I will agree that we can let adults keep toys…
There is your problem right there, thinking you get to decide what other adults may or may not possess.
1 Like
We limit lots of things adults can possess…
How many of them are listed in the bill of rights?
None and neither are “dangerous and unusual weapons”…
Nothing remotely unusual about “assault weapons”. There are around 8.5 million or so of them that were put into circulation between 1990 and 2012, wouldn’t surprise me if there were double that out there. I don’t know what your definition of unusual is but I don’t think its millions for me. Nor are they particularly more dangerous. Hell, there are an estimated 638,000 actual machine guns in legal circulation.
That’s the supreme court’s interpretation of the limits of the second amendment…
And “assault rifles” isn’t going to fall within it, not with the current court at any rate. Because they aren’t unusual or more dangerous than other rifles, heck most of them are less dangerous, being smaller caliber than many “non-assault” weapons. You should have read the next sentence in the ruling.
“in common use at the time”
I think millions is common as opposed to unusual. I might be worried if the court’s minority was in charge, hell they almost did away with the right to self-defense altogether so you can’t put anything past them, but they aren’t, so I’m not.
Again, they declined handgun ban cases too, right up until they took one and struck them down. Oh and psst, that happened before Kavanaugh was seated.
There were no dissents… Are you banking that it was close?
What are you talking about? Of course there was no dissent, that isn’t how declining to hear a case works, they don’t issue rulings with dissents when they decline to hear one. Four of them must vote to hear it. A justice much more likely to hear one just replaced Kennedy so we’ll see how it goes next time.
Weird… Then why does this opinion denying the petition for a writ of certiorari for Friedman v. Highland Park have a dissent by Thomas?
Any reading of Heller should include Scalia’s observation “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. . . The right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose”.
The certainly indicates that bans on particular types of weapon would be allowed within the scope of the Heller decision.
I am not predicting how the present court will act… as It has adopted an extremely activist stance towards prior precedent… .I am just warning against assuming that Heller provided a blanket basis for eliminating restrictions on classes of weapons.
2 Likes
Sometimes but if I am not mistaken this one was turned down with no comment, as are most.
Yeah well try not to ignore the rest of what he said, that it is not unlimited in scope does not mean any and every limitation is constitutional. Here he is in a later case joining a Thomas dissent giving a pretty good indication on how he felt about “assault weapon” bans, thanks for the link BlueTex.
from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE SCALIA joins,dissenting from the denial of certiorari. “[O]ur central holding in” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), was “that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawfulpurposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 780 (2010) (plurality opinion). And in McDonald, we recognized that the Sec-ond Amendment applies fully against the States as well asthe Federal Government. Id., at 750; id., at 805 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Despite these holdings, several Courts of Appeals—including the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit inthe decision below—have upheld categorical bans onfirearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes. See 784 F. 3d 406, 410–412 (2015).Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court’s attention as much as anyof our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case.
So it would appear to me that trying to twist what he said to mean he was referring to “assault weapon” bans is a non-starter. You can’t read that dissent and pretend he did.
There are dissents at time. Thomas and Goresuch dissented on Peruta.
I was not twisting what Scalia said… I was reporting that he said quite clearly that Heller did not intend to prevent any restrictions on types of weapons.
Personally, I oppose the push to ban assault weapons as the data show that such laws have no measurable impact on gun deaths. The assault weapon ban will make some people feel good, but simply defray energy from pursing more meaningful solutions.
No, they don’t.
What would reduce it?
Shall not be infringed…
