Ot: Pew Pew Pew

[ryan roopnarine]

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.


i can't get the supreme court camera blog dealie to work, or i'd put a link up to it, but i didn't think that the would rule this way.

[whiskychaser]

I understood some states banned you from carrying a handgun full stop. I assume your constitution takes precedence. So does this mean they will now have to change the 'local' laws so everybody can carry one? Plse excuse my ignorance as an outsider and my question if it is not appropriate to this forum

[ryan roopnarine]

"Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the majority stressed that the Court was not casting doubt on long-standing bans on gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, or laws barring guns from schools or government buildings, or laws putting conditions on gun sales."


this doesn't affect anyone's ability to carry around guns, on its face. in this instance, the city of washington, D.C. has had a defacto gun ban for about 25 years--IE you could have one in your home only if you had it in the city before the ban went into effect, and it had to be disassembled. the city manager has had prepared gun registration provisions for a few months in the event that this had happened. likely, they will require registration of firearms, not require disassebly, and prescribe some limit to the number of guns in a household (likely 1).

what i figure will happen now, since this a rather significant affirmation of the 2nd amendment, that people in other localities will begin to attempt to chip away at restrictions against actually carrying firearms, bans in other cities (nyc, cook county, ill, honolulu) using litigation.

[yaofeng]

The 2nd amendment needs no affirmation. It is there. But carrying and possession are two different issues. I for one do not want to see restrictions against carrying firearms lifted and I don't think it will be. I can't imagine walking around the street as if living in a western movie and I will not accept it.

[ryan roopnarine]

f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264-265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes....

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have
to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller
permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary
military equipment" could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a
startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that
the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns
(not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional,
machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must
be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily
when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were
expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves
and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of
men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful
purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary
war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen
and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614
P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and
Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)).
Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second

[yaofeng]

Are you a lawyer? Sorry my literacy is not sufficient to comprehend court documents.

[Tiger]

Damn Ryan, what kind of gun is that? Hey, you live in FL... as long as the gun is not in plain view, you got nothing to worry about as long you have the concealed gun permit. Did you know that the concealed gun permit also allows you to cary them in other states (even though those states does not have such permit)?

Of course, that doesn't allow you to carry one into court, bank and other restricted sites.

[ryan roopnarine]

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

right from the horse's mouth. i'm thinking that the site is being hammered, as i can't open it. it is 130 pages plus, I stopped reading it around 20-30 or so. the miller bit comes from being interested the ramifications on miller, (so i searched for those) after i gave up reading it. i had prior knowledge about this because in may i was asked to "defend" something i was in opposition to (in this case, gun control) and became very familiar with heller and washington dc's gun laws. washington dc's gun ban was held in place by the gun control act of 1968 and the miller v. us findings from ~1934. even though it is wikiepedia, this is a good overview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distric...mbia_v._Heller


what is "miller"? miller is a supreme court finding from the 1930s. "miller" in this case was charged using laws related to short barreled shotguns and rifles. though miller died before the outcome, the supreme court found that since a short barreled shotgun was not an item that was traditionally yielded by militia (2nd amendment ) because it was disallowed by the hague conventions of 1896 or 8. therefore, miller, not having a militia implement, could be prosecuted by laws that didn't apply to regular firearms. furthermore, it establishes extraordinary rules could be applied to certain types of firearms without infringing upon one's 2d amendment rights. i hope i've explained that ok. the hk trigger group i posted after i heard antonin scalia's bit about miller--just brought about by a recollection. a friend's father (who served in vietnam in the mid/late 60s) told me about how some detroit residents would have their families send them semi-automatic ar15/m16 fire groups in the mail and they would send back the full auto units out of their military issue rifles. detroit was going through a great deal of turmoil and rioting at the time. federal laws are so nasty now that you wouldn't even dream of doing something like that if you could pull it off.

tiger, that part is the fire control group from an hk firearm family. it fits into any hk rifle or submachine gun that resembles a mp-5 (g3, mp5, hk93). i was going to build a g3 clone rifle out of parts because i would like to get accurate up to 500 or 600m, but found that those weapons, while well built, don't make it out as far as the fal. the smle and the sks i have won't do those distances. i could put that onto a rifle, but i would have to weld a little metal shelf into the receiver of the rifle that would prevent it from going full auto. so while it says it has the fun switch....all show and no go. the only two autoloading rifles i've found that supposedly do that distance are the fal and the m14/m1a rifles. i sure as hell can't afford the m14, and fal parts are plentiful enough that i can collect all of the parts piecemeal until i'm ready to weld, without fear that sources for them might dry up. i don't really carry anywhere, but am already familiar with florida's liberal carry laws.

[whiskychaser]

Are you a lawyer? Sorry my literacy is not sufficient to comprehend court documents.

Mine is. I can see the argument for somebody missing a comma in your 2nd amendment for a start Your laws seem to run something like this:
You can have a firearm. But:
You can/cant carry it around with you.
It does/doesnt have to be in plain view.
It does/doesnt have to be registered.
It may/may not need to be disassembled.
It may/may not be a machine gun (year of build 1939 only)
It may/may not be taken into states where they ban guns even if your doesnt
Perhaps it all depends if there is an 'r' in the month.
Thats clear enough for anybody. Isnt it?

[ryan roopnarine]

Mine is. I can see the argument for somebody missing a comma in your 2nd amendment for a start Your laws seem to run something like this:

Perhaps it all depends if there is an 'r' in the month.
Thats clear enough for anybody. Isnt it?

the comma-less version of that amendment appears all over the place on 1770s period correspondence and drafts. it isn't an intellectually honest place to start for gun control people. a better place would have been the psuedo-registration of militia implements (ie, private firearms that people said they would use if called up).

You can have a firearm. But:
You can/cant carry it around with you.
It does/doesnt have to be in plain view.
It does/doesnt have to be registered.
It may not need to be disassembled. (this ruling pretty much pre-empts this)
It may/may not be a machine gun (year of build 05/1986 or earlier, unless one is law enforcement or military buying the item for official business)
It may not be taken into states where they require registration for residents even if your doesnt. (IIRC, nyc will let you drive through if you stop for absolutely nothing whilst in the city)
Same prohibitions about things like hollow point bullets, metal cored rifle ammo, incin. ammo, "assault rifles", .50 cal rifles, (just because your state allows it doesn't mean others have to). i only found out about the hollow point bullet thing in NJ because they covered it in an episode of the sopranos. hopefully that clears things up a little.