Funny how conservatives are directly fighting against the conservative-led, Scalia-penned decision less than 5 years ago....

Justice Scalia’s decision in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller:

'nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.'

The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of 'dangerous and unusual' weapons that are not in 'common use' — like, for example, assault weapons.

*****

The NRA, meanwhile, is acting like the gun 'nuts' that so many gun owners are not.  The extremity of their position on some of these matters is ludicrous.

Meanwhile, newly-elected, Senator Cruz (R-Texas) tries to claim any assault weapon ban is 'unconstitutional'.

Take it up with Scalia, Ted....

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

 

They also refer to military-like weapons.

Nice try!

Liberals want to take the small crack of Scalia's remarks on 'dangerous and unusual' weapons, and drive a bulldozer through it.

By claiming ,

a) 'dangerous and unusual weapons' include 'assault weapons',

and then

b) defining just about all weapons as 'assault weapons'.

Bingo! take away all guns. That was easy.

 

Also, Scalia is listing laws that would be constitutional:
"laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."

Such laws banning guns in "schools" are no doubt constitutional, but in practice may be found to be stupid and counterproductive, and subject to repeal.

This post has been removed.

This post has been removed.

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Well as long as we're airing our colon's contents.....

In response to Newtster's comment:

Whereas conservatives do not waste time by insisting that - as a point so general as to be meaningless - we should "focus[]...on the perps".

Without really suggesting anything to that end.

At least nothing beyond what the same people who are talking about assault weapons have said, which is that it'd be a good idea to have more thorough background checks, in particular ones that might pick up on mental health issues, and to get rid of the "gun show loophole" situation.

 

 

The Scalia decision said, "The right to bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right, unconnected with service in a militia"

You down wit dat?  As it rather ends the discussion.

And BTW, I got no prob wit takin' assault weps off da table, but recall the the very same arg RE: PBA, and "camels nose under the tent".

The very same arg

 

G

In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

Attorney GreginMeffa, you are rather dead wrong.

You're making the same mistake that I see most pro se (unrepresented) defendants make. They take the lines from a case that they happen to like and quote those to the court, while ignoring all the facts of the case, the body of law at issue, and really...well..everything else in the case.

So sure, Scalia wrote what you quoted. He also wrote another forty something pages. You can't just ignore that.

This post has been removed.

The opposition to universal background checks is mystifying.  Even given the tenuous 'right' to own as many guns as you want, the matter of tracking the purchase and sale of guns is utterly in the public interest.

 

 

In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

Except that nobody is saying that, despite the NRA's hysterically paranoid delusions.

It should be a problem that gun owners may wish to keep private what kind and how many guns they might own...much less who uses, buys and sells them without apprpriate licensure.

 

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

How do you do a background check on a criminal with an illegal weapon?

strange how the left is silent on interfering with the rights of illegal gun owners, yet are rolling right over the rights of legal gun owners.

or, put simply, what part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

 

In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

Come on.  Don't talk about Matty's oringal post that way.

'dangerous and unusual' weapons that are not in 'common use'

well all weapons particulary guns are dangerous......unusual and uncommon applied to AR15's???  really??  every time I am at the range I see some law abiding citizen target shooting with an AR.  it's very common and not an unusual weapon....

i fired one last week...it had the dreaded thirty round clip....i shot a tight pattern with iron sights at 100 yards...sweet!!!  nobody died, no crimes were committed....none of the other people at the range have shown up in the local police reports....

first of all with the gun thing.....not just republicans....dems in the senate won't allow a ban to get voted on and they control the senate.  democrats control the white house and senate...republicans have minority influence

secondly...rifles and "assault" rifles....count for very few criminal deaths each year, fewer than by blunt instrument like a hammer....inconvenient truth.

we have a serious people problem in this country....if we go to the root of our poeple problem murders and violent behavior go down....

punishing law abiding gun owners is a feel good reaction by people unwilling to acknowkedge this nation's people problem.....

we absolutley need to require that ALL gun purchases and tranfers be subject to a criminal background check....AND that mentally disturbed people be prohibited from owning firearms.....

funny how we focus on big gulps, guns and trans fats but never on people and their behavior......it's the PC thing....it goes against reason and accountability.....

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Well, if the weapon is indeed illegal, than possession itself is a criminal act, so your first sentence is redundant to a fault.

Conceptually, the only guns we even know about are the legal ones, so your second sentence doesn't make sense.  [If a 'legal gun owner' or 'legal owner of guns' should register as a hunter, then why not register their guns, too...?  No rights are 'infringed' in such a way.]

(Example: We can own more than one car without registering them all, as long as they're titled.  Once they're brought out on the road, however, the public interest is at stake.)

First, figure out which right is being infringed and how, and then maybe your question can be answered.

 

In response to skeeter20's comment:

How do yo know they are legal potential gun owners unless you do the background check?  And there are lots of laws criminalizing the illegal possession of guns.  Lots.  But you don't really care about reality of the situation.  And no right is unlimited in its impact, especially a right that can so readily impact the rights of others.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

Why is it anyones business what kind or how many guns one might own? For law abiding citizens who legally purchase guns, why does it matter what they own or how many they own? For them to legally purchase said guns means those guns are legal to own. 

 

It amazes me how often the left goes to the gun control well, trying to convince us that they need to probe legal gun openers, limit types of guns for our own good, while completely ignoring illegal gun owners.

something tells me this is more about effectively eliminating our rights to protect ourselves than this supposed need for legal gun owners to prove their legality in the face of no probable cause.

This post has been removed.

In response to skeeter20's comment:

Nobody is ignoring illegal gun owners...unless you count the reductions in police at the local level due to lack of public funding.

The 'right to protect ourselves' ultimately precludes owning a gun.  There are laws about how to protect oneself while using a gun.

How else for legal gun owners to prove themselves legal but to check in with law enforcement?  

The very first job of government is to provide public safety.

On that measure alone, the GOP fails America.

Not only does the Republican party prefer that America remain a shooting gallery, they also want to hide the fact that it's a shooting gallery.

That's why the GOP-NRA Congress banned funding for gun violence research by the NIH, CDC and ATF during the last twelve years.

They desperately want people to falsely think guns and ammo don't kill people.

A political party that fosters ignorance and perpetuates a known public safety danger is a clear and present danger to democracy and the United States.

In response to MattyScornD's comment:

How about presumed legal, as the 2namendment indicate?

look, you want your gun control, repeal the 2nd amendment, fair and square, and stop trying to hobble legal gun owners.

if you really wanted to do something about gun violence, you would do a house to house search on the soth chide of Chicago and take every gun found.

but, instead, you turn to make it more difficult for women to defend themselves against rapists, for example.

"That's why the GOP-NRA Congress banned funding for gun violence research by the NIH, CDC and ATF during the last twelve years."

LOL..."Gun violence research"...the softheaded liberal bureaucrats think a bazillion dollar federal grant will solve "gun violence"...like it is a disease.

Putting criminal thugs in jail  prevents gun violence.

In response to UserName99's comment:

Facepalm...