Jump to content

BHMCruiser

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1809
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BHMCruiser

  1. Got it
  2. ALL CAPS ANALYSIS
  3. Blah blah read the legislative history
  4. Blah blah overload. The NRA didn’t even bring Heller.
  5. That law was unconstitutional
  6. It doesn’t
  7. Holy smokes
  8. 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.
  9. Their representatives did. The issue of arming freed slaves was discussed at length in the legislative history.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. Far from it. I think vaccines are modern miracles of science.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. Heller deals with Miller as well as the GCA/NFA
  18. I have done a lot of research on this subject but thanks
  19. I mean, nice try and all
  20. 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).
  21. Which jurisprudence do you think Heller "shifted" away from?
  22. Okay I basically agree with Heller and McDonald's explanation of the right and its contours. Hope that helps.
  23. You're jumping to the end without doing any analysis. You say it's a collective right, but don't support that determination at all. The Second Amendment definitely does not "confer" an individual right on anyone. It protects a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms as understood at the time of the Founding. Do you have a right to have a weapon? Under our constitution, yes. Do you have the right to self-defense? As a matter of natural law and English common law at the time of the Founding, yes you do. Do you have a right to armed self-defense? Yes. This is two great tastes that go great together.
  24. I don't even know what this means. Enlighten me. What is the Second Amendment actually for, and what do I think it is for? If your position is that it's not to protect the right to keep and bear arms (whatever that means) you're going to have an uphill slog.
  25. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. What that right "is" is defined by the history and tradition at the time of the founding. Self-defense is its own common-law phenomenon, as is armed self-defense.
×
×
  • Create New...