did they mean all arms, all classes of arms or did they only mean a certain class of arms? I realize original intent by the framers, those who wrote the constitution and the amendments gets little attention today.

 

OK...
Arms suitable for service in the militia, of the kind militiaman could be expected to provide himself.

 

it isn't my argument. I'm pointing out the fact that owning them is prohibited, and that prohibition is constitutional. I'm not making an argument in favor of or against it.