Everything posted by BHMCruiser
-
The Last Duel - Ridley Scott, 14th Century France, Co-Written by and Starring Matt Damon, Ben Affleck, plus Adam Driver, Jodie Comer (Oct 15)
I thought the difference between version 2 and version 3 was completely enormous. le Gris interpreted the intentional leaving of shoes on the stairwell as an invitation and everything else was playful banter. Anyway the duel slammed.
-
The Supremes
But please don’t tell my clients
-
The Supremes
Fine I’m an unconstitutional lawyer then
-
The Supremes
Every time you post I’m more and more impressed. Really strong stuff.
- The Supremes
- The Supremes
- The Supremes
-
The Supremes
Blah blah read the legislative history
-
The Supremes
Blah blah overload. The NRA didn’t even bring Heller.
-
The Supremes
That law was unconstitutional
- The Supremes
- The Supremes
-
The Supremes
manifest inconsistency The Seventh Circuit basically even said so, holding in Highland Park that banning of AWs was justifiable even if only made people feel safer.
-
The Supremes
Their representatives did. The issue of arming freed slaves was discussed at length in the legislative history.
-
The Supremes
because the pre-existing right was shaped by the English common law which generally forbade "dangerous and unusual" arms you have to define the arms that are protected by the Second Amendment in some way, so the courts have basically done this so far: 1. the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms; 2. but not "dangerous and unusual arms"; 3. handguns are commonly kept for lawful purposes and cannot be banned; 4. assault weapons are commonly kept for lawful purposes and can be banned; 5. there exist all sorts of limitations on the right to keep and bear arms, such as sensitive places, carry outside the home, prohibitions on felons, violent misdemeanants, domestic abusers, and those adjudicated mentally incompetent So generally speaking (with assault weapons and large-capacity magazines being an outlier) if the weapon is typically possessed for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned. It obviously matters how people use things. If everybody used their cars to drive into parades, we'd think of them not as vehicles but as weapons.
-
The Supremes
Like pretty much every constitutional issue, you can "whatabout" anything to death. But you really need to look at the nation as a whole, and the history of the weapon. That's why DC's handgun ban was struck down: because nationally, Americans overwhelmingly acquire handguns for lawful purposes.
-
The Supremes
no because they are commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens that's why you can ban brass knuckles but not handguns, irrespective of lethality
-
The Supremes
Far from it. I think vaccines are modern miracles of science.
-
The Supremes
Miller is interesting too because it is often cited as having a central holding that sawed off shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not useful in warfare. Well that's not the central holding. Is there any doubt that, if Mr. Miller had been in possession of a machine gun (indubitably useful in warfare), his conviction would still have been upheld? The question answered in Miller is whether the government may ban arms that are unusual and dangerous, i.e. that are not commonly kept for lawful purposes.
-
The Supremes
I did not move the goalposts but you're entrenched (and so am I) and I agree that this is a useless argument. Yes I am a constitutional lawyer.
-
The Supremes
The history of Miller is pretty interesting. The petitioner didn't even argue. It was a mess. But if you go back and carefully read the decision, and the legislative history from the NFA, you can see that the central theme of Heller - that firearms commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens - has always been there.
-
The Supremes
Heller deals with Miller as well as the GCA/NFA
-
The Supremes
I have done a lot of research on this subject but thanks
-
The Supremes
I mean, nice try and all
-
The Supremes
lol where did you get that list? Rybar was about a machine gun, Hickman was about a carry permit, Quilici held the Second Amendment hadn't been incorporated yet (and was really a 9th Amendment case). None of these have anything to do with Heller which held that the government could not ban firearms that were commonly kept for lawful purposes by responsible, law-abiding citizens (and little more than that).