NYC CCW case is at SCOTUS!

[Rabu Rabu]

If that kind of verbiage is in the ruling, I would think they'd specifically refer to federally enacted laws as being the only legal restrictions. One can hope, honestly.

You know that even if they manage to kill awbs all of these scorned states are going to immediately enact some kind of 'assault weapon license'. There's no way they'd just allow a win.

 

[E.Shell]

As long as they weren't manufactured after '86. Which is a sort of ban, most would agree.

With the post-86 MG being (literally) banned for citizens' use and the resulting shortage of pre-86 transferable MGs artificially inflating the prices, there exists an ex facto ban for the majority of the population. How many people can afford to pay $25k or more for an M-16 that should market at about $1k or less, plus "tax"?

 

[Texasgrillchef]

With the post-86 MG being (literally) banned for citizens' use and the resulting shortage of pre-86 transferable MGs artificially inflating the prices, there exists an ex facto ban for the majority of the population. How many people can afford to pay $25k or more for an M-16 that should market at about $1k or less, plus "tax"?

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

 

[Bertfish]

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

They should either be legal for use or not. This whole magic date ******** is just that. Either they are protected or not. If they aren't then that sucks. If they are then purchase limitations should be outlawed.

 

[Bertfish]

Fvck Charlie Rangel and his cheating worthless ass for jamming the Hughes Amendment through after hours on a voice vote where it was clearly voted down but magically accepted without a recorded vote.

 

[whistlersmother]

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

One of the best arguments is given in the amendment itself.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Hunting, self-defense reasons pale in comparison.

 

[dblas]

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

Then it's a good thing the 2nd Amendment isn't just for hunting and self defense.

 

[Mike OTDP]

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

I think a solid argument could be made that since the armed services issue such arms, civilian familiarity with them (and knowledge of how to use them effectively) is of value in wartime.

Hunting is a decoy - do NOT fall for it. 2A is about establishing a reservoir of force. When acting legitimately, the Government may tap that reservoir to defend the nation and maintain public order. We tend to focus on the consequences of the Government acting illegitimately too much, I think.

 

[Mark75H]

I see no text in the Second Amendment that precludes military arms. Another red herring.

 

[Boxcab]

Exactly.

If the military has a use, they are protected. If the Police have them, they are protected. If the Secret Service has them, they are protected. FBI, CIA, etc.

If private security can justify them as necessary, they should be available. No one citizens life is worth more then another. All are equal.



.

Sent from my SM-G781U using Tapatalk

 

[Occam]

It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

People in the military, law enforcement, and protective services explicitly choose them for use as personal defense weapons. Millions of them. It's not hard to say at all.

 

[Muleskinner]

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

It's the Bill of Rights not the bill of needs. It doesn't matter what you want it for. If you want it you should be able to have it... Period

 

[delaware_export]

Wasn’t the basis for the miller case in ?‘39? predicate on the phrasing of protected by the 2a based on suitability for military services? and the fact that the sawed off shotgun was deemed not a true military worthy firearm?

not that a politically influenced ruling wouldn’t or couldn’t occur, but it would highlight the hypocrisy of saying this, miller 1939ish, failed because it wasn’t protected because it wasn’t military enough… and this one, NFA / FA, is suitable for military, but too much so, so it’s not protected .

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

 

[777GSOTB]

Sorry but, Heller said no NFA stuff....Can't wait to see this place go up in flames when NYSRPA loses their case.


District of Columbia v Heller, 554 U.S. 570(2008)

"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."

"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 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, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)."

" It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."


"We may as well consider.." All the way to page 53..."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.".

on page 55....."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." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

 

[Bob A]

I'm having trouble trying to comprehend the nature of a "weapon" that might not be "dangerous."

Of what use would such a thing be?

 

[RoadDawg]

I'm having trouble trying to comprehend the nature of a "weapon" that might not be "dangerous."

Of what use would such a thing be?

Dangerous and unusual weapons = Any weapon which is more likely to cause unintended and indiscriminate mass destruction, injury, and/or death, to innocent persons who are within its range. Rather than one which can be directed and used specifically for defense against a violent attacker.

Such a weapon would most likely be used to terrorize and attack groups of innocent persons.

Very short barrel shotguns
Bomb vests
Etc…

 

[teratos]

While I do agree with you.

The problem is, a machine gun IS super close to being a for military use only. The only known use for civilian use of a MG is for competition, and or target practice. One can’t hunt with them. It’s hard to say one could use them for self defense. Although one could.

Either way a lot harder to argue for our right to keep them then other firearms.

Did you ever read the Miller decision?

 

[Apd09]

There is precedent for limitation on the Bill of Rights.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3]: 70

Summed up typically as you can’t tell “fire” in a crowded place.

So you’d need to overturn precedent to get access to machine guns. I don’t see that happening.

IANAL. So maybe I’m wrong here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teratos]

There is precedent for limitation on the Bill of Rights.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3]: 70

Summed up typically as you can’t tell “fire” in a crowded place.

So you’d need to overturn precedent to get access to machine guns. I don’t see that happening.

IANAL. So maybe I’m wrong here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless the 2A intended for the People to have arms suitable for military service, which many writings suggest it did....

 

[DC-W]

There is precedent for limitation on the Bill of Rights.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1]
The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".[2][3]: 70

Summed up typically as you can’t tell “fire” in a crowded place.

So you’d need to overturn precedent to get access to machine guns. I don’t see that happening.

IANAL. So maybe I’m wrong here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Brandenburg pretty much kills “fire in a crowded theater”. That was dicta from a case it effectively overturned, Schenck v. United States, which invented the just awful “clear and present danger test” for which speech isn’t protected.

Helpful Twitter thread on it: