Replies

Which should impel discussion on our part of the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that we will be prepared to argue our case in the event of such litigation.

Point 1 will probably not happen, so we don't need to waste too much time arguing whether or not it is an infringement.

Point 2. Handguns purchases have been prohibited by those under 21 since the Gun Control Act of 1968, and has never been successfully challenged in court. Given that, I wouldn't hold out much hope that the court would feel that adding all firearms to the under 21 prohibition would be an infringement under the Second Amendment.

Point 3 is current law for handguns. Given point 2 above, point 3 would be a reasonable extension of current law, and most likely will not be found to be an infringement by the current court. The prohibition is in the purchase, not the possession. Having parental supervision on ownership of all firearms and firearm ammunition would probably sit just fine with the current court.

Points 4 and 5 are already covered under current law and more or less affirmed as constitutional under Heller.

Point 6. Given the highlighted passage in Heller that I posted above, I doubt that universal background checks will be deemed an infringement by the current court, either.

Point 7 removes a current law that has been in effect, and affirmed by the Supreme Court numerous times, since 1934. I would add short barreled shotguns and short barreled rifles to the list for removal from the NFA. The original intent of putting SBRs and SBSs on the NFA was that the original NFA was going to ban all handguns, thus they also wanted to ban concealable long guns as well. The handgun portion never happened, but the long gun portion remained. However, for our discussion, since these items are on the NFA and been found not to infringe, removing them from the NFA certainly will not be an infringement of the Second Amendment.

Point 8 is sort of covered already under point 3, so I don't see that with much chance of being enacted.

A point 9 (not mine, mind you, but one proposed by others) would be another 'Assault Weapons' ban. Well, the Supreme Court failed to take up the challenge of Maryland's "assault weapons" ban, so we can start there. The current Supreme Court feels that banning AR style rifles is constitutional. (I do not, but then I also do not sit on the bench.) Heller also said that it was an infringement to ban the most common type of weapon in use for self protection (a handgun in heller's case.) So I would argue that in and of itself, semi-auto firearms are legal, and are protected under the Second Amendment, regardless of what accessories (flash hiders, pistol grips, bayonet lugs, etc.) may be put upon them.

A point 9A would be a prohibition of magazines above X capacity. I would argue that X is an arbitrary number, and could be 15 today, 10 tomorrow, 7 the day after, and 1 next week. Setting any limit on magazine capacity is a slippery slope towards an outright infringement of the Second Amendment.

A lot will depend on the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court. A couple of more conservative justices, and we could have the reversal of state (or any future federal) assault rifle bans. We might see Constitutional Carry as a nationwide ruling. There is a California lawsuit challenging 'may issue' which may also provide for a nationwide shall issue ruling.

But it all depends on what the Courts think, not what you or I think, is an infringement of the Second Amendment.

Rebuttal?

A couple points:

1. The Supreme Court has not taken up (and may never take up) this issue, but I don’t know how a prohibition on handgun purchases under age 21 could pass intermediate or strict scrutiny under Heller, or be consistent with the discussion of the definition of “militia.”

2. Has the NFA been affirmed numerous times by the Supreme Court since 1934? I’m pretty sure the Supreme Court only ruled on the constitutionality of the NFA once, in Miller in 1939. I think a court honestly applying Heller (and, frankly, Miller itself) would have to question the constitutionality of many of the NFA’s prohibitions.

3. I don’t think you can necessarily infer that the “current Supreme Court feels that banning AR style rifles is constitutional” simply because it denied cert in the Maryland case. The Supreme Court declines to her numerous cases, and it does not mean the Supreme Court believes that the Courts of Appeals got it right in all of those cases. All you can infer is that less than four justices wanted to hear the case for whatever reason. It may be that they just want to see the issue worked over in more circuit cases before taking it on themselves. Or it may be that they just want to keep kicking the can down the road.

Rebuttal?

A. Point 1 will probably not happen, so we don't need to waste too much time arguing whether or not it is an infringement.

Point 1 was: "1) 18 and active military no limits."

I bought a handgun at the age of 18, from a retail establishment, before the 1968 law went into effect. After the 1968 law went into effect, I was not able to buy a handgun from a retail establishment till I became 21. Through no fault of my own, I no longer had the right to do something that I previously had the right to do. I want reasons why that wasn't an infringement.

B. Point 2. Handguns purchases have been prohibited by those under 21 since the Gun Control Act of 1968, and has never been successfully challenged in court. Given that, I wouldn't hold out much hope that the court would feel that adding all firearms to the under 21 prohibition would be an infringement under the Second Amendment.

See my response in regard to Point 1 in A. above. Further, that the GCA of 1968 has never been successfully challenged in court may only mean the challenges were weak. In regard to the second sentence, I'd like to see reasons why it would not be an infringement under the Second Amendment.

C. Point 3 is current law for handguns. Given point 2 above, point 3 would be a reasonable extension of current law, and most likely will not be found to be an infringement by the current court. The prohibition is in the purchase, not the possession. Having parental supervision on ownership of all firearms and firearm ammunition would probably sit just fine with the current court.

Since you write "Given point 2 above, point 3 would be a reasonable extension...", see my response regarding point 2 in B. above, which also refers to A. above. Further, I want to see reasons why it would not be an infringement.

D. Points 4 and 5 are already covered under current law and more or less affirmed as constitutional under Heller.

That they are confirmed under current law does not mean they are not infringements. If I recall correctly, they are affirmed as constitutional under Heller in principle, not in detail.

What's a "NUTBAG"? Does that include anyone who wants a firearm for personal protection since they're obviously paranoid? You can probably find some who say it includes anyone who wants a firearm period. Assuming "NUTBAG" means someone with mental health issues, who gets to decide what mental health issues are? "They" used to say homosexuality was a mental health issue. Now they don't. Body dysmorphia is a mental health issue unless you think your body is wrong because you believe you are a different biological sex.

Why should a non violent felon be deprived of a means of self-defense?

I've read of people being accused of domestic violence for "yelling".

There can be reasons why depriving a nutbag, felon, or person who has a domestic violence conviction of the right to keep and bear arms, but there should be some criteria, some standards, some reasons why it's not an infringement.

E. Point 6. Given the highlighted passage in Heller that I posted above, I doubt that universal background checks will be deemed an infringement by the current court, either.

I want to see reasons why it's not an infringement. And there are other problems with universal background checks if by that is meant they are needed every time one loans, gifts, etc. a firearm.

F. Point 7...

No comment.

G. Point 8 is sort of covered already under point 3, so I don't see that with much chance of being enacted.

Since you write "Point 8 is sort of covered already under point 3", see my response regarding point 3 in C. above which refers to B. above and by extension to A.

H. A point 9 (not mine, mind you, but one proposed by others) would be another 'Assault Weapons' ban. Well, the Supreme Court failed to take up the challenge of Maryland's "assault weapons" ban, so we can start there. The current Supreme Court feels that banning AR style rifles is constitutional.

The Supreme Court has over ruled itself more than 100 times. I want to know the reasons as to why an "Assault Weapons" (whatever that means) ban is not an infringement.

I. But it all depends on what the Courts think, not what you or I think, is an infringement of the Second Amendment.

Your post was prompted by my words "Which should impel discussion on our part of the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that we will be prepared to argue our case in the event of such litigation."

True, Heller says "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited", but we have to understand what the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is in order to determine the limits. We need to understand the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in order to know what might or might not be an infringement. For instance, if the words extend to an 18 year old, changing the age at which it is legal to buy a firearm might be an infringement. If they don't extend to an 18 year old it wouldn't. Why would they or why would they not extend to an 18 year old?

Above, I've repeatedly used words like "I want reasons why that wasn't an infringement." It appears to me that you have presented various things that might be considered infringements by some, with a view that they are to be acquiesced to, not that you have addressed the meaning, extent, scope, etc. of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

It does depend on what the Courts think, but that depends at least in part, on the arguments presented to them, which depend on proper understanding of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" .