Dare I say it? Repealing the Second Amendment. Is this an idea worth exploring?

Read harder:

See: rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny

These concepts --only-- apply to court challenges.
I assumed you knew this.
My apologies.

 

You know the old saying about when you 'assume'.

 

good bye every congressman who voted to ban semi auto rifles. that's every dem but 5 or 6 and a few RINOS. Bye Bye Biden Harris and every dem who ran for the 2020 nomination. the three justices in the minority on Bruen are gone as well

they will all claim they support gun ownership for (the rich, the elite, and government agencies)

 

do you believe that the founders intended the commerce clause to create a general gun control power for the federal government?

 

But the DICTA sets constraints for future legislation. So, what is your point?

This DICTA is significant because it suggests that the Court recognized that the Second Amendment does not provide unlimited protection for gun ownership and that some forms of gun regulation may still be constitutional.

Are you saying that 'what was really said' contradicts the DICTA? That makes no sense.

 

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment in various cases, including District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, to establish that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that some forms of regulation may be permissible, such as laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons or the mentally ill.

In terms of the relationship between the federal government and the states, the Constitution provides a framework for dividing powers between the two levels of government. The Second Amendment applies to both federal and state governments, and the Supreme Court has held that the states must respect individuals' Second Amendment rights. However, the Court has also noted that the states may have greater flexibility in regulating firearms than the federal government, and has not applied the Second Amendment to the states in the same way as it has to the federal government.

Regarding the parameters of the Commerce Clause and the Tax Clause, these are two of the enumerated powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, and the Tax Clause gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes. While these powers have been used to justify some federal firearm regulations, they are not the only constraints on Congress's ability to regulate firearms, and the Second Amendment's protections are also a constraint.

This is my understanding, as a layperson.

 

Well, let me ask you a question, is the following statement true or false?

The ban on semi automatic rifles were rifles designed to kill as many people, as efficiently as possible, as quickly as possible.

I ask because the only ban on semi automatic rifles I would support would be those who were designed in accordance with the above.

I'm not against all semi auto rifles, because if you are being attacked by a grizzly bear, the difference of facility between a single shot and a semi auto might make the difference between life and death.

But, I do not know if ALL semi autos were designed that way, or only a portion of them. As for semi autos, 'as many people efficiently' I would assume, has a lot to do with the size of the magazines/clips, (whatever they are called). I'm not an expert on firearms, and these matters would definitely be scrutinized when they send a bill on the path to become law.

And, by the way, your comments, in my view, reveal a particular political bias. So, you can hardly complain about 'bias' with regard to policy makers, when you are entrenched in it, yourself. I admit to being a liberal, but if a regulation isn't sensible, and it places an undue burden, I don't support it.

And, I amend my reply before, Bruen was shot down. But, the ruling was 6-3, along conservative/liberal lines. I don't see any ruling as a solid precedent unless its 1. really old. 2, ruled on by both sides of the judicial philosophies, 3, upheld in future rulings my numerous justices/judges. With a more liberal court, I doubt Bruen would have been shot down. Same goes for Heller, it was 5-4 when the court was 5-4. conservative/liberal.

I also note that we have to accept a court precedent if the court is situated 5/4, as there will always be one side having more than the other, by a minimum of one. But, when its 6/3, I'll need to see at least one liberal voting on the conservative side, before I, personally, will view it as a strong precedent. Weak percent, yes, strong, no.

 

And yet, the USSC upheld none of these regulations; ALL of the firearms regulations heard by the court have been struck.

Utter nonsense..
McDonald, Caetano and Bruen were all judgements against the states.

 

All semi-autos are functionally identical; there is no discernible functional difference between any of them.
The 2nd amendment protects the right to own and use all "bearable arms", an umbrella under which all semi-auto rifles, prima facie, stand.

 

Because uninformed people truly believe the propaganda that there is something special and more deadly about an AR-15 as compared to any other gun of similar caliber. Not to mention bigger ones like a .3030 or 30-06, or even a .50 cal. In fact, the .223 cartridge is considered too underpowered to be legal to use to hunt game in some States, including deer in States where they get big, as compared to here in Florida, where they are not so huge.

 

Rather than ask a question with an assumed premise, just challenge/query whatever it is you think I was wrong on.

Your first question is fair. The second question is a loaded question (assumes a premise). I do not engage with loaded questions.

 

Whoever told you this lied.
Dicta is part of the opinion , which the court uses to explain the rationale for its ruling.

This...

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp

...is not dicta. This is part of the HOLDING - the ruling itself.

THIS part of the holding does not address any of the regulations in question before the court, and as such is not a RULING on any given regulation.
In this paragraph, the court gives example of laws not struck by Heller, but in doing so, in no way UPHOLDS these laws.
ALL of the regulations before the court in (and since) Heller were struck, NONE of them were upheld.

 

I don't know if that is entirely true. My research indicates that while it is true that all semi-automatic rifles operate on the same basic principle of using the energy of one round to chamber the next round, there can be significant functional differences between different models and types of semi-automatic rifles. These differences can include things like the rate of fire, accuracy, range, ammunition capacity, recoil, and ergonomics.

For example, some semi-automatic rifles are designed for long-range shooting, while others are optimized for close-quarters combat. Some models may have a larger ammunition capacity than others, making them better suited for certain situations. Additionally, the ergonomics of different models can vary greatly, making some models more comfortable and easier to use than others.

My point is, it goes back to, those designed specifically to kill as many people as possible, efficiently as possible, should be only allowed for military/FBI/police and the various armed agencies.

 

You stated::
The courts held that rights are not absolute, and therefore subject to regulation.
I asked:
What regulations has the court said are allowed under the 2nd?
Well?

True -- rather than dishonesty, you could have spoke from ignorance.

You said:
It's regulation for public safety, as long as it doesn't place an undue burden.
Fact:
The USSC rejected means-end scrutiny -- as such your statement is false.
Did you know your statement was false when you made it?

 

Fine, but Congress and the states can regulate firearms. Isn't that a fact? As to what, precisely, monitors the constraints, isn't the point. I'm not an expert, I can get those points wrong. But I'm not seeing anything from you that refutes that fundamental point.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43033.pdf
Congress has broad authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause to enact laws in areas that may overlap with traditional state jurisdiction. As such, Congress has passed complex statutory provisions that regulate the possession, receipt, transfer, and manufacture of firearms and ammunition. Generally, courts have upheld the validity of firearms laws pursuant to Congress’s commerce power. However, courts have been confronted with the question of whether federal laws can be applied to intrastate possession and intrastate transfers of firearms, or whether such application exceeds the authority of Congress. This report explores these cases and how courts have analyzed these as-applied challenges under the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence primarily set forth in United States v. Lopez.

 

I'm not disputing such things, in my comments.

 

Didn't you just say you're not at expert on firearms.
Now, you claim expertise?
Rather duplicitous of you.

There is ZERO significant difference between semi-auto rifles in this regard -- all of them fire as quickly as the trigger can be pulled, all of them can be fitted with 5-10-20-30-50-100 round magazines, all of them - even the cheap ones - shoot better than the large majority of the shooters that use therm, and as the basic design of the rifle is several hundred years old, their "ergonomics" reached a peak centuries ago.

Your point it moot, as per above, as all semi-auto rifles have the same capacity in this regard.
And, in any case:
"All bearable arms".

 

Why are you harassing voters least likely to commit fraud while voting and not going after those who are more likely to cause harm?

Because public safety laws are not, nor can they be, surgical.

See above.

 

No one argues the states cannot regulate firearms - but these regulations cannot violate the 2nd amendment.

In that regard, as per the court, the states are restrained as such:
...when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation

Further:
Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDonald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny

 

I just told you I researched it. That implies I didn't have the knowledge before hand.

Quit knee jerking accusations.

Okay, excuse me for a moment, this conversation deserves a rant.

My personal issue is in the area of gun fetishing. Such as a parent poses a child holding an AR-15. Such as a guy walking around Walmart with an AR-15 strapped to his back. Such as a US Congresswoman posing with an AR-15 in a video asserting she is going to go after liberals and RINOs.

If you guys do this **** you can blame yourself for inflaming liberals and anyone concerned about the gun culture that is becoming, not a flower, but a fungus, on society. We have learned to accept Heller, but you want to push it to some kind of gawddamn nut world where guns are everywhere, in bars, in schools, in churches and you wonder why we think republicans are wacked out of their ****ing minds.

Now, of course, this a subject fraught with impossible standards to define, it's like porn, hard to define, but I know it when I see it, and there isn't a damn thing you argue to me that will contradict what my eyes have seen in this regard.

I have a problem with that.

In my view, and this is psychological, that the military 'styled guns' (whether they are, or are not, used by military, is not the point)
these guns fuel this fetish, which I think, personally, is unhealthy.

My view is that they should be designed like traditional hunting rifles and limit capacity practical for hunting and self defense.

The second amendment was never intended for guns to become such a tool for zealots, gun nuts and militia morons to romanticize about 1776, and a world that is long gone.

That is the heart of my issues with guns.

 

No one cares.
Now, please address the response put to you:

There is no significant difference between semi-auto rifles in this regard -- all of them fire as quickly as the trigger can be pulled, all of them can be fitted with 5-10-20-30-50-100 round magazines, all of them - even the cheap ones - shoot better than the large majority of the shooters that use therm, and as the basic design of the rifle is several hundred years old, their "ergonomics" reached a peak centuries ago.

Your point it moot, as per above, as all semi-auto rifles have the same capacity in this regard.
And, in any case:
"All bearable arms".

 

OMG that is funny -dicta has no controlling authority. and the "dicta" in Heller -well lots of it evaporated with McDonald because much of what Scalia was talking about was STATE restrictions on keeping and bearing arms PRIOR TO incorporation

 

ah more evidence that decreasing crime is not what motivates your anti gun arguments. My view is that anything civilian police officers are issued, other civilians should have access to along with the standard infantry individual weapon

 

what are you talking about-I have no problem with people showing an ID to buy a gun, you seem to have a hard on making people prove they are who they say they are when they vote

 

I've explained to progressives that there is no reason to outlaw pistol grips.

They don't care.

Perhaps moderates might be dissuaded from supporting progressive positions if the truth is explained to them.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But once it is explained to them, they are no longer uninformed.

Yet progressives at least continue to support measures that have no purpose other than violating people's civil liberties.

Perhaps if moderates have this explained to them, the result will be different.