Oh those funny gun lovers . . .

[olafberserker]

Heller is not a pro-gun decision by any means

Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment?

You can't make this shizzle up.

and yet he does

[Pewter Pirate]

The court ruled in favor of the second amendment. Declaring otherwise doesn't actually make it so. It is rather humorous, though.

Illum, do you think the Court was possibly going to rule "not in favor" of the 2nd Amendment? Maybe you're Buggsy's ghost writer?

Who knows?  The S.Ct use to hold that slavery was legal.  The Supreme Ct. ( both conservative and liberal) ignore the 10th amendment annually.  I am conservative, but I freely admit that both sides of the Court write opinions with political agendas and ignore the Constitution. A lot of conservatives only blame the liberals for being activist judges.  They all are activists ( more so on the left), and always look at their "role" in history.  The 2nd Amendment clearly speaks of the right to bear arms as a militia.  However, if the arms are banned, the right of being able to organizeas a militia is impossible. If you ban access to arms, the citizens will never be able to defend themselves as a militia.  A gov't with all of the arms is more dangerous than a few crazy people with access to arms.

[BucNY]

Fringe people on both sides, right and left, are usually wackos. While these fringe people make the most noise by a large margin they do not represent the opinions of most intelligent people. I am not a "gun lover" like you say but I do not think more regulation is going to make anyone any safer. So while you argue and say insane things that are 180 of the "gun lovers" you both are missing the point. Are we wasting time, energy, effort and changing the constitution in a feeble attempt to make people safer. That's the question. From what I understand, the percentage of gun deaths that result from guns legally purchased is very low.

[Durango 95]

I see that psycho-boy is off his meds again.

Hey Durango, little off-topic but do you really believe that the World Trade Towers were brought down by the federal government in a conspiracy?

and.....He's been overdosing on the reefers.

[dalbuc]

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?

My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

Not sure, but the discussion is in Heller, which you can find right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia authored Heller for the majority and he is noted for relying on history and what was the thought when the law was passed. In drafting Heller he included a long discussion that I knows says that the terms "arms" meant non-military style weapons. I think he pointed out that normal people could carry bows and arrows but not more etc., but I dont recall with enough specificity to answer your question, sorry.  If you read the decision though, you will see that the Court actually comments that the meaning of arms in the 2nd amendment would not be helpful against modern bombers etc but that still didnt change their opinion.  In short, it says in ordinary use at the time noting that militia brought weapons from home that were generally NOT military style weapons.

I asked because without being a weapons expert, or more accurately a weapons history expert, I have a feeling that what a citizen could legally own way back in those days was very similar to what the military used as well. I could be wrong but again I believe "unusually dangerous weapons" would probably be a lot more restrictive today than it was back then.

There was no exclusion of any weapons and the terms "arms" definitely does not refer to non-military style weapons. It is a generic terms that was used all the time in relation to military issues. The very term man a arms for example. There is a reason the place they keep guns is referred to as an armory. You hear talk about an Arms control treaty clearly refers to military weapons. I mean the discussion is insane to say that.

There were functionally two weapon systems in the late 18th century. Muzzle loading rifles and muskets were the most common military and civilian weapons. Breech loading rifles were not unknown although rare - they we used in the actual revolution- and would have been considered high rate of fire weapons (6-10 rounds per minute which gave it a functional rate of fire 2-4x the rate of muzzle loaders)  and were also not excluded.  Basically the musket and rifle were the most dangerousings you could have when the second amendment was written and no one blinked about having them.

[Escobar06]

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?

My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

Not sure, but the discussion is in Heller, which you can find right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia authored Heller for the majority and he is noted for relying on history and what was the thought when the law was passed. In drafting Heller he included a long discussion that I knows says that the terms "arms" meant non-military style weapons. I think he pointed out that normal people could carry bows and arrows but not more etc., but I dont recall with enough specificity to answer your question, sorry.  If you read the decision though, you will see that the Court actually comments that the meaning of arms in the 2nd amendment would not be helpful against modern bombers etc but that still didnt change their opinion.  In short, it says in ordinary use at the time noting that militia brought weapons from home that were generally NOT military style weapons.

I asked because without being a weapons expert, or more accurately a weapons history expert, I have a feeling that what a citizen could legally own way back in those days was very similar to what the military used as well. I could be wrong but again I believe "unusually dangerous weapons" would probably be a lot more restrictive today than it was back then.

There was no exclusion of any weapons and the terms "arms" definitely does not refer to non-military style weapons. It is a generic terms that was used all the time in relation to military issues. The very term man a arms for example. There is a reason the place they keep guns is referred to as an armory. You hear talk about an Arms control treaty clearly refers to military weapons. I mean the discussion is insane to say that.

There were functionally two weapon systems in the late 18th century. Muzzle loading rifles and muskets were the most common military and civilian weapons. Breech loading rifles were not unknown although rare - they we used in the actual revolution- and would have been considered high rate of fire weapons (6-10 rounds per minute which gave it a functional rate of fire 2-4x the rate of muzzle loaders)  and were also not excluded.  Basically the musket and rifle were the most dangerousings you could have when the second amendment was written and no one blinked about having them.

This is more consistent with what I'm reading than Vin's response, that's for sure. In fact I cant find a single source that claims the framers wanted separate arms for the citizens and military.

[olafberserker]

that is surprising since vin's post are usually so accurate .... I almost typed that with a straight face

[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?

My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

Not sure, but the discussion is in Heller, which you can find right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia authored Heller for the majority and he is noted for relying on history and what was the thought when the law was passed. In drafting Heller he included a long discussion that I knows says that the terms "arms" meant non-military style weapons. I think he pointed out that normal people could carry bows and arrows but not more etc., but I dont recall with enough specificity to answer your question, sorry.  If you read the decision though, you will see that the Court actually comments that the meaning of arms in the 2nd amendment would not be helpful against modern bombers etc but that still didnt change their opinion.  In short, it says in ordinary use at the time noting that militia brought weapons from home that were generally NOT military style weapons.

I asked because without being a weapons expert, or more accurately a weapons history expert, I have a feeling that what a citizen could legally own way back in those days was very similar to what the military used as well. I could be wrong but again I believe "unusually dangerous weapons" would probably be a lot more restrictive today than it was back then.

You are correct

You may be right, but the Supreme Court specifically disagreed citing historical texts and treatises.  It's in the Heller decision I posted the link. The clearest guidance from Heller is no military weapons, this is why assault rifles are toast, at least at some level

[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?

My personal opinion is that the founders goal was to allow citizens to own any weapons they'd have to go up against if **CENSORED** ever did it the fan. It was obviously impossible for them to know what types of weapons would exist today, but I think it's safe to assume that if they could have looked into the future, with all of the high powered semi auto and full auto weapons our military possesses, they'd have made it pretty clear "arms" meant a lot more than a .22.

Not that it probably matters to you, but the US Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY disagreed with you.  When the 2nd Amendment was ratified there were bans on unusually dangerous weapons and a fair reading of Heller would support bans of a "lot more than a .22"

What were the "unusually dangerous weapons" in existence when the amendment was ratified?

Not sure, but the discussion is in Heller, which you can find right here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Scalia authored Heller for the majority and he is noted for relying on history and what was the thought when the law was passed. In drafting Heller he included a long discussion that I knows says that the terms "arms" meant non-military style weapons. I think he pointed out that normal people could carry bows and arrows but not more etc., but I dont recall with enough specificity to answer your question, sorry.  If you read the decision though, you will see that the Court actually comments that the meaning of arms in the 2nd amendment would not be helpful against modern bombers etc but that still didnt change their opinion.  In short, it says in ordinary use at the time noting that militia brought weapons from home that were generally NOT military style weapons.

I asked because without being a weapons expert, or more accurately a weapons history expert, I have a feeling that what a citizen could legally own way back in those days was very similar to what the military used as well. I could be wrong but again I believe "unusually dangerous weapons" would probably be a lot more restrictive today than it was back then.

There was no exclusion of any weapons and the terms "arms" definitely does not refer to non-military style weapons. It is a generic terms that was used all the time in relation to military issues. The very term man a arms for example. There is a reason the place they keep guns is referred to as an armory. You hear talk about an Arms control treaty clearly refers to military weapons. I mean the discussion is insane to say that.

There were functionally two weapon systems in the late 18th century. Muzzle loading rifles and muskets were the most common military and civilian weapons. Breech loading rifles were not unknown although rare - they we used in the actual revolution- and would have been considered high rate of fire weapons (6-10 rounds per minute which gave it a functional rate of fire 2-4x the rate of muzzle loaders)  and were also not excluded.  Basically the musket and rifle were the most dangerousings you could have when the second amendment was written and no one blinked about having them.

Haha, here's the funny thing. You are talking about your view of history, which may even be right, BUT . . . . I was talking about the important thing going forward, which is what the Supreme Court says the history was AND its almost exactly the opposite of your view.  You might disagree, but  the Court disagrees with you (after reading numerous amici briefs and party briefs citing actually recorded history -- just sayin) and its all there or you to read because I posted the link to the actual Heller decision.  According to the Supreme Court and the numerous source they cited "arms" specically meant non-military weapons and, IIRC, they actually used the example of bow and arrow versus other weapons etc   Its all their to read   . . . .  and yet its "insane"

nobody reads anymore

[VinBucFan]

that is surprising since vin's post are usually so accurate .... I almost typed that with a straight face

Just to highlight your stupidity, your comment above is responding to an argument that I was wrong about the Supreme Court;s view that "arms" included a distinction between military and non-military weapons.  because you cant think for yourself or read apparently, even when a link is provided, you decided to ride herd with Dalbuc and Escobar (in part simply because they were criticizing me and I have been batting you around like the dumbass you are so I am sure you appreciate the help -- lol)  Dalbuc and Escobar said my statement about arms was wrong (actually the Court's description not mine).  Well, here it is quoted from Heller:

"Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

    The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: “Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added)."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

ANTONIN IS A LOT OF THINGS, BUT DUMB HE AIN'T . . . .

You should put down the Pabst and read a little . . .  so its Dalbuc and Escobar, without a single citation, versus the Supreme Court, all o the justices that signed on, all the law clerks and lawyers behind them, all the MANY parties that filed briefs on both sides of the argument . . . . and the various cites in the quote above.

even if that is not enough and Dalbuc and Escobar are historically correct, what matters in this discussion is what the Court ruled because that is how future laws will be formed. No one will be looking to Dalbuc and Escobar or guidance (no offense to either one, as I said they may be right historically)

LMAO  - btw, not that it matters but its that analysis above that the Court relied on to point out one of the limitations in the right afforded by the 2nd.

[Dolorous Jason]

[VinBucFan]

As I said before, the Court also de-coupled the right from militias (for those with short attention spans, just read the last sentence):

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."

[spartan]

You forgot to hilght this bit:

 Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

So in essence he seems to be saying both military and non military constitute "arms."

[VinBucFan]

You forgot to hilght this bit:

 Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language37 (1794) (emphasis added).

So in essence he seems to be saying both military and non military constitute "arms."

You just need to read the decision, that's not what the Court was saying, respectfully.  The sentence you quote is an acknowledgment that other definitions exist, but the Court still came down on the non-military side, which is a key point of Heller.  That's why the "holding" is that the right is limited to commonly and legally available guns. Here's some more for you Spartan:

"The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25"

(Miller is an earlier decision that the Court was distinguishing)

You should read the decision. If you like history it is a history novella 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

[VinBucFan]

Just keep reading from the post above and you should be able to see why Heller was not  really a pro-gun decision, despite the noise to the contrary:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)."


For Escobar I highlighted the reference to historically prohibiting "dangerous and unusual weapons"