Supreme Court says Illinois may ban sale of rapid-fire assault weapons for now

archives said:
Pretty obvious you didn’t read your own source, it is anything but a “long history.” The two cases back to back listed prior to the 20th Century were decided at the time when the Court that gave America Plessy vs Ferguson, and the only other case in 1939 confirmed the Second Amendment wasn’t absolute. In addition, none of that reflects the numerous times the Court refused to even hear a case involving the Amendment as with NY’s Sullivan Law

The rest of the listed cases all involve the Roberts Court, particularly Scalia, who with his whacky “Originalism” facade, ignored all precedented law, and decided to rewrite over two hundred years of history. But even Scalia admitted the Amendment was not absolute:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIADISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER, 2008 ”
Click to expand...

I find it amusing that you stick to the theory of the farther past the time of ratification, the better people know the constitution. but that's always been a problem for democrats and republicans. the short sightedness and inability to process factual data.

I also find it amusing that for all the hatred of scalia that the left has, you act like he was a god with the heller decision
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Some? Try full value of the weapon and ammunition confiscated. That's required by law. The cost could be more than the so-called "reparations" California wants to hand out. It could easily reach over a trillion nationally.
Click to expand...

for better or worse, the law in America is whatever the executive branch decides that it is at the moment.
The supreme court doesn't have a police force or an army--all they have are opinions to give.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
for better or worse, the law in America is whatever the executive branch decides that it is at the moment.
The supreme court doesn't have a police force or an army--all they have are opinions to give.
Click to expand...

Its called eminent domain law. It's part of the Fifth Amendment. Private property cannot be taken without equitable and just compensation. The president isn't a dictator even if you seem to want let him be one. So, the government cannot say, We're going to take your $2000 rifle and give you $20 for it. The government would have to pay the full $2000 in value as compensation.

My bet is if some asshole president did try to do that, nobody would willingly turn their firearms in.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Its called eminent domain law. It's part of the Fifth Amendment. Private property cannot be taken without equitable and just compensation. The president isn't a dictator even if you seem to want let him be one. So, the government cannot say, We're going to take your $2000 rifle and give you $20 for it. The government would have to pay the full $2000 in value as compensation.

My bet is if some asshole president did try to do that, nobody would willingly turn their firearms in.
Click to expand...


Civil forfeiture, in which even I don't believe, is somehow legal.
 
guno said:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a 2nd Amendment appeal from gun owners and let stand for now an Illinois law banning the sale of the rapid-fire assault weapons that have been used to carry out mass shootings across the country.

In an unsigned order with no dissents, the justices rejected an emergency appeal that asked them to block a local ordinance and the state ban from taking effect.

While the court's action is not a ruling on the broader constitutional issue, it is a good sign for California and the eight other states that also ban the sale of assault weapons.

Usually, justices would block a new law from taking effect if they believe it is unconstitutional.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/s...B?cvid=c83f5b26bbcd46bea41629eb48c2e69e&ei=31
Click to expand...

Wow. A bit surprising, but it appears SCOTUS is following through with their “States Rights” strategy like they did with abortion. I expect gay marriage will be the same at some point.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
for better or worse, the law in America is whatever the executive branch decides that it is at the moment.
The supreme court doesn't have a police force or an army--all they have are opinions to give.
Click to expand...

The Legislative branch writes the laws…when they decide to work. Presidents can pass Executive Orders but that is as easily overturned as Trump did with Obama’s EOs.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Banning further sales of assault weapons is a very insufficient measure.
The existing ones should be confiscated with Draconian consequences imposed for failure to cooperate.

The tax payers would unfortunately have to bear the burden of funding at least some monetary compensation
but that's our own fault for allowing the distribution of those weapons in the first place.
Click to expand...

The existing ones should be confiscated with Draconian consequences imposed for failure to cooperate.
Click to expand...

No one is wanting to take your guns! Gee the above sure sounds like they do!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I find it amusing that you stick to the theory of the farther past the time of ratification, the better people know the constitution. but that's always been a problem for democrats and republicans. the short sightedness and inability to process factual data.

I also find it amusing that for all the hatred of scalia that the left has, you act like he was a god with the heller decision
Click to expand...

Not “better knowing the Constitution,” but recognizing that the Constitution was written and approved at a time that is light years away from where we are today, it is not a static document, if it were, the Court itself would be nebulous given Judicial Review itself is not in the Constitution

No, he was, and still is, a God to the right, especially the gun huggers
 
SmarterthanYou said:
fine, YOU don't understand the Constitution. not one single word of it. The entire time i've seen you post about it, you've told us that you NEED a government lackey to tell you what it means.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, you are the one needing a “government lackey,” in this case, the SCOTUS, and what you know of it comes from NRA propaganda sites
 
archives said:
Not “better knowing the Constitution,” but recognizing that the Constitution was written and approved at a time that is light years away from where we are today, it is not a static document, if it were, the Court itself would be nebulous given Judicial Review itself is not in the Constitution
Click to expand...
given that the Constitution was written with the intent to LIMIT government so that free people could remain free, it defies any logic that people these days would like to use the Constitution as a tool to limit the people.

FYI, judicial review is a usurped power, not one prescribed to the courts.

archives said:
No, he was, and still is, a God to the right, especially the gun huggers
Click to expand...

and apparently a God to the left with regards to the heller decision and his single line in the decision that you've often quoted.
 
archives said:
Quite the opposite, you are the one needing a “government lackey,” in this case, the SCOTUS, and what you know of it comes from NRA propaganda sites
Click to expand...

amusing, given my absolute hatred of the Negotiate Rights Away association.......and SCOTUS did not write the Constitution, we the people did. Therefore, SCOTUS cannot 'interpret' the Constitution, only decide whether laws written by Congress comport with the restrictions set to them by the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top