You supporrt banning 'assault weapons'? Why ?

Sure. I guess the ruling is just to hear themselves talk.....the ruling specifically said, the municipality was to allow Heller the right to register the gun and license it. If the court did not acknowledge the licensing either, IT WOULD HAVE SAID SO. If you didn't read it all, you don't get it. From beginning to end, is part of the ruling. According to both Bryer and Scalia, the judgements they make for the plaintiff are secondary and not their focus. The judgement is always made as a tamplate for future revenue. If you are going to keep blowing rulings off, you show your total ignorance of the written word. You can pick and choose what you usually do and take things out of context...which is your usual your usual stategy for the second amendment by omitting the entire first half of it. You do the same thing now.. Living in the bubble

 

what are you trying to say. wiping out the idiotic DC gun ban was the primary ruling. the real shocker is that four justices thought what DC did was proper.

 

It's stunning that you guys will not actually read the rulings yourself. You take your little phrase, " shall not be infringed. " and over use it out of context while never referring to the rest of the amendment, in the SAME sentence, then refuse to read rulings that are the actual interpretation of the constitution. You guys avoid the written word like it's the plague. If you read the entire ruling, you would see that itself, is an argument the majority makes against the minority. They each contain elements of agreement and disagreement as to the final ruling on the appeal.

Both the minority and the majority all agree on several points in the amendment, one being in particular, that regulation is an integral part of it's entirety. That you guys lack the intellectual curiosity to not only read the decsions in it's entirety means your arguments ARE WORTHLESS as are your points of view on this issue. Your claims of being knowledgable in this area are just as likely to be true as your claims to be educated. I only make one claim.......I did read the ruling.

Banning and licensing and registration of certain types of weapons both in carry and keeping in the home are all legitimate forms of regulation allowed in the second amendment according to both majority and minority opinion. The majority opinion found that regulation by registration was the appropriate way to handle a handgun in the home. That is it, no more, no less.

 

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. 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. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

It specifically says that they are not addressing the requirement of whether firearms can be licensed and registered, because the defendant did not challenge such.

 

Ha ha. Thanks for making the obvious, obvious again. The Court accepts the DC licensing law because it is not contested, it assume it will provide the relief that Heller seeks.....It is not in question. If the law said it only applied to minorities, it would not be accepted. That's what "enforced arbitrarily" is all about.
If the court found they were being enforced arbitrarily or Capriciously, they would not be permissible. They are not ruling on the DC gun laws because they are permissible.
In the previous statement 2 , the court summarizes why they are permissible. You have to read that too.

Do you actually think a ruling would allow a regulation they thought was unconstitutional ? How about if the DC gun law said because Heller was a minority, he could not keep the gun in his home...the court would then address it. They aren't addressing it because It does not need addressing. It IS permissible under the ruling. They are saying that ! Not addressing and accepting a regulation IS STILL PART OF THE RULING. He is not challenging them because they would be upheld. The court has told him that in statement two...the court reiterates that throughout the ruling. Even in the statement following your bold selection. >Assuming he is not disqualified from his second amendment rights. <

 

At the very best, you are deliberately misinterpreting the language of the ruling to suit your own argument, in the same way the member Jbander misinterpreted the US v Miller ruling to claim it codified the collective rights argument into existence.

Pray tell what is your legal background, that would suggest your interpretation of the Heller ruling is the correct interpretation?

 

I assume you mean to ask why I feel that municipalities and states have the ability to enact gun laws that are constitutional ? And, you want to know what my qualifications are. Well, my qualifications are, my ability to read. Here is a list of gun laws passed by municipalities and states since 2012. Forget that many states and municipalities have gun permit legislation, these are just those since 2012. Are they constitutional ? They are until challenged and ruled upon differently by the State, Appellate District and ultimately the Supreme Court. If an upper level court refuses to take the case, the ruling remains lawful in the lower court. . A State's Constitution is just as lawful until ruled on by the appellate courts.


Here&#8217;s a full list of the 41 laws in 20 states.

AL S 133: Strengthens requirements regarding sending mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and require petition for relief of disability due to mental health issue to be directed to circuit court rather than probate.

CA S 140: Provides funding to the Department of Justice to address the backlog in the Armed Prohibited Persons System.

CA A 48: Bans &#8220;conversion kits&#8221; that create large capacity ammunition magazines.

CA A 170: Prevents corporations, partnerships, and other organizational &#8220;persons&#8221; from receiving a permit to own an assault weapon.

CA A 231: Expands child access prevention law to cover anytime a weapon is left in a place where a child may gain access to it.

CA A 500: Requires safe storage of firearms for people living with prohibited persons. Allows DOJ to obtain an additional 30 days to conduct a background check when the ordinary 10 day period is insufficient.

CA A 539: Allows prohibited people to transfer their firearms to a firearms dealer to hold for them until they become eligible to possess a firearm again.

CA A 1131: Extends the prohibition on owning a firearm for persons who have made specific credible threats to a psychotherapist from six months to five years. Makes reporting of such threats to DOJ electronic.

CA S 363: Holds firearm owners liable for leaving guns where a prohibited person is likely to gain access if such a person does gain access and takes the gun into a public place or harms someone with it.

CA S 683: Requires all gun purchasers to obtain a firearm safety certificate (previously handguns only).

CA S 127: Requires electronic reporting of credible threats against specific people to DOJ.

CO H 1224: Bans sale, transfer, and possession of large capacity ammunition magazines (LCAMs).

CO H 1229: Requires background checks for private sales and mental health reporting to NICS.

CO S 195: Prohibits online training for CCW permit applicants.

CO S 197: Provides mechanisms to help disarm domestic violence perpetrators.

CT H 6702: Strengthens law requiring subjects of restraining orders to surrender firearms.

CT S 1160: Strengthens assault weapon ban, bans LCAMs, creates gun offender registry, requires permit for long guns and ammunition purchase (note CT S 1094 provides amendments).

DC B 888: Expands prohibition on certain types of ammunition.

DE H 35: Requires background checks for private sales of firearms.

DE S 16: Requires any owner of a firearm to report the loss or theft of the firearm within seven days after the discovery of the loss or theft to either local law enforcement or the state police.

FL H 1355: Expands mental health prohibitions and reporting of records.

HI S 69: Requires all gun registration applicants to be fingerprinted.

IL H 1189: Requires private firearms sellers to use the State Police's dial-up system to verify that the buyer is the holder of a valid FOID card before making a transfer; requires owners of firearms to report loss or theft of firearms.

LA H 717/S135: Strengthens laws requiring reporting of certain prohibited persons to state supreme court and NICS and provides process for relief from disabilities.

MD S 281: Strengthens assault weapon ban, bans LCAMs, provides a mechanism to remove firearms from unstable individuals, regulates ammunition possession, requires a handgun license, requires registration for new residents, and requires lost or stolen firearm reporting.

MN S 671: Requires submission of records regarding prohibited persons to NICS.

MS S 2647: Facilitates the reporting of certain information to the FBI solely for the purpose of inclusion in the NICS database and allow prohibited individuals to petition for relief from mental health disability.

ND H 1327: Requires a NICS check to be completed on CCW permit applicants.

NJ A 3687: Disqualifies any person named on the federal Terrorist Watchlist from purchasing a firearm.

NJ A 3717: Requires submission of certain mental health records to NICS.

NJ A 3797: Would have required law enforcement to include gun trafficking information in certain reports and state databases.

NY S 2230: Imposes numerous provisions to: strengthen the assault weapons and LCAM bans; provide a mechanism to remove firearms from unstable individuals, close private sale loophole, require lost and stolen reporting, require safe storage and regulate ammunition sales.

RI H 5286/RI S 455: Makes it unlawful for any person to receive, transport or possess any firearm which has had any maker, model, manufacturer's number or other mark of identification removed, altered, or obliterated.

RI H 5992/RI S 862: Creates a Behavioral Health and Firearms Safety Task Force to review, and make recommendations for, statutes relating to firearms and behavioral health issues.

SC H 3560: Strengthens prohibitions on firearm possession by dangerously mentally ill, requires submission of records to NICS and cross-checking of mental health adjudications with CCW permittees for purposes of disarming prohibited persons.

TN S 789: Requires courts to submit mental health adjudication information to NICS.

TX S 1189: Provides that a police officer taking a person into custody because he or she is mentally ill and poses a serious risk of harm to self or others may immediately seize a firearm in the person&#8217;s possession. Provides a procedure for return or other disposition of the firearm.

UT H 50: Allows a court to prohibit the subject of a dating relationship protective order from possessing firearms.

UT H 121: Authorizes a cohabitant who owns a firearm to voluntarily commit the firearm to law enforcement for 60 days if the cohabitant believes another cohabitant is an immediate threat.

WA H 1612: Creates a gun offender registry.

WA S 5282: Creates a statewide database of mental health information, and require the submission of mental health commitment records to the state department of licensing.

 

My only solution isn't banning, not at all. I support banning yes, but it is not my first port of call.

My first solution would always be education, education, education. Teach people how to compromise, how to resolve issues, how to negotiate, how to deal with problems without violence.

I agree with you, you have to look at the cultural issue, and I don't think it is a specific US thing, I think from Africa to australia to the americas, there are communities with violence issues where, with some changes, life could be better for the majority, instead of the thugs who are enjoying their position in that said community paid for through fear.

I also agree regarding the criminal justice system, needs to be continually improved to get better results and lower offending rates, I don't really have the answer there, but I agree that it is an important part of the issue. I also think, you need to look at the communities before people get too heavily involved in crime. Are there opportunities for people to make a decent living outside of crime? Are there role models guiding people down the appropriate path etc etc.

I agree that violence and people are the most important part of the gun violence issue. But this forum and thread is quite specific and I have to be honest, about where I stand about whether I think guns provide a net positive or negative to modern human communities.

 

Bitten of more then you can chew big fella?

 

What does licensing and registration accomplish when murderers will not comply with the requirement, nor can they be prosecuted if they are found to have not licensed/registered their firearms?

 

More along the lines of attempting to identify just what your credentials are, that warrant paying you any heed in this discussion, when a known and seasoned prosecuting attorney holds a view that is starkly different than yours.

What is your legal background?

 

All of which goes on to ultimately prove just what exactly? That the states have the authority to implement their own laws? That because they were enacted after the rulings of Heller and McDonald it must mean that they were crafted to be in compliance with those rulings?

 

If you are going to cut and paste from a site, it would be nice if you provided a link, else with no reference of where you did your cut and paste job it is called plagiarism, something intellectually without integrity. In addition, since the list you provided was originally compiled by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, you only showed part of the story, that which fit your agenda and narrative.

http://smartgunlaws.org/2013-state-firearms-legislation-overview/

But, even then, if you look though the list the majority of bills come from the most well-known anti Second Amendment states that have continually sought to limit, if not ban guns. Strip away the following anti Second Amendment states,

California
Connecticut
Hawaii
DC
Delaware
Illinois
New Jersey
New York
Massachusetts
Maryland ​

At which point, you are left with 10 bills addressing mental health related gun legislation

AL S 133: Strengthens requirements regarding sending mental health records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and require petition for relief of disability due to mental health issue to be directed to circuit court rather than probate.

FL H 1355: Expands mental health prohibitions and reporting of records.

LA H 717/S135: Strengthens laws requiring reporting of certain prohibited persons to state supreme court and NICS and provides process for relief from disabilities.

MN S 671: Requires submission of records regarding prohibited persons to NICS.

SC H 3560: Strengthens prohibitions on firearm possession by dangerously mentally ill, requires submission of records to NICS and cross-checking of mental health adjudications with CCW permittees for purposes of disarming prohibited persons.

TX S 1189: Provides that a police officer taking a person into custody because he or she is mentally ill and poses a serious risk of harm to self or others may immediately seize a firearm in the person’s possession. Provides a procedure for return or other disposition of the firearm.


TN S 789: Requires courts to submit mental health adjudication information to NICS.

WA S 5282: Creates a statewide database of mental health information, and require the submission of mental health commitment records to the state department of licensing.

CO H 1229: Requires background checks for private sales and mental health reporting to NICS.

UT H 121: Authorizes a cohabitant who owns a firearm to voluntarily commit the firearm to law enforcement for 60 days if the cohabitant believes another cohabitant is an immediate threat.
​

Two that address domestic violence/protective order restrictions

CO S 197: Provides mechanisms to help disarm domestic violence perpetrators.

UT H 50: Allows a court to prohibit the subject of a dating relationship protective order from possessing firearms.​

Reducing your list to only three pieces of legislation in the non Anti Second Amendment states that pro-gun advocates might take issue with…

CO S 195: Prohibits online training for CCW permit applicants.

ND H 1327: Requires a NICS check to be completed on CCW permit applicants.

WA H 1612: Creates a gun offender registry.​

But, what you missed was the rest of the story, those bills compiled by Center that are pro-gun and which is a bit more impressive list….

AK H 24 Removes the duty to retreat in any place a person has a right to be.
AL H 8 Proposes an amendment to the right to bear arms provision in the state constitution requiring that any firearms law be subject to strict scrutiny.
AL H 404 Authorizes the formation of volunteer emergency security forces at public schools in the county consisting of current and retired school employees and local citizens.

AL S 286 Removes discretion from CCW permit issuing authorities making AL a “shall issue” state. Clarifies preemption language and allow lawsuits against local governments, amends CCW permit eligibility requirements, expands where CCW permit holders may carry, requires state and local entities to allow storage of firearms on public property, prohibits an employer from inquiring about firearms in vehicles, prohibits a property owner from restricting firearms in parking areas, and repeals the prohibition against the possession of a firearm at a public demonstration.
AL S 383 Authorizes each local board of education to allow persons employed as school security personnel or school resource officers to carry firearms while on duty.
AR S 71 Allows guns in houses of worship if permitted by the head of the house of worship.
AR S 170 Allows a pregnant woman to use deadly force to protect her unborn child, with no duty to retreat unless the pregnant woman knows she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force and simultaneously ensure the complete safety of her unborn child.
AR S 858 Provides automatic reciprocity with all other state CCW permits.
AR S 896 Allows guns in K–12 schools run by a house of worship.
AR H 1243 Allows staff and faculty to carry on university, college, or community college campuses.
AR H 1700 Allows guns in bars and other areas.
AR H 2025 Allows CCW permit holders who are employed in a liquor store to possess a firearm in the store.
AZ H 2455 Prohibits destruction of firearm by a government entity as part of a buyback.
ID H 183 Clarifies that local governments may not regulate the carrying of concealed weapons.
IL H 183 Allows carrying concealed handguns in public with a permit.
IN H 1006 Adds knowing and intentional element to crime of an unlicensed person selling a handgun, crimes involving machine guns, and possessing a firearm while boarding an aircraft or while on the grounds of a school or on a school bus.
IN S 1 Allows firearms to be carried at K–12 schools by a person who has been authorized to do so by the school board.
KS H 2052 Allows K–12 schools, universities and community colleges to authorize employees to carry firearms in school buildings; makes CCW records confidential, allows CCW permit holders to carry in any building that does not provide adequate notice, as specified, that firearms are prohibited.
KS H 2162 Prohibits any state government money from being used to publicize “gun control” issues or to fund a grant recipient or contractor for activities related to lobbying on the issue of gun control.
KS S 21 Provides automatic CCW permit reciprocity with all other states.
MI S 60 Exempts all FFL’s (instead of only class 01 FFL’s) from handgun purchase permit requirement.
MO H 533 Prohibits the state from restricting a state employee from having a firearm in the employee’s vehicle on the state’s property provided and imposes restrictions on local gun buyback programs.
MO S 75 Requires that all records regarding firearms possession, ownership or carrying be kept confidential. Requires sheriffs to issue CCW permits (instead of a certificate of qualification for a CCW permit), extends the duration of CCW permits, and requires background checks prior to issuance of CCW permits
MO S 252 Prohibits any state agency or department from constructing, providing or sharing records, maintaining, participating in or developing, or cooperating with the federal government in developing a database or record of the number or type of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories that an individual possesses.
MS H 2 Allows carrying a loaded or unloaded weapon in public without a permit if carried upon the person in a sheath, belt holster or shoulder holster that is wholly or partially visible, or carried upon the person in a scabbard or case for carrying the weapon that is wholly or partially visible.
MT H 459 Prohibits medical providers from conditioning provision of medical care on requirement that patients answer questions about gun ownership.
NC H 937 Allows firearms in bars, assemblies, vehicles in state government parking areas and vehicles on educational property (including K–12 and university and college campuses); allows employee who resides on grounds of an institution of higher education to possess a firearm in residence; further restricts local authority to regulate firearms, strengthens law against permitting children to use firearms; requires submission of mental health records to NICS.
ND H 1241 Repeals the prohibition against carrying a firearm in a gaming site (except those primarily used for bingo) and would allow firearms in areas of restaurants that are not restricted by age.
ND H 1283 Allows CCW permit holder to carry in house of worship with permission.
ND H 1327 Expands preemption of local law.
OK H 1243 Amends the CCW permit eligibility requirements so that the preclusive period for certain violations is shortened.
OK H 1622 Allows the carrying of a concealed or unconcealed handgun in a private school or on a private school bus, provided that the school has adopted a policy to allow it and allows firearms at government meetings.
OK S 173 Provides immunity from liability for any person, business, or employer who does not prohibit the carrying of firearms on their property, for any harm resulting from failing to prohibit firearms there and provides for a temporary CCW permit for a victim listed in a domestic violence protection order.
OK S 977 Provides automatic reciprocity for all out-of-state open carry permits.
SD H 1087 Provides that any school board may allow the arming of school employees, hired security personnel, or volunteers, after obtaining the consent of the law enforcement officer who has jurisdiction over the school.
SD S 166 Provides that a concealed carry permit is valid for 5 years, instead of 4 years as under current law.
TN H 6 Allows K–12 school personnel to possess a firearm on school property if the person has a CCW permit and is authorized by the school superintendent.

TN S 142 Allows person with a valid handgun carry permit to transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in the permit holder’s privately-owned motor vehicle in any public or private parking area.
TN S 714 Limits the 10-year period that a person must wait between exiting a drug or alcohol program or hospital before being eligible for a handgun carry permit to three years if the applicant entered rehab voluntarily.
TX H 798 Eliminates certain misdemeanors as disqualifying factors for a CCW permit.
TX H 3142 Removes the requirement that CCW permit applicants obtain safety training with the same type of handgun he or she intends to carry.
TX S 864 Weakens handgun safety training requirements for applicants for first-time and renewal CCW permits.
TX S 987 Authorizes the attorney general to bring an action to obtain a temporary or permanent injunction against a local government that adopts a firearms or ammunition regulation.
TX S 1400 Preempts local regulation of air guns.
TX S 1907 Prohibits an institution of higher education from prohibiting a student who is a CCW permit holder from transporting or storing a handgun or ammunition in a locked, privately owned motor vehicle on a street, driveway or parking area located on the campus.
UT H 28 Specifies that the carrying or possession of a firearm on the campus of a state institution of higher education does not warrant an order to leave the property.
UT H 317 Prohibits the state or a political subdivision from compelling a CCW permit holder to divulge whether he or she has a CCW permit or is carrying a concealed firearm.
WV H 2431 Makes CCW permit holders exempt from background checks, clarifies mental health requirements and makes other changes to CCW permit law.
WV S 369 Provides automatic reciprocity with CCW permits from all other states.
WY H 216 Allows a judge to carry a weapon in his or her courtroom or determine that someone else may carry a weapon in his or her courtroom.

New 2013 Minimal Impact Laws
AK H 69 Amends existing law that seeks to nullify the application of federal firearms law in the state.
AR S 131 Prohibits the release of records related to CCW holders and applicants to the public.
AZ H 2326 Expands prohibition against keeping records of gun possession and purchase.
KS S 81 Makes CCW permit information confidential.
KS S 102 Seeks to nullify federal law.
KY S 150 Removes the six-month residency requirement for CCW permit applicants.
LA H 8 Makes CCW permit records confidential.
LA H 98 Authorizes the sheriff of a parish to issue a concealed handgun permit. The permit would only be valid within the boundaries of the parish, unless the sheriff has entered into a reciprocity agreement with a sheriff of a different parish. Would prohibit the dissemination of personal information of applicants.
LA H 265 Provides for the issuance of a lifetime concealed handgun permit.
LA H 277 Repeals state machine gun regulations and refers instead to federal law regulating machine guns.
ME H 250 Makes CCW permit records confidential.
MN H 5 Provides that the state health benefit exchange may not collect information that indicates whether or not an individual owns a gun or has a firearm in the individual’s home.
MS H 485 Makes CCW permit records confidential.
MT S 145 Makes information about CCW permit holders confidential.
NJ A 3788 Makes CCW permit records confidential.
NV S 76 Removes the distinction currently made on CCW permits between revolvers and semi-automatics and instead provides that a CCW permit applies to all handguns.
SD S 227 Allows firearms to be carried on a snowmobile by any CCW permit holder on his or her own land.
TN H 9 Makes CCW permit records confidential.
TX H 2407 Provides that a person whose guardianship has been terminated may petition for restoration of his or her firearm rights.
TX H 1349 Provides that a CCW permit applicant may not be required to provide his/her social security number as part of an application.
UT S 80 Provides a system to allow individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms for mental health reasons to petition for relief from the disability.
VA S 1335 Makes CCW permit records confidential.

Again, another dent in your nonexistent credibility....

 

Just to show, if you bothered to read, the laws are constitutional until challenged. Obviously a lot are not challenged. It's up to the attorney generals office to help write these laws. We were talking about gun laws.

 

where do yo get the idea I didn't read the ruling? I was part of a federalist society discussion of Heller before the case was decided and then after it was decided. I have read it at least 20 times. One thing all 9 justices agreed was that the "collective interpretation" is dead and buried.

you need to stop making up stuff or your reputation on this board will be even worse than it is now.

Like most gun banners, you don't understand DICTA nor the difference between federal and state powers. Registration was never before the court so stop the nonsense.

 

many of those idiotic laws remain only because challenges haven't reached the supreme court. I doubt you will get an answer from dagosa about his legal background. I have stated mine many times and I submit he can't come close in terms of relevant experience. Nor can he approach Bryan's . I am one of the few people in the USA who has been a world class competitive shooter, counsel for gun dealers and a Title II machine gun maker and then a DOJ attorney with 24 years of dealing with all sorts of issues including FFL revocation hearings.

 

So, how many lawyers were present in your little group that actually past the bar and represented a client in a gun law constitutionality appeal at the appellate court level ?
If gun regulation was never before the court, it's becasue they or the court below them did not accept the case. It then stays at the lower court. If it does, it reverts back to that ruling.

 

"Past the bar" I finished 7th in the Ohio Bar exam the year I took it. Not bad out of 1200 or so. I used to represent clients all the time who were involved in gun issues. The ATF was once one

How about you? Did You PASS the bar?

 

Without intended to come off as being a personal attack against yourself, the federalist society likely has more bar-certified attorneys on staff than the group you have associated with in your reading of the Heller ruling.

Registration was never before the court, because plaintiffs did not bring suit against such. What is the point of challenging the constitutional of registration, if the district of columbia was refusing to allow handgun ownership at all?

 

Yes, every night when I drive home after a hard day at work. Drinking and driving don't mix.

 

Weak, very very weak.

 

This tact sounds like another poster who has used socks before.

 

Do you still take cases and if so where are your services if I'm not being too personal.

 

I have retired from the DOJ and while I do have an active law license I don't have the infrastructure to actually practice law as a business. I am doing what I have always seen as my first love and now I can afford it-coaching kids in an olympic shooting sport while doing some consulting for various firearms and archery dealers and manufacturers