Is the 'right to bear arms' unlimited?

They did not have to do so. It was agreed at the beginning that it is permissible. Both parties agreed it was Constitutional. The court did not have to opine.

 

If SCOTUS didn't affirm one way or the other then the issue is still open. Heller doesn't get to decide what is Constitutional, but what is permissible to him.

 

Still, no reference for NY. That’s not how it went.

 

Every issue is open, because decisions can be reversed. But I digress...

The Supreme Court has dismissed the challenges to State gun licensing repeatedly. See the NRA's efforts and dismissed cases. Their challenges have many times included licensing. So the challenge to States' rights to require licenses outside the home is settled, for now. You are welcome to try again.

 

Don’t be rediculous. Every statute left un altered is constitutional. The whole registration and licensing process is the law. You really need read how the court works. No ruling, is a ruling.

 

At least for licensing, there's no decision to be reversed.

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

 

The Constitution would have citizens as well armed as the government, or as close to that as practicable. So, yes, the right to bear arms is potentially unlimited.

The Federal Constitution supercedes the states' constitutions.

 

Yes, this is true, but at the same time, the federal Constitution granting individual rights to people under the federal Constitution does not automatically mean those rights are granted to people when it comes to the state constitution.

A right granted to someone "under the federal Constitution" means the federal government has to respect those rights, but not necessarily the state. It's a bar against action being taken in the name of the federal Constitution.

In some cases it does, like for example the Fourteenth Amendment, but that is because it specifically mentions obligations of the states.

 

Right, because they got dismissed. Every time. If I go to the Supreme Court and try to claim that having snakes as pets is unconstitutional, and it gets dismissed (repeatedly)... are we all going to sit around and wonder if it is constitutional to own snakes? No, we will say it is constitutional for practical purpose, opinions of whether it is or not aside.

 

If that's actually the case, you then -unquestionably- know that -nowhere- in Heller 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, you -unquestionably- know your statement was not true.
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

Given my post, you know this is also not true.
Why do you keep making statements you know are not true?

 

You know this statement is false.
Why do you keep making statements you know are false?

 

Already covered. Please re-read the thread.

 

Oh, come on, man. Hang it up. Oh ... sorry.

 

You are fully aware of the fact that in declining to hear a case the SCOTUS does NOT uphold the prior decision.

"....as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins,[31] such a denial [of cert] "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]" In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari#United_States

Why do you keep making statements you know are false?

 

You know this statement is false.
Why do you keep making statements you know are false?

You -unquestionably- know that -nowhere- in Heller 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, you -unquestionably- know your statement was not true.
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

Your position has no rational basis, and incorrectly assumes the court refuses to hear a case on based the merits of the case and/or because it agrees with the decision.
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

And so, you agree:
Nowhere in Heller 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, you -unquestionably- know your statement was not true.
Why do you make statements you know are not true?

 

As you said:

Therefore, you know you concurred with a claim - "Heller upholds the right of a municipality to require handguns be registered and by only licensed individuals." - you knew to be false
Why do you concur with claims you know to be false?

 

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant rights; rights exist independently of the Constitution.

See Chicago v McDonald.

 

I agree, but those who govern ignore rights all the time. Even rights that are written into the Constitution. All the more rights which are not written into the Constitution.

 

You really need to examine that statement. Refusing to hear a case has exactly that effect. It supports the previous finding. Otherwise, your suggesting that every case the SC agrees with a case they accept, go through all the same procedure, then just agree with the previous ruling every time. No ruling is a ruling.

Not knowing science has really inhibited the rights understanding of everything.

 

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

It's like they wrote the last sentence just for you.

Maryland v Baltimore Radio Show, Inc.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/338/912

 

You still have a big problem reading a post.
But read my post, it has the same effect as supporting the previous ruling which remains the law of the land. Heller still has to register his handgun, he still has to be licensed, he still needs to be qualified. You’re blowing smoke....but keep it up. The right still lives in a world of. Make believe. .

“When the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case on appeal, it affirms the lower courts decision, e.g. there is no grounds for appeal, the appeal is rejected, the lower courts ruling is "national precedent."

 

"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."

 

Heller conceded for one reason and one reason only. The court would not consider the case and rule on the licensing requirement because....THEY NEVER HAVE, literally, for decades. It has always been a national president.

“The Supreme Court decides to hear a case based on at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agreeing to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case.”

Even the most conservative of SCs have never argued against gun regulations including licensing.

You are delusional. Regulating arms on the basis of qualifying has been the law of the land since the 1800s.