General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Just because your state doesn't have a ban on freedom of speech on the internet does not mean you have a Constitutional right to have it.

Just because your state doesn't have a ban on barrel shrouds does not mean you have a Constitutional right to have one.

etc.

You're saying that a right that is affirmed, not granted, by the Constitution is actually NOT a right affirmed by the Constitution until the Supreme Court says it is.

You honestly think that's how the founding fathers designed the constitution?
Laws are not rendered unconstitutional until the Court rules on them. That's how the system works. Congress makes the laws, the Court determines if they're acceptable or not, and the executive enforces them. If a law is blatantly against established judicial precedent it will be struck down rapidly. Something like the assault weapon ban is acceptable under standing judicial precedence. Heller vs DC reaffirms the ability of states or the federal government to ban specific classes of weapons.
Quote:
Thank god LEOs don't think like you, else I'd have been arrested the first time I took an AR to the range, and would have had to appeal my case up to the Supreme Court.
You need to learn the difference between a law and a right. Your state has the power under the Constitution to restrict your ability to own assault weapons, ergo, you do not have a right to own them. You may still have the legal ability to do so, however, simply because your state has not passed such a law. There are many things that are legal but you have no intrinsic right to. Law enforcement only enforces laws, they would have a duty to enforce ANY law until it was ruled unconstitutional.
Quote:
Again, laws aren't there to tell you what you can do, they're there to tell you what they can't do.
In some states, it is against the law to own assault weapons. If we had a right to own assault weapons, those laws would be overturned.

Last edited by Gibonius; 05-10-2010 at 04:45 PM..
Old 05-10-2010, 04:32 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#61  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
Heller vs DC reaffirms the ability of states or the federal government to ban specific classes of weapons.

Seriously, where in Heller did you, FlyNavy, and Spayd find that?

I, on the other hand, found this:

Quote:
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.
You're trying to tell me that banning "Assault Weapons" (Said ban would literally make them a "class of 'arms'"), weapons that a exploding number of civilians are purchasing for self-defense in the home, does not violate that? Clearly an "overwhelming number" of Americans do not choose suppressors/SBRs/MGs for self defense, so Heller won't do anything to the NFA or Hughes Amendment (Then again, both of those laws are probably WHY Americans don't choose NFA items for that purpose, so it's a circular argument).

Where in the opinion do you find that Scalia instead said that federal AW bans are constitutional?

As far as states go, McDonald Vs. Chicago should set some precedent on how much States can ban before it becomes an infringement.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-11-2010, 04:51 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#62  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Seriously, where in Heller did you, , and Spayd find that?

I, on the other hand, found this:



You're trying to tell me that banning "Assault Weapons" (Said ban would literally make them a "class of 'arms'"), weapons that a exploding number of civilians are purchasing for self-defense in the home, does not violate that? Clearly an "overwhelming number" of Americans do not choose suppressors/SBRs/MGs for self defense, so Heller won't do anything to the NFA or Hughes Amendment (Then again, both of those laws are probably WHY Americans don't choose NFA items for that purpose, so it's a circular argument).

Where in the opinion do you find that Scalia instead said that federal AW bans are constitutional?

As far as states go, McDonald Vs. Chicago should set some precedent on how much States can ban before it becomes an infringement.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=5645

The Court deliberately made a narrow ruling in Heller that only addressed the question of blanket handgun bans. They did not address assault weapons and mentioned that bans such as the machine gun ban could stay in place. The current interpretation from the court (see above article) is that assault weapon bans can stay in place where they exist. Until that changes, they're constitutional regardless of whatever you think.

We can even question exactly what Heller means, but until a judge rules that it means "Assault weapon bans are unconstitutional", they're acceptable.
Old 05-11-2010, 05:13 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#63  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Fe...d.aspx?id=5645

The Court deliberately made a narrow ruling in Heller that only addressed the question of blanket handgun bans. They did not address assault weapons and mentioned that bans such as the machine gun ban could stay in place. The current interpretation from the court (see above article) is that assault weapon bans can stay in place where they exist. Until that changes, they're constitutional regardless of whatever you think.

We can even question exactly what Heller means, but until a judge rules that it means "Assault weapon bans are unconstitutional", they're acceptable.

-That's not Heller saying that AW Bans are Unconstitutional, like you three (well, not ) insist.
-That's not the Supreme Court that made a decision, but a lower court.
-Did you even read the quote from Heller I posted? While handguns were the example used, Scalia's statement was about much more than just that.
-On that note, you failed to quote an important part of the article:
Quote:
Regrettably, Urbina uncritically accepted all of the "factual" claims in the committee report of the D.C. City Council and ignored hard evidence that "assault weapons" and "large" magazines are in "common use," the standard Heller adopted.
-We'll see if that decision gets appealed.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-11-2010, 06:50 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#64  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
Seriously, where in Heller did you, , and Spayd find that?

page 55
Old 05-11-2010, 06:53 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#65  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
And Semi-Auto AR15s aren't "in common use?" I disagree. Millions are in private hands in the country, and more .mil use semi versions than auto versions these days.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-11-2010, 10:57 PM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#66  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
-That's not Heller saying that AW Bans are Unconstitutional, like you three (well, not ) insist.
I assume you mean constitutional, since nobody said they were unconstitutional except you.

Quote:
-That's not the Supreme Court that made a decision, but a lower court.
Until the Supreme Court addresses it, the rulings of the lower court stand.
Quote:
-Did you even read the quote from Heller I posted? While handguns were the example used, Scalia's statement was about much more than just that.
-On that note, you failed to quote an important part of the article:

-We'll see if that decision gets appealed.
If the Supreme Court (or a lower court) explicitly rules that assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, then they'll become unconstitutional. Until then...they're not. Pretty basic, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
Old 05-11-2010, 11:47 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#67  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
And Semi-Auto AR15s aren't "in common use?" I disagree. Millions are in private hands in the country, and more .mil use semi versions than auto versions these days.

Have you read the whole decision? It's a fucking long read but worth it. Heller wasn't the smackdown we wanted it to be.

Note: I agree with you ideologically but the fact of the matter remains that everyone who has read the opinion agrees that it has a lot of caveats built in.
Old 05-12-2010, 12:35 AM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#68  

wingedbuttmonkey
 
wingedbuttmonkey's Avatar
 
The DC license plates read "Taxation without Representation". I found that pretty funny when I first moved here. Now I tend to agree, DC should have representation, even if they are not a state.

But then you get into American territories n shit.
Old 05-15-2010, 12:50 PM wingedbuttmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#69  

Gibonius
 
DC should get lumped in with Maryland for national voting purposes. They'd get a representative and would vote for the Senators from Maryland. Really the only solution that could happen in our lifetimes.
Old 05-15-2010, 03:30 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#70  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wingedbuttmonkey View Post
The DC license plates read "Taxation without Representation". I found that pretty funny when I first moved here. Now I tend to agree, DC should have representation, even if they are not a state.

But then you get into American territories n shit.

which is utterly hilarious, considering the biggest roadblock to DC having representation is all of those republicans who try to fit in at teabagger rallies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMorlock View Post
are you a complete idiot?

and for the peanut gallery, again, this is how morlock admits defeat.
Old 05-16-2010, 01:24 AM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#71  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xayd View Post
which is utterly hilarious, considering the biggest roadblock to DC having representation is all of those republicans who try to fit in at teabagger rallies.



and for the peanut gallery, again, this is how morlock admits defeat.

No It's how I ask you if you are a complete idiot. Pretty straightforward language their, not much room for misunderstanding.
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 05-16-2010, 02:25 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#72  

TheMorlock
Contrary to my previous title I never fucked Inf's mother
 
TheMorlock's Avatar
 
>there<
__________________
There is nothing to worry about. Legions of wise people with nothing but all of best interests at heart are ensuring our future of love and infinite bliss. Go watch TV :Bflaps
http://www.genmay.com/showthread.php?t=572323
Old 05-16-2010, 03:33 AM TheMorlock is offline  
Reply With Quote
#73  

Mr. Greg
I'm obsessed with DHermit
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
I assume you mean constitutional, since nobody said they were unconstitutional except you.



You know what I meant, though.

Quote:
Until the Supreme Court addresses it, the rulings of the lower court stand.

If the Supreme Court (or a lower court) explicitly rules that assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, then they'll become unconstitutional. Until then...they're not. Pretty basic, regardless of your opinion on the matter.
With the way the Heller decision was written, I firmly believe bans are unconstitutional, and still can't see how anyone would say the opposite (and have yet to hear your/Flynavy's arguments as to how Heller disagrees with me, and says that they are indeed constitutional). You have to wonder why Holder said over a year ago now that they "Intend" to pass a new AWB, yet it hasn't happened yet. I think they're afraid of it being brought to court, honestly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Have you read the whole decision? It's a fucking long read but worth it. Heller wasn't the smackdown we wanted it to be.

Note: I agree with you ideologically but the fact of the matter remains that everyone who has read the opinion agrees that it has a lot of caveats built in.

You're dancing around the point. Heller doesn't say that AW bans are constitutional, neither on page 55 nor anywhere in the decision.
__________________
Moose's brother.

Louis Potgieter (1951-1996) NEVER FORGET
Old 05-16-2010, 09:16 AM Mr. Greg is offline  
Reply With Quote
#74  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Greg View Post
With the way the Heller decision was written, I firmly believe bans are unconstitutional, and still can't see how anyone would say the opposite (and have yet to hear your/Flynavy's arguments as to how Heller disagrees with me, and says that they are indeed constitutional). You have to wonder why Holder said over a year ago now that they "Intend" to pass a new AWB, yet it hasn't happened yet. I think they're afraid of it being brought to court, honestly.
And once again your opinion doesn't matter, the court hasn't explicitly overturned any assault weapon bans.

Quote:
You're dancing around the point. Heller doesn't say that AW bans are constitutional, neither on page 55 nor anywhere in the decision.
Doesn't say they're unconstitutional either. All it says is that blanket gun bans are unconstitutional, and leaves room for bans on various subclasses of weapons.

Last edited by Gibonius; 05-16-2010 at 09:46 AM..
Old 05-16-2010, 09:41 AM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#75  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:22 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.