The Supremes

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

Which seems like an extremely weird and unworkable rule. If taken seriously, anything invented after the adoption of the 2nd amendment could be outright banned. Even if you bring "common use" to modern day, anything invented tomorrow could be banned. That doesn't make much sense if we're talking about a broad and unregulable individual right.

It does seem like a weird and unworkable rule, but if you were to concede that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right for both self defense and the common defense, can you think of a better one? Itemizing specific things that are banned isn't much the job of the court, and technology will always come up with something nobody foresaw. And if the right exists for both self defense and common defense, it has to be able to be adaptable to modern times for the same reason. The only real option is to sort of go with the flow as long as states recognize that the right exists.

[BHMCruiser 1818]

49 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What if a bunch of law abiding citizens buy brass knuckles in a state where they aren't currently banned? Is it the case that that state could ban them today but not next year, if and because a bunch of law abiding citizens bought them in the interim?

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.

[wildcat09 29453]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

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.

Ok. But even if you want to broaden it out to some sort of categorization, protecting some categories of weapons and not others, it's still pretty fucking weird. I mean, if we're talking about an inalienable right that predates the founding of the country and all, why is the scope of that inalienable right contingent on how well behaved other people have been with similar weapons?

[BHMCruiser 1818]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Ok. But even if you want to broaden it out to some sort of categorization, protecting some categories of weapons and not others, it's still pretty fucking weird. I mean, if we're talking about an inalienable right that predates the founding of the country and all, why is the scope of that inalienable right contingent on how well behaved other people have been with similar weapons?

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. 

[Bookman 4725]

When the states were ratifying the 14th Amendment, I wonder how many of them thought they were losing power to regulate firearms in their own states.

[jimmyjazz 46474]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

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;

Are you saying this is an inconsistency or a legitimate parsing of 2A by the courts?

[BHMCruiser 1818]

2 minutes ago, Bookman said:

When the states were ratifying the 14th Amendment, I wonder how many of them thought they were losing power to regulate firearms in their own states.

Their representatives did. The issue of arming freed slaves was discussed at length in the legislative history.

[BHMCruiser 1818]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Are you saying this is an inconsistency or a legitimate parsing of 2A by the courts?

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.

[Bookman 4725]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Their representatives did. The issue of arming freed slaves was discussed at length in the legislative history.

What representatives? Amendments are ratified by the state legislatures or conventions.

[jimmyjazz 46474]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

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.

Why is it not possible that 2A does not nor was it intended to define all arms as impervious to being banned?  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why is it not possible that 2A does not nor was it intended to define all arms as impervious to being banned?  

Then it should be easy to provide an example of one being banned.

[jimmyjazz 46474]

7 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Then it should be easy to provide an example of one being banned.

I'm not sure your point . . . for starters, semiautomatic "assault" weapons were banned during the Clinton administration, and that ban lasted roughly a decade.

EDIT:  I'm gonna guess you're taking the angle that banning the sale of such weapons is not the same as banning the weapons themselves?  That doesn't seem to be a legitimate argument, since the statute called out "the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon".

Edited December 23, 2021 by jimmyjazz

[TwiceHorn 31684]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Glocks are or at least used to be popular with gang members. Can Glocks be banned?

ETA: This is such a circular standard. It's basically "bad guns are guns used by bad guys."

Have you read Miller?  Heller also repeats it and affirms it.

The "militia" stuff was invoked by the Court to come to the conclusion that a sawed-off 12 gauge was not a "military weapon" or militia weapon, and thus was not within the protection of the Second Amendment.

Specifically:

Quote

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

It's kind of a weird holding.  If you gave it much consideration, there are a lot of weapons that are ordinary military equipment that shouldn't be legal to possess.  It's bassackward.

Also kind of fun about the last sentence.  I quite imagine that short-barrelled shotguns found quite a bit of utility in the trenches during WWI, and post-Miller in WWII.  I can't say that they were actually issued, but I am relatively certain that they were made.

But they are now: https://www.tactical-life.com/firearms/remington-870-modular-combat-system-12-gauge-shotgun-gun-review/

Edited December 23, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

49 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not sure your point . . . for starters, semiautomatic "assault" weapons were banned during the Clinton administration, and that ban lasted roughly a decade.

EDIT:  I'm gonna guess you're taking the angle that banning the sale of such weapons is not the same as banning the weapons themselves?  That doesn't seem to be a legitimate argument, since the statute called out "the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon".

The issueisn't whether there has been such a ban in recent or even near recent history. Claiming as evidence a ban on certain weapons made over 200 years after the fact does nothing to prove the intent of the second amendment. Partucularly if the supreme court never made a ruling on it. The question is whether or not there was a nationwide ban on particular arms during the era of the founding and ratification of the constitution. We do know that they were more than likely aware of unusual arms that could fire multiple shots in rapid succession. We also know that they had no problem issuing letters of marque to dubious privateers who possessed ships with full broadsides of cannons. But if they intended for Congress to be able to restrict any sort of arms from the common citizen they certainly didn't give any indication of it.

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

 

That's an absurd view of the current state of affairs. The people you describe are pissed at the NRA because they support some types of restrictions. The law in question was designed to disenfranchise undesirable groups of people and has become an outright restriction on the ability to exercise your rights unless you are part of an exclusive group that can make big enough donations to the right people. It is straight up racism and corruption. The exact thing that the Democrats should be fighting against if they believe in civil rights.

If they’re pissed off at the NRA they’re doing a piss poor job of fighting it.

And the law in question, if we’re talking about the DC law that was struck down by the supremes, was not designed to disenfranchise minorities. That is straight up NRA propaganda bullshit and you are then a fish who has bought it hook line and sinker. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, Bookman said:

When the states were ratifying the 14th Amendment, I wonder how many of them thought they were losing power to regulate firearms in their own states.

The answer is none. That’s why the grafting of it into the 14th amendment by the supremes is pure bullshit. Nobody ever even considered that.

[JimmyJames 12271]

5 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

I just find it linguistically very difficult to read into the Second Amendment a restriction based on the prefatory clause.  A preface, by its very nature, is fairly, if not entirely, superfluous.

We’re not talking about a preamble clause to a private contract. By its very nature a prefatory clause in the CONSTITUTION cannot be superfluous, it provides a pretty big clue as to it’s true purpose, which the current court is doing it’s level best to ignore to reach a predetermined conclusion it wants to reach. 

[TwiceHorn 31684]

1 minute ago, JimmyJames said:

The answer is none. That’s why the grafting of it into the 14th amendment by the supremes is pure bullshit. Nobody ever even considered that.

The whoie incorporation thing is bizarre.  The only amendment that literally seems to require it is the 1st.

[TwiceHorn 31684]

2 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

We’re not talking about a preamble clause to a private contract. By its very nature a prefatory clause in the CONSTITUTION cannot be superfluous, it provides a pretty big clue as to it’s true purpose, which the current court is doing it’s level best to ignore to reach a predetermined conclusion it wants to reach. 

Disagree.  Prefatory is prefatory.  It's an ambiguous clue, at best.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

20 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

If they’re pissed off at the NRA they’re doing a piss poor job of fighting it.

And the law in question, if we’re talking about the DC law that was struck down by the supremes, was not designed to disenfranchise minorities. That is straight up NRA propaganda bullshit and you are then a fish who has bought it hook line and sinker. 

Which law is SCOTUS issuing a ruling on again?

[TwiceHorn 31684]

29 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

If they’re pissed off at the NRA they’re doing a piss poor job of fighting it.

And the law in question, if we’re talking about the DC law that was struck down by the supremes, was not designed to disenfranchise minorities. That is straight up NRA propaganda bullshit and you are then a fish who has bought it hook line and sinker. 

I suppose you could say that it had a disparate impact, given the demographics of the District.

But, the DC Council was majority (6/8) black when it was passed.

So, yeah, not likely intentionally designed to discriminate.

Interestingly, the ban tossed in Heller survived without serious challenge for 18 years.

Edited December 23, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[jimmyjazz 46474]

56 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The issueisn't whether there has been such a ban in recent or even near recent history. Claiming as evidence a ban on certain weapons made over 200 years after the fact does nothing to prove the intent of the second amendment. 

Then phrase your question more clearly.  Limiting the argument to a narrow time frame following ratification seems disingenuous, but OK.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

If the purpose of the question is to determine the intent of those who passed the second amendment, we must consider what a bunch of random people did 200 years later? How do you survive wiping your own butt? It's a wonder you haven't bleed to death.

[Biff Tannen 45763]

I'm too drunk to deal with this thread.  LAWYER TALK NOT GOING AWAY.

[jimmyjazz 46474]

3 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

If the purpose of the question is to determine the intent of those who passed the second amendment, we must consider what a bunch of random people did 200 years later? How do you survive wiping your own butt? It's a wonder you haven't bleed to death.

*bled

Fuck off.  I asked the question, and in no way did I suggest an originalist interpretation constituted the ground rules. 

Edited December 23, 2021 by jimmyjazz

[JimmyJames 12271]

20 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I'm too drunk to deal with this thread.  LAWYER TALK NOT GOING AWAY.

You will listen to lawyer talk and you will like it!!

[JimmyJames 12271]

50 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I suppose you could say that it had a disparate impact, given the demographics of the District.

But, the DC Council was majority (6/8) black when it was passed.

So, yeah, not likely intentionally designed to discriminate.

Interestingly, the ban tossed in Heller survived without serious challenge for 18 years.

It survived for 18 years not because it was unconstitutional, but because right wing special interest groups had not yet mobilized to formulate a plan to try overturn it. It was just a first step. One of many yet to come. This is not an accident and has nothing to do with constitutional jurisprudence.

[JimmyJames 12271]

108 year law about to be struck down by a one year old Supreme Court. “Originalism” at its best.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/majority-of-court-appears-dubious-of-new-york-gun-control-law-but-justices-mull-narrow-ruling/

 

Hacks. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Little Bill would not like this here pompous supreme court and would probably spit in its face. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Disagree.  Prefatory is prefatory.  It's an ambiguous clue, at best.

Well I totally disagree with that statement but don’t see the need to belabor it.  That way blacklab can’t suspend me again. 

[GopherRock 1772]

Not sure what they're going to do. On the one hand, this Court loves to gut executive branch authority.

On the other, the same Court that gave us Jacobson v. Massachusetts turned around and immediately issued Lochner v. New York, which is the cornerstone of modern Republican policy.

[TwiceHorn 31684]

21 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

108 year law about to be struck down by a one year old Supreme Court. “Originalism” at its best.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/majority-of-court-appears-dubious-of-new-york-gun-control-law-but-justices-mull-narrow-ruling/

 

Hacks. 

I really don't like what I know of Paul Clement.

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I really don't like what I know of Paul Clement.

Well. And what would that be? I’m not well versed on the background 

[tx 3 putt 77925]

17 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Not sure what they're going to do. On the one hand, this Court loves to gut executive branch authority.

On the other, the same Court that gave us Jacobson v. Massachusetts turned around and immediately issued Lochner v. New York, which is the cornerstone of modern Republican policy.

maga justices about to drop it on Biden 

[bolverk 29817]

4 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

maga justices about to drop it on Biden 

Why won't Biden sHuT dOwN tHe ViRuS?!?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

*bled

Fuck off.  I asked the question, and in no way did I suggest an originalist interpretation constituted the ground rules. 

I apologize for my rather surly reply. And for my phone's poor implementation of autocorrect, although I prefer it to butcher grammar to ushering in the robot apocalypse. I looked back at some of the previous posts and it looks like you were responding to a lot of stuff and just kind of assumed that everybody else was following along with the stream of thought in your own head. Happens to the best of us. Anyhow, you said this:

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why is it not possible that 2A does not nor was it intended to define all arms as impervious to being banned?  

I quoted that to respond with this:

3 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Then it should be easy to provide an example of one being banned.

I assumed that you would understand I was asking about the intentions behind the 2nd, but my assumption was wrong. Anyhow, sorry for calling you dumb. Carry on.

[Satchel 6949]

28 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Why won't Biden sHuT dOwN tHe ViRuS?!?

Has it been around longer than 187 minutes?

[BHMCruiser 1818]

4 hours ago, Bookman said:

What representatives? Amendments are ratified by the state legislatures or conventions.

Holy smokes 

[BHMCruiser 1818]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why is it not possible that 2A does not nor was it intended to define all arms as impervious to being banned?  

It doesn’t 

[BHMCruiser 1818]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not sure your point . . . for starters, semiautomatic "assault" weapons were banned during the Clinton administration, and that ban lasted roughly a decade.

EDIT:  I'm gonna guess you're taking the angle that banning the sale of such weapons is not the same as banning the weapons themselves?  That doesn't seem to be a legitimate argument, since the statute called out "the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon".

That law was unconstitutional 

[BHMCruiser 1818]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

If they’re pissed off at the NRA they’re doing a piss poor job of fighting it.

And the law in question, if we’re talking about the DC law that was struck down by the supremes, was not designed to disenfranchise minorities. That is straight up NRA propaganda bullshit and you are then a fish who has bought it hook line and sinker. 

Blah blah overload. The NRA didn’t even bring Heller. 

[BHMCruiser 1818]

3 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

The answer is none. That’s why the grafting of it into the 14th amendment by the supremes is pure bullshit. Nobody ever even considered that.

Blah blah

 

read the legislative history 

Edited December 23, 2021 by BHMCruiser

[BHMCruiser 1818]

2 hours ago, JimmyJames said:

We’re not talking about a preamble clause to a private contract. By its very nature a prefatory clause in the CONSTITUTION cannot be superfluous, it provides a pretty big clue as to it’s true purpose, which the current court is doing it’s level best to ignore to reach a predetermined conclusion it wants to reach. 

ALL CAPS ANALYSIS 

[BHMCruiser 1818]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

It survived for 18 years not because it was unconstitutional, but because right wing special interest groups had not yet mobilized to formulate a plan to try overturn it. It was just a first step. One of many yet to come. This is not an accident and has nothing to do with constitutional jurisprudence.

Got it

[BHMCruiser 1818]

1 hour ago, JimmyJames said:

108 year law about to be struck down by a one year old Supreme Court. “Originalism” at its best.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/majority-of-court-appears-dubious-of-new-york-gun-control-law-but-justices-mull-narrow-ruling/

 

Hacks. 

Idiotic

[DDD Dad 14370]

Oh just fuck off already.

[Biff Tannen 45763]

Multi-quote is a thing.  We have it. We have it now.

[jimmyjazz 46474]

48 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I apologize for my rather surly reply. And for my phone's poor implementation of autocorrect, although I prefer it to butcher grammar to ushering in the robot apocalypse. I looked back at some of the previous posts and it looks like you were responding to a lot of stuff and just kind of assumed that everybody else was following along with the stream of thought in your own head. Happens to the best of us. Anyhow, you said this:

I quoted that to respond with this:

I assumed that you would understand I was asking about the intentions behind the 2nd, but my assumption was wrong. Anyhow, sorry for calling you dumb. Carry on.

Cool, small harm, small foul.  (My bad.)

[BHMCruiser 1818]

1 hour ago, DDD Dad said:

Oh just fuck off already.

Every time you post I’m more and more impressed. Really strong stuff. 

[Anastasis 23498]

28 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Every time you post I’m more and more impressed. Really strong stuff. 

You are responding to a towel.