Heller never took up the issue of Felons owning guns. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Heller was not about that issue. A problem at the SC is that they only argue the actual points made. They could clear up plenty of things if they did not stick to the issues of a particular case. It is not that I wish a practicing felon to own a gun, but once they served the punishment, why punish them over and over and over? The laws banning them from owning guns is one that needs the court's attention. Trouble is that most Felons end up broken people and unable to fight for their rights. It is also true that a felony is a name applied to a lot of crimes, many of which never included violence. Bernie Madoff for instance never physically harmed his victims. Bill Clinton did harm some of his victims yet to this day, can own a gun.
I quoted the decision directly as it was written. They expressly addressed felons and upheld other restrictions in the decision. A supreme court decision can be more expansive than the issues that were addressed in the lower court rulings. They have done this numerous times. Now we are talking facts not opinions. You may not like what the supreme court does but you can not deny they did it.
Correct. The ignorant do not understand this; the dishonest do understand this but choose to lie about it. Heller upheld exactly nothing.
Here is the quote from YOUR link: 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.
It is simply a fact that a supreme court ruling can be more expansive than the issues involved in the lower case rulings. It can also be more restrictive. You may not like that but that does not make it untrue.
What about abusive language? I can say thing that'll cause someone to commit suicide. - - - Updated - - - But if he's too dangerous to be allowed ALL of his rights then what's he's doing out of prison.
In many states you may not abuse someone verbally either. A person in prison does not give up all his rights. He is entitled not to be given cruel and unusual punishment. He is allowed due process in legal matters. He is allowed many other rights as well.
This is why we must fight for rights. The homosexual issue is a good example of you being correct. The 14th amendment was to a specific purpose yet the left wing justices misused it totally. I am, kind of kidding, that I am fighting for the right to follow the second amendment with no infringing by the government. Not even the city government has a right to go against the constitution.
Gay marriage is an example of the EXPANSION of rights. It seems it is you that are trying to restrict them. But I digress from the issue at hand
Does your inner-self know what you mean? I call your attention to the comment just above mine. First you tell us you or I may not abuse a person verbally. Then you tell us ways the Government can abuse others. He can't have cruel punishment yet you don't see as cruel the broken convict being punished unusually for the right granted by the second amendment. I am pleased that a convict is told he may not own a gun. But that is not the point. They get guns anyway. The fact some court tells them not to own a gun in no way means they don't own guns.
Yet you want many rights restricted. Such as forcing people into paying for a license. To use the second amendment no less. The constitution is silent on marriage because all states were the entity that set up marriage as a part of state law.
I handed you the link where all you had to do was quote the part of the case you are talking about. Heller was a "private police" and took his case to court and won. He was no felon. Heller was not about Felons at all.
If you read the statement carefully, it says wat they are not ruling on...they are saying their ruling does not address those issues... The Court's ruling was narrowly limited to following as summarized by ISC in the following case... If you read the Dicta it reinforces what I job have just posted...
Indeed they did not. The Heller ruling was with regard to a total prohibition on the ownership of handguns, and a requirement that all legal firearms be disabled, and rendered useless to personal defense. The simple statement that their ruling does not address all other matters regarding firearm restrictions, in no way says that such restrictions are constitutional, and beyond the scope of legal questioning under any circumstances.
That depends on what does and does not amount to verbal abuse. The supreme court has ruled that hurtful, offensive things may indeed be said to others, regardless of what discomfort it may cause them to hear it. That does not answer the question. If someone has proven themselves to be so dangerous to society that they cannot be able to legally own a firearm, why is the individual not regarded as too dangerous to be allowed back into society?
Yes. Some rights I want expanded and some I want limited. It seems we both want that - - - Updated - - - Read the quote I posted about the Heller decision. The court said very clearly in the majority opinion that gun rights are not unlimited and then gave several examples of constitutional restrictions. - - - Updated - - - No. I don't think that. But if you do you should lobby for that cause
The government has RIGHTLY understood that it is CHEAPER to release some people from prison and restrict their rights than to keep them in prison forever. This is why we have parole. If you want to do away with parole you should fight for that cause. I don't agree - - - Updated - - - Read the Heller decision. The majority decision clearly says gun rights are not unlimited and gives examples of current constitutional restrictions. A first year law could see this.
By the way I am still waiting for the specific supreme court case that directly says mandatory training (the point of this thread) is unconstitutional
The above would make sense if only low-level, non-violent offenders were the ones being released back into society. Instead we are seeing examples of career criminals, with records for serious offenses, being continually released back into society, free to offend again, and prove undeniably that they will not abide by the rules they are expected to live by. Pray tell how many seconds chances is one given, before they are written off as a lost cause, and no longer released? Presumptively lawful because they were not at issue is not the same thing as being constitutional. The supreme court stated that they were not going to turn Heller into an exhaustive examination of each and every firearms restriction currently on the books in the united states.
As are many who are waiting for a specific supreme court ruling that directly says a constitutional right can be made contingent upon fulfilling government mandates, and failure to meet those mandates, regardless of how physically improbable they are, is constitutional.
Actually any law currently on the books is presumptively constitutional until the court rules on it. A gun license would be considered presumptively constitutional if passed into law. We are all just guessing what the court will do. My guess is as good as yours - - - Updated - - - You will wait forever because there is no such supreme court decision. That would be considered constitutional though until a court DIRECTLY says its not.
You clearky don't understand section 2... It was limiting the scope of the decision, saying their ruling is not addressing those issues. The phrase... This means, don't read anything in their decision regarding these prohibitions...they weren't ruling on anything but the limited case scope in front of them... In the Dicta, they said... Again, they are saying, don't read anything covering these prohibitions because their ruling is very narrow onbthe points in my previous post...
