Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

You know this statement is false, and yet you choose to make it.
Why do you make statements you know are false?

 

Yes

Heller upholds the right of a municipality to require handguns be registered and by only licensed individuals. Otherwise they can’t keep hand guns in the home that aren’t under lock or disassembled.

 

You know this statement is false, and yet you choose to make it.
Why do you make statements you know are false?

 

Correct.

 

Congratulations. You just compared the United States to dictatorships and third world non industrialized countries. I know the right is envious of Putin and past apartheid govt of South Africa but get real.
Look up what developed democratic countries are. You’d think the US should be compared to them.....not Russia.

 

Do you deny that as of right now, Heller cannot posses a handgun for carry or in operative condition in the home without it being registered and he being licensed ? Look up the hand gun laws in his municipality. He must be qualified, licensed and register the handgun.

 

You know it’s true. Otherwise, you would have quoted the Heller decision. You afraid to ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_District_of_Columbia

 

How do you think Medicaid, Medicare, CHIPS and programs across the nation came into being. The General welfare clause. so now you’re arguing they are unconstitutional and could all be eliminated ?

 

Freedoms ? That’s your word. We certainly regulate rights. There has been no decision involving the 2a that the Supreme Court has not reiterated that your rights are NOT absolute and are subject to regulation. There is not one square inch of land in the United States that is not under some firm of firearm regulation. Only people who qualify get rights to possess a firearm.

 

Interesting, in that SCOTUS cited Heller in overturning the Chicago ban and in overturning the Caetano conviction. The 9th Circuit Court cited Heller in overturning a ban on open carry in Hawaii in Young v Hawaii. Perhaps the Heller decision involved more than you understand.

 

"Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. "

SCOTUS never looked at the Constitutionality of a licensing requirement.

 

Never made such a claim so your "data" is little more than the remains of your fantasy obsessions.

 

You stated:
The constitution guarantees the health and weak fare of the people.
This statement is false; the constitution guarantees no such thing.
You disagree, but you know you cannot copy/paste the text of the Constitution that makes this guarantee.
SO, I ask again
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

Nowhere does the court, in Heller, "uphold the right of a municipality to require handguns be registered and by only licensed individuals", because the "right of a municipality to require handguns be registered and by only licensed individuals" was neither challenged by Heller nor evaluated by the court as a controversy under law.
Thus, your statement is not true.
SO, I ask again
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

Perhaps you should read Heller. Use a search engine, and look it up.

Nowhere does the court "uphold the right of a municipality to require handguns be registered and by only licensed individuals", because the "right of a municipality to require handguns be registered and by only licensed individuals" was neither challenged by Heller nor evaluated by the court as a controversy under law.

Thus, your statement is not true.
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

He knows.
He -chooses- to make statements he knows are not true.

 

The Commerce Clause, more likely.

 

Dah....
That makes it still, the law if the land. Heller explicitly said he could get relief from his complaint by being qualified, registering his hand gun and being licensed. Bottom line, HE STILL-MUST TO COMPLY WITH THE FINAL RULING.

 

I read it, and you did not. I had to quote it to you to get you to drop the silly things you were saying. So you are not in a position to advise me to read it.

 

Nope, the welfare clause.

perhaps you should. It explicitly says that Heller if qualified, needs to be allowed to register his gun and be licensed to gain relief from his complaint. These words are in the decision.
Words like registering a firearm, licensing a handgun and being qualified are stated.

 

That’s silly. It doesn’t say you can’t “piss in the corner” while addressing the court either.

Bottom line, those regulations are still enforced after the Heller decision. They are the law of the land for Heller or anyother municipality, state or Fed themselves if they chose.

 

They have since. They decided that handgun regulations in NY would not be challenged. So that’s twice that they left it alone when given an opportunity to address licensing. Get it. They have never addressed messing with firearm regulation in general, including registering firearms and licensing qualified owners.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/27/politics/supreme-court-second-amendment-case-new-york/index.html

 

Correct. Explicitly.

 

Do you both believe that DC v Heller found registration and licensing to be Constitutional?

 

Actually, they found NYRPA v NYC moot because NYC changed the law in question prior to SCOTUS deciding to take up the case. NYC had insisted through multiple levels of appeal, including to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, that the law was Constitutional and necessary to the safety of its citizens. When SCOTUS looked at taking it up, NYC backed down and changed the law, de facto admitting they had been lying. The concern was that SCOTUS would rule that strict scrutiny was the necessary level of scrutiny to be used when reviewing 2A cases, which would wreak havoc on gun control in the US.

It wasn't part of the Heller case at all.

"Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D.C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement."

With regards to taking up a case:

Cert:
Since there are these conflicting and, to the uninformed, even confusing reasons for denying petitions for certiorari, it has been suggested from time to time that the Court indicate its reasons for denial. Practical considerations preclude. In order that the Court may be enabled to discharge its indispensable duties, Congress has placed the control of the Court's business, in effect, within the Court's discretion. During the last three terms the Court disposed of 260, 217, 224 cases, respectively, on their merits. For the same three terms the Court denied, respectively, 1,260, 1,105, 1,189 petitions calling for discretionary review. If the Court is to do its work it would not be feasible to give reasons, however brief, for refusing to take these cases. The time that would be required is prohibitive, apart from the fact as already indicated that different reasons not infrequently move different members of the Court in concluding that a particular case at a particular time makes review undersirable. It becomes relevant here to note that failure to record a dissent from a denial of a petition for writ of certiorari in nowise implies that only the member of the Court who notes his dissent thought the petition should be granted.
Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated.
Maryland v Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/338/912