Doublecluck
Well-known member
Straight from the horses mouth. For the audible learners.
I’m not sure how “the prohibition of an entire class of firearms Americans choose overwhelmingly” wouldn’t apply to AR-15’s at this point.
Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted
- Thread starter Dsnow9
- Start date
I’m not sure how “the prohibition of an entire class of firearms Americans choose overwhelmingly” wouldn’t apply to AR-15’s at this point.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
We had a bunch of really smart legal minds debate all of this...
See @BisonGuy post for my personal stance, which is pro 2A.
That being said happy to keep posting the counter arguments if only to demonstrate that there is a logical consistency to the opposing view that has nothing to do with black helicopters and concentration camps.
Last edited by a moderator:
Handlebar
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2014
- Messages
- 448
Doesn't the Heller opinion also state that the right is not absolute? Making that concern somewhat mute? Isn't there a big difference between a new fangled weapon that might become popular vs. a weapon that has 30 million + owners
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
(the following is not directed to handlebar, but more generally to the issue)
The above is a point that seemingly needs to be reiterated every time this topic comes up . . . There is not a single constitutional right that is absolute. Not speech, not religion, not searching your home, not firearms, not the right to vote (felons), life (death penalty), liberty (prison), the pursuit of happiness (too few elk tags
) etc., etc. Every aspect of human life is subject to govt regulation to some extent under our constitution - and always has been (just because past legislatures choose not to regulate something is not evidence that they couldn't have had they wished). The only actual question is to what extent may something be regulated -- and some activities get special attention (strict scrutiny) - speech, religion, searches, firearms etc. That is where the fight is, not whether regulation is allowed, but what types/amounts/degree/manner of regulation is allowed. And willful ignorance of this 200+ year truth is not a sign of patriotism.(And before I get spammed, yes, I know life liberty and pursuit of happiness are not in constitution and never have been, but they get brought up so often in “rights” discussions that I thought I would point out even those principles from the Declaration of Independence are not absolute.)
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
The argument made by Stevens is that this is circular logic, and that the only way to have a ban on anything is to just outlaw any new technology at inception.
So Stevens argument in the context of AR15s...
Cali banned the AR in 89' NJ in 90' so would those two states have legal bans because they did it early enough, but then CO has an unconstitutional ban because it was done too late?
Wouldn't this violate the 14th amendment and if so which way to you go... the earliest ban or the latest?
If the latest then doesn't this theoretically mean that you can't pass a gun restriction unless every state passes it?
Last edited by a moderator:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Heller’s application is far easier and less circular that Steven’s or this subset of posts suggest.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
What is your specific critique of Steven's argument?
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the position on the meaning of the term “the people” in the 2nd Amendment does not stand up under scrutiny! The term “People” is used 9 times and the terms “Person” or “Persons” is used 46 times in the Constitution of the United States but the contention is that the term “the people”, as used in the 2nd Amendment, means “members of the militia”, rather than the other 54 times it was used to actually mean “Person or People”.
People (9x) – Introduction; Article I, Section 2, paragraph 1: First Amendment, paragraph 1; Second Amendment, paragraph 1; Forth Amendment, paragraph 1; Ninth Amendment, paragraph 1; 10th Amendment, paragraph 1; 17th Amendment, paragraph 1; 17th Amendment, paragraph 2;
Person (46x) – Article I, Section 2, paragraph 3 (2x); Article I, Section 3, paragraph 3; Article I, Section 3, paragraph 5; Article I, Section 7, paragraph 2; Article I, Section 9, paragraph 1 (2x); Article II, Section 1, paragraph 3; Article II, Section 1, paragraph 4 (5x); Article II, Section 1, paragraph 6 (2x); Article III, Section 3, paragraph 1; Article III, Section 3, paragraph 2; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 2; Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 3; Forth Amendment, paragraph 1 (2x); Fifth Amendment, paragraph 1 (2x); 12th Amendment, paragraph 1 (10x); 14th Amendment, Section 1, paragraph 1 (3x); 14th Amendment, Section 2, paragraph 1; 14th Amendment, Section 3, paragraph 1; 20th Amendment, Section 3, paragraph 1; 20th Amendment, Section 4, paragraph 1 (2x); 22nd Amendment, Section 1, paragraph 1 (5x).
Also, I am a resident of the State of Colorado and I believe the Constitution of the State of Colorado also refutes that contention:
Constitution of the State of Colorado (July 1, 1876)
Article II, Bill of Rights, Section 13.
Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
D
Deleted member 39961
Guest
It’s almost mathematical.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
way pop the "shall not be infringed" absolutist bubble.(the following is not directed to handlebar, but more generally to the issue)
The above is a point that seemingly needs to be reiterated every time this topic comes up . . . There is not a single constitutional right that is absolute. Not speech, not religion, not searching your home, not firearms, not the right to vote (felons), life (death penalty), liberty (prison), the pursuit of happiness (too few elk tags
(And before I get spammed, yes, I know life liberty and pursuit of happiness are not in constitution and never have been, but they get brought up so often in “rights” discussions that I thought I would point out even those principles from the Declaration of Independence are not absolute.)
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Stevens's point about the masses determining what is acceptable was not academic. This is precisely what happened between the "assault rifle" bans of the 90's and the Heller decision; People bought alot of AR's. This was not the whole story, but certainly a big part of it.
I hate this issue. Both ends of the spectrum are just so ridiculous to me. The "gap of reason" between the left stupid and the right stupid (and I say "stupid" lovingly) just seems so narrow and perilous.
I hate this issue. Both ends of the spectrum are just so ridiculous to me. The "gap of reason" between the left stupid and the right stupid (and I say "stupid" lovingly) just seems so narrow and perilous.
As an aside, as a former US Army Sapper Company CO, even on active duty I never even considered firing an M16A1 at full auto, with 700 rounds per minute you would dump a 30 round mag in just over 2.5 seconds and accuracy was just s***y so most rounds were just wasted. Full auto was only intended for old "final protective fire" and the M16A2 replaced the full auto with 3 round burst fire.
Aren't humans born with certain unalienable rights? Which document gave Native Americans the right to have weapons to hunt and defend themselves? Our founders put it in writing and you act like it didn't exist until some commies questioned the meaning of 2A some 200 years later.(the following is not directed to handlebar, but more generally to the issue)
The above is a point that seemingly needs to be reiterated every time this topic comes up . . . There is not a single constitutional right that is absolute. Not speech, not religion, not searching your home, not firearms, not the right to vote (felons), life (death penalty), liberty (prison), the pursuit of happiness (too few elk tags
(And before I get spammed, yes, I know life liberty and pursuit of happiness are not in constitution and never have been, but they get brought up so often in “rights” discussions that I thought I would point out even those principles from the Declaration of Independence are not absolute.)
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Perilous is a good word. Funny to think that the Founders, who were recently successful in an armed rebellion from a tyrant, started a new form for government that, let's be honest, they had little faith would survive long, and included a right in the founding document that would make it easier to overthrow the government. It makes some warm and fuzzy to think it was there to only protect against a future tyrannical government, and simply ignoring that it could be used to overthrown the very democracy being created.
If we could ask them today, they would probably say "The jokes on you. We were all drunk."
Doublecluck
Well-known member
Admittedly I haven’t read nor wish to read every post on every thread about this topic.
Without regard for the opinions and interpretations of the HT legal scholars or possible future rulings. It seems pretty clear to me.
I wasn’t posting with reference to my beliefs on your personal views on the 2A which I’m sure we share a lot in common. Simply easy listening for the subject of Heller and the actual ruling.
What question?21 pages and 415 comments and still nobody has had the guts to answer the question.
