Man arrested at Univ of Kentucky Hospital with firearms, body armor and possible explosives

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,136
2,310
1,743
46
DFW
#61
That is EXACTLY the right that is protected by this amendment.
That was the original intent, but Scalia clarified it as referring to common weapons used to defend households at the time the amendment was drafted. Therefore it should not be interpreted to include modern military weapons that one would expect to use in combat against a national force.
 

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
157
113
93
57
Wisconsin
#62
That was the original intent, but Scalia clarified it as referring to common weapons used to defend households at the time the amendment was drafted. Therefore it should not be interpreted to include modern military weapons that one would expect to use in combat against a national force.
If that’s what Scalia’s opinion was, he was wrong.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#63
That is EXACTLY the right that is protected by this amendment.
As limited by notions of militia and arms carried by the militia at the time of passage and ratification of the Constitution.

Which has been explicitly held more than once by SCOTUS.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#64
If that’s what Scalia’s opinion was, he was wrong.
Your opinion vs. Scalia's opinion about what the Constitution means and what the law is?

I know which one I'm gonna go with.

And it's not just Scalia that has found that either.
 

TheMonkey

Territorial Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
5,136
2,310
1,743
46
DFW
#65
If that’s what Scalia’s opinion was, he was wrong.
That’s how it appears based on what @CowboyJD posted. I have no legal expertise whatsoever, so he’s free to correct me if I misstated anything... as are you. You’re also free to share any backing for why you disagree with Scalia.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#66
That’s how it appears based on what @CowboyJD posted. I have no legal expertise whatsoever, so he’s free to correct me if I misstated anything... as are you. You’re also free to share any backing for why you disagree with Scalia.
I've already quoted what Scalia said.

What Scalia said in D.C. v. Heller is what the law is. I know we call decisions and holdings of SCOTUS "opinions", but they are actually more than that.

I'm actually not all that interested in the reasons why he may disagree with Scalia. Scalia has been the pre-eminent defender of the 2nd Amendment in modern jurisprudential holdings. He may disagree with Scalia's "opinion", and he is certainly free to do that. In the end though, I know exactly whom actually has/had authority to define what the Constitution actually means and says.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,754
3,871
1,743
#67
Scalia was a part of the SC when they overturned the handgun ban in Chicago. This allowed people to own semi-automatic handguns with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Obviously these weapons weren't in common use at the time of the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So he doesn't believe that only muskets should be legal.

My best interpretation of Scalia's opinion is that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language doesn't guarantee us the right to own new advancements in military technology. We have the right to own firearms, but not nuclear warheads. That being said, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation. What exactly constitutes reasonable is is the primary point of contention.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
#68
Scalia was a part of the SC when they overturned the handgun ban in Chicago. This allowed people to own semi-automatic handguns with magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Obviously these weapons weren't in common use at the time of the time of the ratification of the Constitution. So he doesn't believe that only muskets should be legal.

My best interpretation of Scalia's opinion is that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language doesn't guarantee us the right to own new advancements in military technology. We have the right to own firearms, but not nuclear warheads. That being said, firearms are subject to reasonable regulation. What exactly constitutes reasonable is is the primary point of contention.
All the decision in M v. Chicago and its companion case in NRA v. Chicago did was hold that the rule of law established under D.C. v. Heller applied to the states and municipalities through incorporation of the 14th Amendment.

"In Heller , we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan , 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller . The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."

Additionally the ban that they overturned was a broad ban of basically all handguns by passing laws that required registration of handguns and specifically denied the opportunity to register to almost all private citizens by law.

The Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional. They didn't comment on what guns could have been legally and constitutionally banned and which ones couldn't. They don't give advisory opinions or "rewrite" an unconstitutional law to make it constitutional. They didn't in any way indicate that a ban on semi-automatic handguns with magazines holding more than 10 rounds specifically wouldn't constitutionally be subject to banning if the law was more specifically targeted. To be fair, they didn't in any way indicate that it would either.
 
Oct 30, 2007
4,754
3,871
1,743
#69
All the decision in M v. Chicago and its companion case in NRA v. Chicago did was hold that the rule of law established under D.C. v. Heller applied to the states and municipalities through incorporation of the 14th Amendment.

"In Heller , we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan , 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller . The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings."

Additionally the ban that they overturned was a broad ban of basically all handguns by passing laws that required registration of handguns and specifically denied the opportunity to register to almost all private citizens by law.

The Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional. They didn't comment on what guns could have been legally and constitutionally banned and which ones couldn't. They don't give advisory opinions or "rewrite" an unconstitutional law to make it constitutional. They didn't in any way indicate that a ban on semi-automatic handguns with magazines holding more than 10 rounds specifically wouldn't constitutionally be subject to banning if the law was more specifically targeted. To be fair, they didn't in any way indicate that it would either.
It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on California's high capacity magazine ban, assuming the case gets that far.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/us/california-magazines-ban.html
California’s Ban on High-Capacity Magazines Violates the Second Amendment, Court Rules
California’s ban on high-capacity magazines violates the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled on Friday.

In a split decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit gave several reasons for rejecting the state’s ban. Among them, the court said that high-capacity magazines are “protected arms” under the Second Amendment and that they are often used for legal purposes and are not considered “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope of constitutional protection.