When and where will you draw the line?

[glockman19]

SCOTUS has yet to say that ARs are protected, and Scalia wrote in Heller:

( https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html )



The reality is that we are just starting 2nd amendment jurisprudence, that SCOTUS picks matter greatly, and it's probably going to take 20-50 years to get the basics fleshed out. SCOTUS never has moved quickly.

-- Michael

I posted the next paragraph of Scalia's decision above...IT CLEARLY acknowledges the AR style rifle as covered under the 2A under both the prefatory clause and second.

[FireCloud9]

Well, then perhaps in five years, after only registering a couple thousand, maybe they will decide to just tax them per year at $500 per rifle per year. Sort of like car registration.

That would be some serious coin.

You can rest assured that at some point in the future, they will be taxed and can guarantee that those taxes and fees will rise over time.

That's government 101. Take something that's legal but not being taxed, make it illegal, control it by force of law until government can no longer control it, and then welcome it with open arms into legal use with taxation of course.

If they were just to tax it outright it'd cause an uproar, but by taking it away and then giving it back with taxes, people are just happy to have it back.

Quite frankly, coming from NYC, I was surprised that California didn't already charge on an ongoing basis for having a permit like NY does. They reach into your wallet every 2-3 years and those fees just keep increasing. I'm sure it's over $200 by now.

[elSquid]

I posted the next paragraph of Scalia's decision above...IT CLEARLY acknowledges the AR style rifle as covered under the 2A under both the prefatory clause and second.

The next two paragraphs:



It doesn't say that ARs are protected. <shrug>

The point of Heller was to:

"[We] consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

And that's what was ruled on. SCOTUS normally only addresses the issue(s) brought before it.

-- Michael

[glockman19]

The next two paragraphs:

It may be objected that But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

It doesn't say that ARs are protected. <shrug>

The point of Heller was to:

"[We] consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

And that's what was ruled on. SCOTUS normally only addresses the issue(s) brought before it.

-- Michael

What do you think the bolded underlined means?

[tophatjones]

Californians do know their rights, and did exercise them.

November 8, 2016 - when they exercised their voting rights to say that gun owners are bad.

A.W.D.

When it comes to civil rights, no amount of votes should nullify them, assuming this is still a free country. Can segregated schools return with enough votes? How about the revocation of women's suffrage? What if the majority votes that certain books should be burned? Self defense both on the micro and macro level is a civil right and cannot be suppressed in any free country. Limitations on the civil right need to be examined under strict scrutiny and the burden of justification is on the party seeking to limit the right.

[elSquid]

What do you think the bolded underlined means?

It means that Scalia doesn't have a problem with machinegun bans. Elsewhere in the text it goes into more detail:

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

-- Michael

[Wiz-of-Awd]

When it comes to civil rights, no amount of votes should nullify them, assuming this is still a free country. Can segregated schools return with enough votes? How about the revocation of women's suffrage? What if the majority votes that certain books should be burned? Self defense both on the micro and macro level is a civil right and cannot be suppressed in any free country. Limitations on the civil right need to be examined under strict scrutiny and the burden of justification is on the party seeking to limit the right.

There's that word again, "should."
One could also technically argue, that if 999 out of 1000 people voted away civil rights pertaining to that group, that yes - the amount of votes should nullify.

Society does indeed set and define its own rule of law, and what it feels is acceptable. It's just that we gun owners are the ones deemed dangerous now. Previously, it was just actual thieves, violent offenders and such.

What if the majority of Californians voted to legalize something that is federally illegal? Should that new allowance stand? Is it really legal?

Unfortunately, the majority has spoken, and CA sees that as evidence of what its majority of citizens want - so it works to appease them.

Really is a government of the people for the people by the people.
We are just not the right people now. We are criminals, and being handled as any other.

A.W.D.

[Devon]

few AW owners have spent much time in jail

I would say that most of us have pretty clean records: to be owning and deliberating on AR AK weapons platforms to begin with. Both from a financial demographic, and the fact that any significant jail time is usually the result of a felony and would be an impediment to owning guns later. All my friends (and I have plenty) that have spent real jail time, cannot go near a gun with a 10 foot pole. Can't even legally come in my house because fire arms and related stuff lying around.

So, in conclusion, advocating breaking serious gun laws is funny because most of us don't know what risk we are really taking.

[FLAWLS1]

I would say that most of us have pretty clean records: to be owning and deliberating on AR AK weapons platforms to begin with. Both from a financial demographic, and the fact that any significant jail time is usually the result of a felony and would be an impediment to owning guns later. All my friends (and I have plenty) that have spent real jail time, cannot go near a gun with a 10 foot pole. Can't even legally come in my house because fire arms and related stuff lying around.

So, in conclusion, advocating breaking serious gun laws is funny because most of us don't know what risk we are really taking.

I agree with you, but what are we to do when they are constantly chipping at our right? We lose in court and then just say "well let's roll over again"? Unless there's non compliance then I don't see anything stopping them, but everyone is free to do as they wish, until you don't.

[aaronisx]

I don't live in California. I refuse to even vacation there or take a flight that lays over there. But if I had the misfortune to live there and I was going rebel I'd immediately go buy standard capacity magazines and throw away all weakened capacity mags. Then I'd pick my banned favorite gun that I've been wanting and buy it from an individual across state lines. I'd then CC regardless of permit.
I'd then live my life because I don't live in fear of the anti-2a patrol because it doesn't exist.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Wiz-of-Awd]

I don't live in California. I refuse to even vacation there or take a flight that lays over there. But if I had the misfortune to live there and I was going rebel I'd immediately go buy standard capacity magazines and throw away all weakened capacity mags. Then I'd pick my banned favorite gun that I've been wanting and buy it from an individual across state lines. I'd then CC regardless of permit.
I'd then live my life because I don't live in fear of the anti-2a patrol because it doesn't exist.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

A.W.D.

[aaronisx]

A.W.D.

Well I'm not the ***** complaining and posting memes.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[Wiz-of-Awd]

Well I'm not the ***** complaining and posting memes.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

LOL

Right, you're just the guy openly describing committing firearms felonies.

A.W.D.