[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DC mag ban struck down. (Page 4 of 5)
|
Quoted:
|
It's Malice dude.
|
Quoted: What shall not be infringed? The right of the people to keep and bear arms. These court cases are about definitions. Who are the people? School children? Felons? Illegal immigrants? What is keep? What is bear? What are Arms? A bar of Irish spring in a sock is an effective sap one time. Saps are Arms. But does a ban of a particular brand of soap violate the 2A? When we screech “shall not be infringed” every lawyer, judge, politician and historian think we don’t understand the issue. It’s not hard dude. Seriously. Not hard to understand. The fact that you even ask is proof how retarded some people can be. If you’re in the general public then you can have arms. It’s that simple. The rights are granted to all citizens of this country. Is that too complicated for you? |
|
Quoted: Also violates language in Miller which clearly stated that there was no evidence that a sawed-off SG had a "reasonable relationship" to a militia's efficiency or was part of "ordinary military equipment", making it not covered by the 2A (BTW, this was a false assertion, because sawed-offs were being used by the military, but Miller's attorneys literally did not appear at the hearing, so they couldn't inform the court of its error). Thus, according to the court's own assertion in Miller, categories of arms used in military service are protected by the 2A. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Viramontes is on its 7th relist at SCOTUS. It is the cook county ban. Viramontes is not a good case because it lacks record. Barnett or Duncan is what SCOTUS wants and I'm pretty sure they want Barnett most of all. IL's ban is the biggest fattest tuna of them all. Mag bans, virtual ban on all semi auto long guns, threaded barrel ban, registration, equal protection violations, 5th and 9th amendment violations, and it is all tied into the bullshit FOID system. Also, in direct violation of Bruen, the 7th circuit created the military test that stated any gun used by the military is not protected by the second amendment so they don't even need to apply the Bruen standard. Also violates language in Miller which clearly stated that there was no evidence that a sawed-off SG had a "reasonable relationship" to a militia's efficiency or was part of "ordinary military equipment", making it not covered by the 2A (BTW, this was a false assertion, because sawed-offs were being used by the military, but Miller's attorneys literally did not appear at the hearing, so they couldn't inform the court of its error). Thus, according to the court's own assertion in Miller, categories of arms used in military service are protected by the 2A. They believe the national guard is the only militia of the US, so things like the B-2s owned by the Missouri Air National Guard satisfy the 2nd amendment. Obviously that is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, and bombing countries halfway around the world is not the intention of the amendment but that is their logic. |
|
Quoted: It’s not hard dude. Seriously. Not hard to understand. The fact that you even ask is proof how retarded some people can be. If you’re in the general public then you can have arms. It’s that simple. The rights are granted to all citizens of this country. Is that too complicated for you? Quoted: Quoted: What shall not be infringed? The right of the people to keep and bear arms. These court cases are about definitions. Who are the people? School children? Felons? Illegal immigrants? What is keep? What is bear? What are Arms? A bar of Irish spring in a sock is an effective sap one time. Saps are Arms. But does a ban of a particular brand of soap violate the 2A? When we screech “shall not be infringed” every lawyer, judge, politician and historian think we don’t understand the issue. It’s not hard dude. Seriously. Not hard to understand. The fact that you even ask is proof how retarded some people can be. If you’re in the general public then you can have arms. It’s that simple. The rights are granted to all citizens of this country. Is that too complicated for you? It’s apparently very complicated for judges. Maybe you should start writing Amicus briefs in these cases to explain it to them. The court has ruled the the people includes “ordinary citizens” in Bruen. Now in Hermani they will decide if it also includes marijuana users. Other cases will answer if it includes young adults 18-20. Other cases will decide if it include those convicted of non violent felonies. What definition of arms should they use? Everything from baseball bats to battleships? Did the founders intend the 2A to codify a natural right to keep and bear sporting equipment that can also be used as a weapon? |
|
Quoted: It’s apparently very complicated for judges. Maybe you should start writing Amicus briefs in these cases to explain it to them. The court has ruled the the people includes “ordinary citizens” in Bruen. Now in Hermani they will decide if it also includes marijuana users. Other cases will answer if it includes young adults 18-20. Other cases will decide if it include those convicted of non violent felonies. What definition of arms should they use? Everything from baseball bats to battleships? Did the founders intend the 2A to codify a natural right to keep and bear sporting equipment that can also be used as a weapon? Perhaps if you read the federalist papers you would understand the intent. Perhaps that’s a tall order though. |
|
Quoted: Why does it matter if SBRs were "standard" military arms? They were in use. The MP7 isn't a "standard" arm, but it has military application. Where does the 2A place a "standard use" prerequisite to the kinds of arms that We, The People can keep & bear? This seems an invention akin to the arbitrary "common use" & "dangerous & unusual" standards that were cooked up by the court, but which have no basis in the 2A. These inventions were grafted into the discussion & the public laps up & regurgitates, thereby legitimizing them through perpetuation. But it still doesn't make them true. Quoted: Quoted: In deference, SBS were not a common military arm, especially in the mid-1930s. If they were in use, they would have been a more specialized weapon than the conventional rifles and handguns that would have been a standard infantry arm. Even the riot-type shotguns that saw significant use in WWI typically had 18" or 20" barrels. (Some M1 carbines- which were issued heavily about 7 years after (passage of the NFA)- would have met the definition of an SBR. The dimensions of surplussed M1 carbines- sold to citizens directly by the Army (DCM) as conventional rifles- were a driving factor behind the congressional decision to change the SBR barrel dimension from 18 inches to 16 inches.) Why does it matter if SBRs were "standard" military arms? They were in use. The MP7 isn't a "standard" arm, but it has military application. Where does the 2A place a "standard use" prerequisite to the kinds of arms that We, The People can keep & bear? This seems an invention akin to the arbitrary "common use" & "dangerous & unusual" standards that were cooked up by the court, but which have no basis in the 2A. These inventions were grafted into the discussion & the public laps up & regurgitates, thereby legitimizing them through perpetuation. But it still doesn't make them true. Everything in the Miller decision was just rambling. No one in lower courts had thought to ask the kind of questions that SCOTUS found important. 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. .... The cause will be remanded for further proceedings. It wasn't truly a decision, just a remand to the lower courts for additional fact finding. That never happened because the defendant was deceased. That any court looks to the decision as a declaration of facts, that the firearm in question was not part of the ordinary military equipment or was unable to contribute to common defense, is flatly reading it wrong. No one in a lower court established those facts one way or the other, and the case was remanded to them to examine just those questions. It wasn't within judicial notice because no one in the case had asked those questions before so there simply was no record. |
|
Quoted: They believe the national guard is the only militia of the US, so things like the B-2s owned by the Missouri Air National Guard satisfy the 2nd amendment. Obviously that is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, and bombing countries halfway around the world is not the intention of the amendment but that is their logic. Civilian militias predate the NG. This is indisputable. |
|
Quoted: It’s apparently very complicated for judges. Maybe you should start writing Amicus briefs in these cases to explain it to them. The court has ruled the the people includes “ordinary citizens” in Bruen. Now in Hermani they will decide if it also includes marijuana users. Other cases will answer if it includes young adults 18-20. Other cases will decide if it include those convicted of non violent felonies. What definition of arms should they use? Everything from baseball bats to battleships? Did the founders intend the 2A to codify a natural right to keep and bear sporting equipment that can also be used as a weapon? Who knew government likes to complicate things? You, it seems. Meanwhile, I've read the Federalist Papers & I know what the framers intended concerning the 2A. I'm not going to follow the lead of people who can't comprehend gender differences & the terms "male" & "female", & "boy" & "girl". But you do you... |
|
Quoted: It’s not hard dude. Seriously. Not hard to understand. The fact that you even ask is proof how retarded some people can be. If you’re in the general public then you can have arms. It’s that simple. The rights are granted to all citizens of this country. Is that too complicated for you? You can't just say "this is my definition and everyone else is retarded for not using it". Does "general public can have arms" mean an Iranian on a tourist visa can legally set up a nuclear bomb in Times Square and law enforcement can't do anything until he detonates it? As much as the 2A absolutists screech about "shall not be infringed", there are obviously some limits on possession of arms needed to have a functioning country. Defining those limits is always going to take some debate. The Founders themselves had laws about storing munitions for public safety. |
|
Quoted: You can't just say "this is my definition and everyone else is retarded for not using it". Does "general public can have arms" mean an Iranian on a tourist visa can legally set up a nuclear bomb in Times Square and law enforcement can't do anything until he detonates it? As much as the 2A absolutists screech about "shall not be infringed", there are obviously some limits on possession of arms needed to have a functioning country. Defining those limits is always going to take some debate. The Founders themselves had laws about storing munitions for public safety. You clearly are the smartest person here then. Or not. You’re pathetic argument is the that a liberal uses. You tried to pick two words out of my statement while ignoring an entire sentence about the rights are for American citizens. Do you consider a nuclear weapon arms? These are weapons of mass destruction. Do you need to have the the specific definition of arms in standard use by standard solders spelled out specifically into the description or is your straw man argument the best you can come up with. Read what the framers of the constitution had in mind and do some self education. It might take you a few times to read and understand it. Clearly you’re smarter than they were and understand their intent better than they did. Shall Not Be Infringed. It’s that fucking easy. |
|
Quoted: You can't just say "this is my definition and everyone else is retarded for not using it". Does "general public can have arms" mean an Iranian on a tourist visa can legally set up a nuclear bomb in Times Square and law enforcement can't do anything until he detonates it? As much as the 2A absolutists screech about "shall not be infringed", there are obviously some limits on possession of arms needed to have a functioning country. Defining those limits is always going to take some debate. The Founders themselves had laws about storing munitions for public safety. This again brings us to the context discussed by the founders and plainly observable from even a cursory look at American history. America was established as a result of the populace violently throwing off the yoke of British governance using arms of equal or greater technology to contemporaneous militaries, and which were largely privately owned. The words mean what they say. The Amendment was written to ensure that the American people maintained parity with contemporary militaries. Does that mean body armor and night vision are protected? Well yes it does. Does it mean automatic weapons are protected? Yes. Does it mean that government licensure of the possession or sales of weapons is illegitimate? Of course. Does it mean that restrictions on parts or features are unconstitutional? It certainly did for the first ~150 years. |
|
Quoted:The Founders themselves had laws about storing munitions for public safety. Storage of bulk black powder in the home (or loaded black powder rifles) is a little different than the loaded spare magazine in my pocket, especially in a time when fire departments with big trucks full of water, or even garden hoses, didn't exist. Suggestion, make friends with someone who hunts using black powder and talk to them about it. Those regulations were practical, and not intended to be a limit on lawful use of arms by citizens. |
|
Quoted: Civilian militias predate the NG. This is indisputable. Quoted: Quoted: They believe the national guard is the only militia of the US, so things like the B-2s owned by the Missouri Air National Guard satisfy the 2nd amendment. Obviously that is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, and bombing countries halfway around the world is not the intention of the amendment but that is their logic. Civilian militias predate the NG. This is indisputable. State and colonial militias. The militia was always subordinate to some level of government. |
|
Quoted: It’s not hard dude. Seriously. Not hard to understand. The fact that you even ask is proof how retarded some people can be. If you’re in the general public then you can have arms. It’s that simple. The rights are granted to all citizens of this country. Is that too complicated for you? You almost nailed it until you said "granted." |
|
Quoted: You almost nailed it until you said "granted." That's right. It's amazing how many "americans" have this backwards even on a gun forum. The BoR doesn't give rights to the people. It limits the power of the government. The BoR was ratified (approved) by the people. It wasn't generated and invoked by the government. The FFs were very specific about this relationship between people and their government. The rights belong to us and always have. We ceede a portion to our government and put a line in the sand that they shall not cross. Once you've given them up clawing them back is a monumental task, but governments are always quick and willing to expand, take on additional powers, etc. You know, for the good of the "Guns and Gadgets" is doing a 40+ video series on youtoob on the federalist papers. It's a solid refresher. |
|
Quoted: You almost nailed it until you said "granted." The rights were granted to us by our creator. No one else. You have a problem with that? It is entertainment how you guys want to try to pick everything apart. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. It’s that simple. All gun laws are infringements. |
|
Militia equals citizens. Well regulated equals proper functioning, like a clock. So citizens who are not adjudicated mentally defective have the right to bear arms, and that right can’t be infringed by the government. Do bearable arms include nukes? I don’t know but I do know they include machine guns and semi autos and whatever else a soldier would carry. So don’t hold them hostage just because we can’t decide on nukes. It ain’t that hard to understand. |
|
Quoted: Civilian militias predate the NG. This is indisputable. Quoted: Quoted: They believe the national guard is the only militia of the US, so things like the B-2s owned by the Missouri Air National Guard satisfy the 2nd amendment. Obviously that is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, and bombing countries halfway around the world is not the intention of the amendment but that is their logic. Civilian militias predate the NG. This is indisputable. Of course, and you can look to the Minutemen as an example of what was clear inspiration for the 2nd Amendment. Largely ordinary citizens with privately owned arms. |
|
Quoted: Storage of bulk black powder in the home (or loaded black powder rifles) is a little different than the loaded spare magazine in my pocket, especially in a time when fire departments with big trucks full of water, or even garden hoses, didn't exist. Suggestion, make friends with someone who hunts using black powder and talk to them about it. Those regulations were practical, and not intended to be a limit on lawful use of arms by citizens. Quoted: Quoted:The Founders themselves had laws about storing munitions for public safety. Storage of bulk black powder in the home (or loaded black powder rifles) is a little different than the loaded spare magazine in my pocket, especially in a time when fire departments with big trucks full of water, or even garden hoses, didn't exist. Suggestion, make friends with someone who hunts using black powder and talk to them about it. Those regulations were practical, and not intended to be a limit on lawful use of arms by citizens. The purpose of those laws were to keep your stuff from catching fire and affecting someone else. Storage of quantities that would only destroy your own property were just fine, and that was kind of the dividing line. |
|
Quoted: In terms command structure, yes. They were still civilian citizens, not government conscripts. Quoted: Quoted: State and colonial militias. The militia was always subordinate to some level of government. In terms command structure, yes. They were still civilian citizens, not government conscripts. They were not considered civilians when in service, only in daily life. Back then, they were indeed conscripted. The decline of the militia coincided with the decline in enforcement of militia conscription (South Carolina was the last State to fully enforce universal male obligation, which ended as a consequence of the Civil War). All able-bodied male citizens of the age range designated by law (varied by jurisdiction), and sometimes other members of the community, were obligated to serve in the militia. Militias function best this way. It wasn't merely a command structure but a legal subordination. They were paid, commissions granted, supplied, disciplined, and often armed and equipped by said governments. Those governments provided the rules and regulations and meted out punishments for offenses against those regulations. Of course, a force of such citizenry is capable of rebelling against the authority which it serves, or a higher more central authority, if conditions warrant it, as occurred during the Glorious Revolution, our War of Independence, etc. This is why the militia was politically important. The militia exists today to an extent, but to call it a mere shadow of itself would be a gross exaggeration. Unfortunately, the National Guard was a big part of what killed it off as a meaningful force and even in the Cold War era it lobbied against efforts to revive it (via the NGAUS). The NG since its creation has been more hostile to the militia as a concept than the Regular Army. This is unfortunate, as it is not enough to simply have arms, but also to train under them, train as an organization, have leadership, have discipline, have doctrines, have logistical support, etc. "Arms" also included heavy weaponry that is almost exclusively the realm of the NG and regular forces now. Armed rabble have their limitations, and I fear that this is magnified by new technologies governments have come to possess, such as the use of AI, modern surveillance, etc. The RKBA arms is of course crucial to have such a militia if desired, and this is the object meant to be served in protecting it, which is why if nothing else, martial arms of every sort are protected by the 2nd Amendment, although of course, the language is broad enough to cover pretty much all arms. |
|
Quoted: Of course, and you can look to the Minutemen as an example of what was clear inspiration for the 2nd Amendment. Largely ordinary citizens with privately owned arms. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They believe the national guard is the only militia of the US, so things like the B-2s owned by the Missouri Air National Guard satisfy the 2nd amendment. Obviously that is not what the 2nd Amendment was intended for, and bombing countries halfway around the world is not the intention of the amendment but that is their logic. Civilian militias predate the NG. This is indisputable. Of course, and you can look to the Minutemen as an example of what was clear inspiration for the 2nd Amendment. Largely ordinary citizens with privately owned arms. The Minutemen were organized under colonial government authority, with officers commissioned by the colonial governments, and subject to rules and discipline therefrom. Militia arms in many cases were furnished for the sake of standardization, which is why colonies had the arsenals that the British were trying to seize. They were basically select men out of the broader body of citizenry conscripted into militia service. Service was an obligation just like jury duty. |
|
Quoted: The purpose of those laws were to keep your stuff from catching fire and affecting someone else. Storage of quantities that would only destroy your own property were just fine, and that was kind of the dividing line. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted:The Founders themselves had laws about storing munitions for public safety. Storage of bulk black powder in the home (or loaded black powder rifles) is a little different than the loaded spare magazine in my pocket, especially in a time when fire departments with big trucks full of water, or even garden hoses, didn't exist. Suggestion, make friends with someone who hunts using black powder and talk to them about it. Those regulations were practical, and not intended to be a limit on lawful use of arms by citizens. The purpose of those laws were to keep your stuff from catching fire and affecting someone else. Storage of quantities that would only destroy your own property were just fine, and that was kind of the dividing line. Yeah, these have always been horrible analogues for modern gun control laws. Those laws were about fire prevention and safety of those outside of one's property due to the potential for disaster from black powder combustion en masse. They were not arms control. |
|
Quoted: Militia equals citizens. Well regulated equals proper functioning, like a clock. So citizens who are not adjudicated mentally defective have the right to bear arms, and that right can’t be infringed by the government. Do bearable arms include nukes? I don’t know but I do know they include machine guns and semi autos and whatever else a soldier would carry. So don’t hold them hostage just because we can’t decide on nukes. It ain’t that hard to understand. It’s not difficult to comprehend, marxist and statist shitbags just keep pulling obtuse arguments out of their asses just to be obstinate. And for the record, I’d love to have a davey crockett.  |
|
Quoted:
|
|
Quoted: The rights were granted to us by our creator. No one else. You have a problem with that? It is entertainment how you guys want to try to pick everything apart. Shall. Not. Be. Infringed. It’s that simple. All gun laws are infringements. You said "to all citizens of this country." That implied otherwise since you didn't say "to all people." Rights are inherent regardless, whether the Creator is God or Nature. Yes, all gun laws are infringements. |
|
Quoted: You clearly are the smartest person here then. Or not. You’re pathetic argument is the that a liberal uses. You tried to pick two words out of my statement while ignoring an entire sentence about the rights are for American citizens. Do you consider a nuclear weapon arms? These are weapons of mass destruction. Do you need to have the the specific definition of arms in standard use by standard solders spelled out specifically into the description or is your straw man argument the best you can come up with. Read what the framers of the constitution had in mind and do some self education. It might take you a few times to read and understand it. Clearly you’re smarter than they were and understand their intent better than they did. Shall Not Be Infringed. It’s that fucking easy. You further defined that "arms" means "arms in standard use by standard soldiers". You literally proved StevenH right by implicitly admitting that there is further context and deeper definition to the words in the second amendment than their plain meaning.  I'm a gun rights absolutist. But I also recognize that the second amendment is worded in weird ways and that historical documents like the Federalist Papers are not 100% conclusive to your average person or even lawyer/judge. These are not mutually exclusive points, and no one cares how much you virtue signal on gun forums about the first one. |
|
Hrm. Am I the only one that is uneasy about them defining magazines as arms? I understand that is used to extend Constitutional protections, but it seems to be that could backfire to some extent. And for shall not be infringed guy, you can keep saying it, but it’s about as useful as you slamming your own head in a car door. One, that ship sailed before the ink was dry, and two, nobody is going to listen to you with that approach. It’s akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you.” Because the reality is, everyone does have some limit. Nukes is where most people start. Mentally deficient is common too (and mentioned in this thread). Felons. Illegals. Let’s start with illegals. Should illegals have constitutional protections? Knee jerk reaction is “no”. But how do you know they are illegal unless you have due process? And if you bypass due process, what is preventing me from calling ICE right now and reporting you? Without due process, you can’t prove you are a citizen. So, we’ve established due process is a necessary right for all. And until that due process is followed, we have to presume everyone is a citizen. Otherwise the same infringements against illegals could be leveraged against you. Since we assume everyone is a citizen, they have all Constitutional rights, until due process is followed to remove them. So illegals can have firearms. We like the idea of ID to vote. Prove you are eligible. But requiring ID to purchase a firearm is clearly an infringement. Again, we have to assume everyone has full rights, until due process is followed to remove them, correct? Mentally deficient. Says who? A judge? A panel of judges? Psychologists? A jury of peers? What if whoever that is decides that voting for Trump is proof of mentally incompetent? Or just the desire to own firearms means you are mentally incompetent? There’s a catch-22. You have to be competent to own firearms, but wanting to own firearms means you are incompetent. No one ever qualifies. So you can keep spouting off about shall not be infringed. But It’s not the reality, never has been and never will be. You can keep living in the land of make believe with fairies and goblins if you want, but you’re only frustrating yourself. |
|
Quoted: Hrm. Am I the only one that is uneasy about them defining magazines as arms? I understand that is used to extend Constitutional protections, but it seems to be that could backfire to some extent. And for shall not be infringed guy, you can keep saying it, but it’s about as useful as you slamming your own head in a car door. One, that ship sailed before the ink was dry, and two, nobody is going to listen to you with that approach. It’s akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you.” Because the reality is, everyone does have some limit. Nukes is where most people start. Mentally deficient is common too (and mentioned in this thread). Felons. Illegals. Let’s start with illegals. Should illegals have constitutional protections? Knee jerk reaction is “no”. But how do you know they are illegal unless you have due process? And if you bypass due process, what is preventing me from calling ICE right now and reporting you? Without due process, you can’t prove you are a citizen. So, we’ve established due process is a necessary right for all. And until that due process is followed, we have to presume everyone is a citizen. Otherwise the same infringements against illegals could be leveraged against you. Since we assume everyone is a citizen, they have all Constitutional rights, until due process is followed to remove them. So illegals can have firearms. We like the idea of ID to vote. Prove you are eligible. But requiring ID to purchase a firearm is clearly an infringement. Again, we have to assume everyone has full rights, until due process is followed to remove them, correct? Mentally deficient. Says who? A judge? A panel of judges? Psychologists? A jury of peers? What if whoever that is decides that voting for Trump is proof of mentally incompetent? Or just the desire to own firearms means you are mentally incompetent? There’s a catch-22. You have to be competent to own firearms, but wanting to own firearms means you are incompetent. No one ever qualifies. So you can keep spouting off about shall not be infringed. But It’s not the reality, never has been and never will be. You can keep living in the land of make believe with fairies and goblins if you want, but you’re only frustrating yourself. A judge makes the ultimate decision of who is legally mentally deficient. They may use evidence from a doctor but the ruling is made by the judge. On your issue with Illegals, yes they should get due process as an investigative tool but that does not mean they can perform illegal acts just because they haven't had due process yet. Sure we presume they are a citizen but they know they are not. Just like we presume a person is sober behind the wheel until they are proven to be impaired but drunk driving is illegal even if they havent been caught yet. |
|
Quoted: The Minutemen were organized under colonial government authority, with officers commissioned by the colonial governments, and subject to rules and discipline therefrom. Militia arms in many cases were furnished for the sake of standardization, which is why colonies had the arsenals that the British were trying to seize. They were basically select men out of the broader body of citizenry conscripted into militia service. Service was an obligation just like jury duty. If you’re conscripted, you aren’t in a Militia, you are in an Army. Militias are common men coming of their own volition and with the arms they can bear. By, Of, and For We The People….. we don’t need government permission or regulation, or structure to form a Militia and just show up with guns. We ARE the Govenrment. |
|
Quoted: Also, the militia is a subset of the people. That part of the 2nd could have been put elsewhere in the Constitution, outside of the BoR. Yeah, it clearly says the people, which is itself a subset of the whole population (a new alien resident is not part of "the people"), which is fairly broad. One does not have to be in the militia to be covered. They love focusing on the militia because they want to say that it really means that the States can have militias and the NG can be armed, which is an absurd interpretation. Of course, Congress was not empowered to enact gun control even in the absence of the 2A. |
|
Quoted: If you’re conscripted, you aren’t in a Militia, you are in an Army. Militias are common men coming of their own volition and with the arms they can bear. By, Of, and For We The People….. we don’t need government permission or regulation, or structure to form a Militia and just show up with guns. We ARE the Govenrment. Quoted: Quoted: The Minutemen were organized under colonial government authority, with officers commissioned by the colonial governments, and subject to rules and discipline therefrom. Militia arms in many cases were furnished for the sake of standardization, which is why colonies had the arsenals that the British were trying to seize. They were basically select men out of the broader body of citizenry conscripted into militia service. Service was an obligation just like jury duty. If you’re conscripted, you aren’t in a Militia, you are in an Army. Militias are common men coming of their own volition and with the arms they can bear. By, Of, and For We The People….. we don’t need government permission or regulation, or structure to form a Militia and just show up with guns. We ARE the Govenrment. The militia back then worked on conscription, and no, that did not make them an army. The militia was not a volunteer organization until later in our history. Even now, the legal basis for raising it in State laws is conscription. It was not just whatever men that wanted to show up with whatever arms they had. This was not the norm. It's also not effective. There were independently chartered militias, but they had government charters and were subordinated to the authority of their local/colonial/state government. The idea that it was a bunch of volunteers bearing personal arms is a more modern mythos that does not have much of a basis in history. |
|
In Duncan v. Bonta, a supplemental Brief of Virginia Duncan, et al. was submitted yesterday referencing the DC magazine ban opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-198/400609/20260311150049523_2026-3-11%20Final%20Duncan%20supp%20br%20re%20Benson.pdf REASON TO GRANT THE PETITION In a thorough and decisive opinion spanning over 50 pages, D.C.’s highest court held that the District’s ban on feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is unconstitutional. Benson, 2026 WL628772, at *1. As the court put it, the “District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment” because “11+ magazines are unquestionably arms” presumptively covered by the Second Amendment, “they are in not only common but ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, and there is no history or tradition of blanket bans on arms in such common use.” Id. at *2; see also id. at *14. That decision is directly and expressly at odds with the decision below. Indeed, the D.C. court diverged from the Ninth Circuit not only on the bottom line, but on every subsidiary issue relevant to the analysis. (See link for entire brief.) Edit to add: A similar brief was filed in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-153/400608/20260311145912511_2026-3-11%20Final%20Gators%20supp%20br%20re%20Benson.pdf REASON TO GRANT THE PETITION In a thorough and decisive opinion spanning over 50 pages, D.C.’s highest court held that the District’s ban on feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is unconstitutional. Benson, 2026 WL 628772, at *1. As the court put it, the “District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment” because “11+ magazines are unquestionably arms” presumptively covered by the Second Amendment, “they are in not only common but ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, and there is no history or tradition of blanket bans on arms in such common use.” Id. at *2; see also id. at *14. That decision is directly and expressly at odds with the decision below. Indeed, the D.C. court diverged from the Washington court here not only on the bottom line, but on every subsidiary issue relevant to the analysis. (See link for entire brief.) |
|
Quoted: In Duncan v. Bonta, a supplemental Brief of Virginia Duncan, et al. was submitted yesterday referencing the DC magazine ban opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-198/400609/20260311150049523_2026-3-11%20Final%20Duncan%20supp%20br%20re%20Benson.pdf REASON TO GRANT THE PETITION In a thorough and decisive opinion spanning over 50 pages, D.C.’s highest court held that the District’s ban on feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is unconstitutional. Benson, 2026 WL628772, at *1. As the court put it, the “District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment” because “11+ magazines are unquestionably arms” presumptively covered by the Second Amendment, “they are in not only common but ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, and there is no history or tradition of blanket bans on arms in such common use.” Id. at *2; see also id. at *14. That decision is directly and expressly at odds with the decision below. Indeed, the D.C. court diverged from the Ninth Circuit not only on the bottom line, but on every subsidiary issue relevant to the analysis. (See link for entire brief.) Edit to add: A similar brief was filed in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-153/400608/20260311145912511_2026-3-11%20Final%20Gators%20supp%20br%20re%20Benson.pdf REASON TO GRANT THE PETITION In a thorough and decisive opinion spanning over 50 pages, D.C.’s highest court held that the District’s ban on feeding devices that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition is unconstitutional. Benson, 2026 WL 628772, at *1. As the court put it, the “District’s magazine capacity ban violates the Second Amendment” because “11+ magazines are unquestionably arms” presumptively covered by the Second Amendment, “they are in not only common but ubiquitous use for lawful purposes, and there is no history or tradition of blanket bans on arms in such common use.” Id. at *2; see also id. at *14. That decision is directly and expressly at odds with the decision below. Indeed, the D.C. court diverged from the Washington court here not only on the bottom line, but on every subsidiary issue relevant to the analysis. (See link for entire brief.) Justice Roberts and Barrett, "you don't need 10+ rounds to hunt deer" (Probably) |
Explaining the D v. B and Gators brief.... JUST NOW! MOMENTUM BUILDS IN SUPREME COURT GUN BAN FIGHTS! |
|
Quoted: A judge makes the ultimate decision of who is legally mentally deficient. They may use evidence from a doctor but the ruling is made by the judge. On your issue with Illegals, yes they should get due process as an investigative tool but that does not mean they can perform illegal acts just because they haven't had due process yet. Sure we presume they are a citizen but they know they are not. Just like we presume a person is sober behind the wheel until they are proven to be impaired but drunk driving is illegal even if they havent been caught yet. Quoted: Quoted: Hrm. Am I the only one that is uneasy about them defining magazines as arms? I understand that is used to extend Constitutional protections, but it seems to be that could backfire to some extent. And for shall not be infringed guy, you can keep saying it, but it’s about as useful as you slamming your own head in a car door. One, that ship sailed before the ink was dry, and two, nobody is going to listen to you with that approach. It’s akin to sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I can’t hear you.” Because the reality is, everyone does have some limit. Nukes is where most people start. Mentally deficient is common too (and mentioned in this thread). Felons. Illegals. Let’s start with illegals. Should illegals have constitutional protections? Knee jerk reaction is “no”. But how do you know they are illegal unless you have due process? And if you bypass due process, what is preventing me from calling ICE right now and reporting you? Without due process, you can’t prove you are a citizen. So, we’ve established due process is a necessary right for all. And until that due process is followed, we have to presume everyone is a citizen. Otherwise the same infringements against illegals could be leveraged against you. Since we assume everyone is a citizen, they have all Constitutional rights, until due process is followed to remove them. So illegals can have firearms. We like the idea of ID to vote. Prove you are eligible. But requiring ID to purchase a firearm is clearly an infringement. Again, we have to assume everyone has full rights, until due process is followed to remove them, correct? Mentally deficient. Says who? A judge? A panel of judges? Psychologists? A jury of peers? What if whoever that is decides that voting for Trump is proof of mentally incompetent? Or just the desire to own firearms means you are mentally incompetent? There’s a catch-22. You have to be competent to own firearms, but wanting to own firearms means you are incompetent. No one ever qualifies. So you can keep spouting off about shall not be infringed. But It’s not the reality, never has been and never will be. You can keep living in the land of make believe with fairies and goblins if you want, but you’re only frustrating yourself. A judge makes the ultimate decision of who is legally mentally deficient. They may use evidence from a doctor but the ruling is made by the judge. On your issue with Illegals, yes they should get due process as an investigative tool but that does not mean they can perform illegal acts just because they haven't had due process yet. Sure we presume they are a citizen but they know they are not. Just like we presume a person is sober behind the wheel until they are proven to be impaired but drunk driving is illegal even if they havent been caught yet. So an illegal wants to buy a gun. It sounds like you don’t want them to be able to. How do you stop them if there are no infringements? |
|
Quoted: So an illegal wants to buy a gun. It sounds like you don’t want them to be able to. How do you stop them if there are no infringements? It may be a god given right but I'm this country it is only recognized as a citizen of this nation. Similar to how we should recognize enemies in war. Part of a treaty? If so we will recognize the ROE. If not, gloves come off. |
|
Quoted: It may be a god given right but I'm this country it is only recognized as a citizen of this nation. Similar to how we should recognize enemies in war. Part of a treaty? If so we will recognize the ROE. If not, gloves come off. Quoted: Quoted: So an illegal wants to buy a gun. It sounds like you don’t want them to be able to. How do you stop them if there are no infringements? It may be a god given right but I'm this country it is only recognized as a citizen of this nation. Similar to how we should recognize enemies in war. Part of a treaty? If so we will recognize the ROE. If not, gloves come off. You’re not answering the question. If there are no infringements, there are no checks when someone walks into a store and buys a gun. How do you tell who is a citizen and who is an illegal? You can’t ask someone to show ID, because that would be infringing on a civilians rights. So how do you prevent an illegal from making a purchase? |
|
Quoted: You’re not answering the question. If there are no infringements, there are no checks when someone walks into a store and buys a gun. How do you tell who is a citizen and who is an illegal? You can’t ask someone to show ID, because that would be infringing on a civilians rights. So how do you prevent an illegal from making a purchase? Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So an illegal wants to buy a gun. It sounds like you don’t want them to be able to. How do you stop them if there are no infringements? It may be a god given right but I'm this country it is only recognized as a citizen of this nation. Similar to how we should recognize enemies in war. Part of a treaty? If so we will recognize the ROE. If not, gloves come off. You’re not answering the question. If there are no infringements, there are no checks when someone walks into a store and buys a gun. How do you tell who is a citizen and who is an illegal? You can’t ask someone to show ID, because that would be infringing on a civilians rights. So how do you prevent an illegal from making a purchase? I'd rather they be able to buy a gun than to have gun control laws, the FFL system, etc. The RKBA is not protected for them; they definitely fall outside of "the people." But that lack of protection does not make it automatically illegal, either, and I don't see anything in the Constitution that would permit Congress to pass gun control laws even in the absence of the 2nd Amendment or its protections outside of punishments for commission of Federal crimes. That some people might not be permitted arms for legitimate reasons does not mean we have to have gun control to include laws governing purchases, licenses to sell, etc. |
|
Quoted: I'd rather they be able to buy a gun than to have gun control laws, the FFL system, etc. The RKBA is not protected for them; they definitely fall outside of "the people." But that lack of protection does not make it automatically illegal, either, and I don't see anything in the Constitution that would permit Congress to pass gun control laws even in the absence of the 2nd Amendment or its protections outside of punishments for commission of Federal crimes. That some people might not be permitted arms for legitimate reasons does not mean we have to have gun control to include laws governing purchases, licenses to sell, etc. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So an illegal wants to buy a gun. It sounds like you don’t want them to be able to. How do you stop them if there are no infringements? It may be a god given right but I'm this country it is only recognized as a citizen of this nation. Similar to how we should recognize enemies in war. Part of a treaty? If so we will recognize the ROE. If not, gloves come off. You’re not answering the question. If there are no infringements, there are no checks when someone walks into a store and buys a gun. How do you tell who is a citizen and who is an illegal? You can’t ask someone to show ID, because that would be infringing on a civilians rights. So how do you prevent an illegal from making a purchase? I'd rather they be able to buy a gun than to have gun control laws, the FFL system, etc. The RKBA is not protected for them; they definitely fall outside of "the people." But that lack of protection does not make it automatically illegal, either, and I don't see anything in the Constitution that would permit Congress to pass gun control laws even in the absence of the 2nd Amendment or its protections outside of punishments for commission of Federal crimes. That some people might not be permitted arms for legitimate reasons does not mean we have to have gun control to include laws governing purchases, licenses to sell, etc. Okay now we’re getting somewhere. It’s started to sound like you’re legitimately an absolutist. Which means no infringements for anyone. Because in order to determine who is legitimate and who is not, some infringement is inherently required. But then your last paragraph contradicts that. How do you not permit arms to illegitimates without some infringement? It’s really easy to say “no infringement if you’re a citizen”. But how does that actually work? A person walks into a gun store that you’re working the counter at. You have no way of knowing if that person is fifth generation American or someone that literally drove over from the airport after flying in from Libya. How do you determine whether the person is a citizen? What if the person is completely disheveled, smells like open ass, wearing a Palestinian flag as a cape, stained underwear on their head, muttering to themselves with an occasional outburst of “Praise Allah!”, while failing to control muscle tics and spasms. They can’t hold a conversation, and just keep uncontrollable quoting Paddington Bear. How do you know whether that person has been adjudicated mentally impaired, or an illegal, or a violent felon, or a citizen? If you’re a true 2A absolutist, you sell anyway. |
|
Quoted: Okay now we’re getting somewhere. It’s started to sound like you’re legitimately an absolutist. Which means no infringements for anyone. Because in order to determine who is legitimate and who is not, some infringement is inherently required. But then your last paragraph contradicts that. How do you not permit arms to illegitimates without some infringement? It’s really easy to say “no infringement if you’re a citizen”. But how does that actually work? A person walks into a gun store that you’re working the counter at. You have no way of knowing if that person is fifth generation American or someone that literally drove over from the airport after flying in from Libya. How do you determine whether the person is a citizen? What if the person is completely disheveled, smells like open ass, wearing a Palestinian flag as a cape, stained underwear on their head, muttering to themselves with an occasional outburst of “Praise Allah!”, while failing to control muscle tics and spasms. They can’t hold a conversation, and just keep uncontrollable quoting Paddington Bear. How do you know whether that person has been adjudicated mentally impaired, or an illegal, or a violent felon, or a citizen? If you’re a true 2A absolutist, you sell anyway. Because in a serious country, as previous iterations of America were, illegals would be expelled without taxpayer funded NGOs defending their "entitlement" to be here and active measures would be taken to prevent them coming here in the first place, violent felons would be imprisoned (and the definition of "felony" would be much closer to its definition under British common law), and the mentally impaired would be institutionalized. America was not always the dystopia you see before you today. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - DC mag ban struck down. (Page 4 of 5)
Join the Community
Your next conversation starts here.
Create your free account to join discussions, share your experience, save topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.
- Join discussions
- Follow topics and replies
- Connect with fellow enthusiasts
Already a member? Sign in
Stay informed by subscribing to our Newsletter