Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: No-nonsense gun control in the US. It really does exist. [View all]ThoughtCriminal
(14,721 posts)48. D.C. v. Heller did not overturn U.S. v. Miller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
(f) None of the Courts precedents forecloses the Courts interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights 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.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not 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. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
(f) None of the Courts precedents forecloses the Courts interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights 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.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not 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. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
False. Of course, you never know how Scalia and the rest of the crazies will decide to re-interpret
DanTex
Jun 2015
#2
You and Scalia think it's unconstitutional, of course. But there isn't any precedent at the moment
DanTex
Jun 2015
#7
You are echoing Scalia's beliefs on the second amendment. No ulterior motive, just a fact.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#12
No, I'm echoing the Constitution's position on the Second Amendment, that's all
derby378
Jun 2015
#14
No, you are echoing Scalia's opinion on Heller. In fact, you are reading more into Scalia's opinion
DanTex
Jun 2015
#18
The old cannard that "the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the people" will be gone soon enough
derby378
Jun 2015
#21
I'm not aware of that canard. But I agree that the next SCOTUS will have some important decisions
DanTex
Jun 2015
#22
Why should it more difficult for a person in NYC if he is a law abiding person?
theycallmetrinity
Jun 2015
#10
That's a separate question, of course. I brought up NYC as a response to the constitutionality
DanTex
Jun 2015
#13
It shouldn't be easier nor should it be harder if it's being done legally
theycallmetrinity
Jun 2015
#17
"Being done legally" depends on what the laws are. In NYC the laws are very stringent.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#19
We're talking about different laws here. But, yes, New Yorkers are happy with both.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#24
$400 is not prohibitive. Also, people with less means suffer the most from gun violence and
DanTex
Jun 2015
#39
You do realize that the Supreme Court held against individual ownership 4 times...
Sancho
Jun 2015
#54
Well, I didn't say that. Banning isn't necessary. There are plenty of countries where handguns
DanTex
Jun 2015
#8
Not really. A decent gun already costs $300-$500. If you can afford that, you can also afford
DanTex
Jun 2015
#20
Perhaps, and I have no problem with that. The important thing is the tens of thousands of lives
DanTex
Jun 2015
#29
Well, you already need "means" to buy a gun, if "means" means a few hundred dollars.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#34
Manufacture of new automatic weapons is already illegal. So is modifying a semi-auto
DanTex
Jun 2015
#44
Well, if the NRA is as weak and poor as you say, then maybe there is hope after all.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#28
No, I don't think they are poor and weak. I think they are a strong, very effective special
DanTex
Jun 2015
#35
I disagree that all 80 million gun owners side with the NRA, and there is plenty of
DanTex
Jun 2015
#42
That's a good point. I'm not advocating for that. I'm also not advocating a poll tax.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#57
Good. So now we can talk about gun control, which is a necessary public safety measure.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#64
Without gun murders, the US would not be an outlier in terms of homicide rates among wealthy nations
DanTex
Jun 2015
#69
Yes, in addition to NFAing handguns, they should also fix the corporation/LLC loophole.
DanTex
Jun 2015
#55