Posted on 12/08/2015 5:27:07 AM PST by rellimpank
Advocates of stronger gun regulations, particularly in Illinois, have had a rough time in the courts in recent years. Could the tide finally be turning?
In the landmark 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment, contrary to past assumption, protects an individual right to own and use firearms for self-defense. Two years later, it struck down Chicago's prohibition on handguns. In 2012, a federal appeals court found the Illinois ban on carrying concealed guns to be unconstitutional.
But on Monday, the gun control side won a small but notable victory. The Supreme Court declined to consider a lawsuit challenging Highland Park's ban on military-style guns known as assault weapons, along with large-capacity magazines. Two justices said they would invalidate the ordinance, but the others refused to take that step. No, you don't have an absolute right to own guns No, you don't have an absolute right to own guns
What message can be taken from this decision, or nondecision? It could mean that the court thinks banning this type of firearm is permissible. It could mean most of the justices aren't sure and prefer not to address the question just yet, preferring to let lower courts wrestle with it for a while. But in either case, a law that has strong popular support in national polls, as well as sufficient support in Highland Park to be enacted, will be left in place.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Why, actually, yes - we do.
Nobody should have a machine gun (or howitzer, etc) unless they are fully trained, undergo regular practice, and keep the weapon in good working order. That is the meaning of “well regulated”.
From Chicago, where crime is a way of life and criminals (including criminals in government) are considered heroes.
“Constitution? We don’t need no steenkin’ constitution!”
Then, if they don't need a nap from all that hard work of understanding a simple 4 word phrase we can break out the big-boy calendar. We could explain -- slowly and using small words for the Trib -- that we had a nation-wide "assault weapon" ban for 10 years. Studies of the results of that ban have concluded there was no affect on crime rates attributable to that ban. Though I'm pretty sure "attributable" is far too big of a word for the kids at the Trib, we'll have to figure out a simpler way to say it. Maybe just "it did not work, it did nothing."
SCOTUS is letting lower courts sort it out before hearing the case
Those idiots sit there smugly while blood runs in the streets of their city, all because of crimes committed by those who care NOT ONE IOTA about the legality of guns. And, they would have the gall, the nerve to strip law abiding citizens of the right to defend themselves against the lawlessness?
I’m afraid this was the Supremes “sending a message” to Obama. “Do what you want big boy, we’ve got your back.” Keep your powder dry.
Wrong.
And distressing to see such arrant wrongness posted on a supposedly conservative forum.
A "well regulated militia" is a "properly functioning militia"; the existence of such is dependent upon the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" suffering no infringements. The militia clause is dependent, the infringement clause is independent. The right to keep and bear arms pre-exists the Constitution, the United States, and the militia. It stands on its own.
If, in US v Miller, as the decision was rendered, "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.
Then so-called "Assault Weapons" are EXACTLY the sort of weapon the Second Amendment protects.
I do not completely agree with the interpretation of the Second Amendment by the court, BUT, in light of established precedent and settled law, AR-15s, AK-47s, AK-74s, any firearm appropriate for accurate long distance shooting, and a host of other items which are proscribed, including short barreled shotguns, have been used as weapons of war, and should be covered under that interpretation.
IMHO, So, too, should the use of sound suppressors (AKA: "silencers") be protected, as well as any optics and devices to calculate the trajectory of a bullet in long range shooting, or to enable the user to better see an adversary in low light or other conditions not suitable to viewing with the naked eye.
In short, all the 'goodies' used by a modern military are appropriate, and should be protected under the Amendment.
Ninety-Seventh Congress - Second Session - February 1982
Printed by Us Gov. Printing Office
Out of print.
Only a small number were ever printed. The government was not happy with the findings of its own committee and never reprinted the report.
Read an abridged copy here:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
Only works for those that obey the law. Now as for mussies ...
—good one (have all of your books —hardback rather than electronic)
What is proper and constitutional is the right to keep and bear any arms (any, got that?) that they have been trained to use (with ongoing practice) and keep properly maintained (cleaned, repaired, etc).
--BTW, how does one copy illustrations from here and paste them on such as Facebook??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
