Supreme Court Takes Major NRA Second Amendment Case from New York

That is incorrect. I offered facts.

 

The weapons specified in the 1181 Assize of Arms were the infantry weapons of their day.

Of course.

An M-16 (not a semi-auto-only version either) with an under-barrel 40MM grenade launcher, and an AT4 bazooka sound like reasonable armaments for a modern militiaman to keep at home.

 

You offered legal opinions issued by scotus. They are opinions only

 

Does that seem reasonable to you?

More opinion

 

You said absolute.

A licensing requirement is a restriction, so not absolute.

"imposition of reasonable standards" is not absolute. Interesting, though, that you accept that it is ok to impose reasonable restrictions (standards) on 2A.

Your "absolute" affirmation of 2A is not as absolute as you might think.

 

I dont see a sanity REQUIREMENT in the second amendment

 

You said that 1181 Assize of Arms defined the scope of 2A. But the Assize did not refer to "infantry weapons". It referred to specific protection and only one weapon.
It did not refer to any other weapons that might be considered "infantry weapons" of the day - swords, bows, battle axes, hammers, maces, pikes, halberds etc. etc.
Sorry, but if your argument is that the Assize of 1181 defines the scope of 2A, you only have a constitutional right to keep and bear a lance.

Silly argument by you.

 

You consider that a valid argument? Really?

 

Yes

 

Cuomo, who's really been one of the driving forces behind the modern leftist DNC, continues to toss the Constitution out of NY. If these folks ever take Washington again expect this style of assault on a national front

 

Their "opinions" have caused Constitutional Amendments to be adopted.

 

Their opinions are wrong sometimes. No one disputes that

 

The Constitution allows the Govt to take someone's liberty, and property...but they first must have Due Process....that's in the 5th Amendment and applied to the State via the 14th. So the Govt can take someone's 2nd Amendment liberty, if they go through are convicted of a crime, or found insane though a commitment hearing.

 

True - Breyer isn't looking too good.

 

The police can enter your home in exigent circumstances without a warrant.

So much for due process

 

Of course it is. It's "shall issue" absent adjudications that have legally stripped you of Rights as the license fee is for a background check.

 

Shall issue what? Permits and licenses are infringements

 

You accept that legislation can legally strip people of absolute constitutional rights?

Again - your "absolute" affirmation of 2A is not absolute.

So come off the fence. Which side are you on? Does 2A confer absolute rights, or are the rights in 2A subject to restrictions? It is either/or. One or the other.

 

Sure...what’s your point? How does that related to our convo?

 

The Supreme court said the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

This does not at all limit the protections of the 2nd to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in the home, as you seem to imply.

Not exactly sure what you mean by this, but...
If every state has to recognize and grant the same privileges and immunities to someone with a marriage license form a given state, why do they not have to recognize and grant the same privileges and immunities to someone with a carry license form a given state?

Not so. Infringements only exist when the exercise of the right is restricted absent a demonstrable compelling state interest; restrictions that do not restrict the right are not infringements.

For instance, prohibiting felons from buying and owning firearms does not infringe the right to arms because felons no longer have the right to keep and bear arms; same can be said for those under 18, who have not yet acquired said right.

All of which is immaterial, upon the enactment of the 2nd.

And, as expected, these are challenged in court. DC used to have a ban on handguns; Illinois used to have a ban on concealed carry, etc.

 

So if there are caveats it's not a right.
How about having caveats on cruel and unusual punishment to allow torture, wait a minute we do. How about caveats on freedom of speech, oh wait a minute we do. how about caveats on a fair and speedy trial, oh wait a minute we do.
The 'rights' enshrined in the constitution are being slowly eroded all in the name of 'common sense legislation' and for 'the good of the people'

 

Of course it can - if, thru due process, the state can deprive you of your right to life, it can through due process, remove your right to anything. Once your right is removed, it cannot be infringed.

Like the 1st, the 2nd confers no rights at all.

Like every other right, the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd has inherent boundaries - the 2nd does not, for instance, protect the commission of murder with a nuclear weapon because the act of murder and the possession of nuclear weapons are both outside the right to keep and bear arms, just as libel, slander, and human sacrifice are outside the rights protected by the 1st amendment.

Inside those boundaries - that is, inside the right - the right to keep and bear arms may not be restricted unless said restriction is, demonstrably, the least restrictive means possible to achieve a compelling state interest. Any restriction that does not meet that standard is an infringement and thus not permitted by the 2nd.

[quoteIt is either/or. One or the other.[/QUOTE]
As described above, it is not.

 

As described above, it is not.[/QUOTE]
You are twisting yourself in knots.

You do accept that the right to keep and bear arms may be restricted if the restriction is demonstrably, the least restrictive means possible to achieve a compelling state interest.

What about this idea of "inherent boundaries"? Where does that come from? What is the "inherent boundary" that prohibits the keeping of nuclear weapons? I don't see the concept of "inherent boundaries" in the constitution so maybe you could explain it.

You also say that rights can be removed through "due process". Presumably you mean legislation. The idea that legislation can remove rights is interesting. Can you expand on that?

 

Not really! Take as an example: the 2A declares that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed.", yet the Federal government as well as all State governments in the United States are currently in violation of the strict language and demand created by that clause.

 

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." Marbury vs. Madison 5 US (2 Crancch) 137, 174, 176, (1803) also "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them. " Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 421