Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[VinBucFan]

one of several angry gnats

[Biggs3535]

2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller:
  'The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,'

Heller is not a pro-gun decision by any means

Fantasy Land Mayor

[VinBucFan]

2008 Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller:
  'The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia,'

Heller is not a pro-gun decision by any means

Fantasy Land Mayor

I have no doubt you know little about Heller and I presume your reading it is out of the question, but here's the Constitutional Law For Dummies version:

"Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Stevens said the Heller decision protected only weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, and machine guns were not among the protected weapons. “Thus, even as generously construed in Heller, the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership of the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years,” he said.

Justice Antonin Scalia went out of his way in his majority opinion in Heller to limit Second Amendment protections to the possession of handguns in the home for purposes of self-defense, Stevens said said. A section of Scalia's opinion identified permissible regulations, including prohibitions on the carrying of concealed weapons, though the section was dicta, Stevens said."

Its beyond question that the 2nd amendment says what it says, so what the court did -- upon considering an across the board ban in DC -- was to actually LIMIT the scope of that right.  I  am sure you did not know this, but the NRA actually tried to prevfent the case from getting to the US Supreme Court (you can fins the story on Google).  They did so because they thought they would lose, even with an incredibly conservative court, or get a ruling like they did.


Yours truly,

the EDUCATED Mayor of Fantasy Land (also know as the United States)


(Amazing thing about you is you go so far out of your way to try to trash someone else when you actually don't know what you are talking about. I see you do this over and over and I presume its, in part, why you have been banned twice. In any event, its comical because you hand the hammer to the person you criticize.  Why not just say you disagree? -- believe me, that's a rhetorical question)

[Biggs3535]

I can't believe this dips*** is actually trying to say the Heller decision isn't pro gun.

CBW would be proud of you, peanut.

[VinBucFan]

I can't believe this dips*** is actually trying to say the Heller decision isn't pro gun.

CBW would be proud of you, peanut.

Once again I have to quote myself:

"(Amazing thing about you is you go so far out of your way to try to trash someone else when you actually don't know what you are talking about. I see you do this over and over and I presume its, in part, why you have been banned twice. In any event, its comical because you hand the hammer to the person you criticize.  Why not just say you disagree? -- believe me, that's a rhetorical question)
 

The Constitution is pro-gun BECAUSE it has a Second Amendment.  The sitting Supreme Court could not do anything about that.  In Heller, they could have either interpreted it broadly or narrowly. They interpreted it as narrowly as it could be interpreted without repealing the 2nd Amendment (lol). 

You are too funny for words some times. . .  posting 100% out of your azz while criticizing someone.  The article I quoted above, which summarized Stevens remarks, is from the American Bar Association . . .  but I am sure Buggsy knows better . . . . LMAO

ABA not enough? How about the New York Times discussing Heller after Newtown:

"Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded . . .The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips"

Buggsy knows more than Justice Stevens, the ABA, the New York Times and a law professor , from UCLA no less (hardly a conservative think tank)

Just tell me when to stop. I am sure ytou dont know this but Westlaw is one of the two largest research resources for lawyers.  This is from the Westlaw website:

"Heller explicitly stated that the ruling “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.”

Heller also recognized there is a “historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,” which the New York law, in its “Statement in Support” cites to in an apparent declaration that the law is in compliance with Heller and McDonald.

LOL, Buggsy is smarter than Westlaw.  Here's more Reader's digest on Heller:

"When the Supreme Court for the first time recognized the existence of an individual right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, I warned that the decision might well end up giving gun owners very little new protection against regulation:

The Supreme Court may have endorsed an individual right under the Second Amendment to bear arms. But
the District of Columbia certainly isn’t leaping to implement that right.....

History shows that mere judicial recognition of a right doesn’t guarantee that the right will get meaningful protection. It is especially unlikely if the right is supported by jurists on only one side of the political spectrum. Judicially recognized rights also can get short shrift if the Supreme Court defines their scope narrowly.

To the delight of some and the distress of others, both these factors may limit the impact of the newly recognized individual right to bear arms.

Earlier this year, McDonald v. City of Chicago ruled that the Second Amendment applies to state governments as well as the feds. Nonetheless, it is far from clear that the ruling will have much effect. McDonald left intact Heller’s expansive list of “presumptively lawful regulatory measures,” which includes restrictions on the sale of guns, bans on carrying guns in “sensitive” locations, bans on ownership by felons (which in most states includes a wide range of people who have not been convicted of any violent crime), and others.

A recent ABA Journal [HT: Josh Blackman] article on lower court decisions applying McDonald and Heller seems to bear out my prediction:

Proponents hailed Heller and McDonald as setbacks for gun control advocates. They predicted a shift in gun policy throughout the country.

But so far it hasn’t happened that way. While there have been challenges throughout the country to local, state and federal gun laws, few have been successful.

In fact, critics of the decisions say the cases have failed to provide a concrete framework to help lower courts determine the constitutionality of challenged gun control laws.....

As I predicted, mere judicial recognition of the existence of a right doesn’t necessarily lead to meaningful protection for it. Such protection is particularly unlikely when a substantial part of the judiciary (most liberal judges) is hostile to the very idea that this right deserves protection at all.


Still, Buggsy knows best. LMAO


THE US CONSTITUTION SAYS WHAT IT SAYS --- and yet the minority actually wanted to support DC's all out ban.  ALL THE COURT DID WAS RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT -- but even in that it decoupled it from militia and went to great lengths to point out that restrictions short of ban are constitutional.

I can see you not understanding that, the amazing part is you not recognizing that for yourself -- LMAO

[Escobar06]

What a stupid debate. Criminals don't care about laws so changing them solves nothing. The "war on drugs" has been going on since the 70's yet anyone in America can get any drug in existence anytime anywhere. Anyone who believes changing gun laws would do a damn thing is a damn fool.

[Chief Joseph]

I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.

But it is also a pretty good illustration or why it's pointless to try to have any sort of logical debate with coq au vin.

[VinBucFan]

I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.

But it is also a pretty good illustration or why it's pointless to try to have any sort of logical debate with coq au vin.

lol -- yeah according to you its so "pointless" that it angers you to the point that you want to shoot me in the face. Hate to see how you'd respond to something NOT pointless

[GameTime]

I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.

forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?

[VinBucFan]

I never proclaimed Heller v. to be pro or anti anything, only that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the citizens right to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon association with a militia.

forgive my ignorance, but does "arms" mean?  does it have a constitutional definition?  does it give me the right to own missiles and nukes?

No, the Supreme Court already spoke on that in Heller:

 In Heller, a sharply-divided Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to own a firearm that is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,”

[VinBucFan]

Buggsy also disagree with this Constitutional Law magazine:

"Despite years of grandstanding about the Second Amendment from both sides of the gun control debate, the actual scope of the right to bear arms was largely ambiguous until the Supreme Court’s landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, a sharply-divided Court ruled that the Second Amendment provides an individual the right to own a firearm that is “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” thus rendering the District of Columbia’s total ban on private handgun possession unconstitutional.2 Heller was followed by the Court’s 2010 decision in McDonald v. Chicago, which applied this individual right to bear arms to state governments.3 With the constitutional dust settled, both the federal government and the states are bound to follow the Second Amendment, at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court (SPOILER ALERT: WE TALK ABOUT THIS BELOW!).

Will the combined weight of Heller and McDonald halt the post-Newtown gun control legislation in its tracks? In a word: no. While the efficacy of future gun control measures is up for debate, and the politics might be insurmountable, the reality is that most gun control measures will likely pass constitutional muster"

I'd listen to Buggsy though . . .  those Constitutional lawyers are dumb dumb dumb . . . .LMAO

[Chief Joseph]

I'm not the angry one here, lawyer boy. I find this place hilarious. You especially.

[Chief Joseph]

 " rendering the District of Columbia’s total ban on private handgun possession unconstitutional "

Very anti-gun indeed.

[VinBucFan]

I'm not the angry one here, lawyer boy. I find this ace hilarious. You especially.

Uh . . .  yeah.  It was so pointless and you were so "happy" that you went out of your way to create a thread, create a poll and then vote in that poll for this:

"I now carry a large arsenal with me at all times, just in case I get the chance to shoot Vin in the face"


Pull this leg and it plays jingle bells . . . 

[VinBucFan]

 " rendering the District of Columbia’s total ban on private handgun possession unconstitutional "

Very anti-gun indeed.

LOL, the very fact that you had to ignore everything else and cherry-pick less than a complete sentence not only makes you look like a dope but it completely undercuts the very point your tried but failed to make.  Goodness, sometimes you just make things easy  . . .