Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 210111213 LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 126

Thread: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen

  1. #111

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet View Post
    Please educate yourself by reading the Heller decision. I’ll make it super easy for you by bolding the most relative parts of the prefatory clause defining a well-regulated militia.

    a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into com* panies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Feder* alist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).
    Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the mili* tia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congression* ally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12.
    Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assump* tion that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners iden* tify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Con* gress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the re* spective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able- bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.
    Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
    Nice, your entire argument falls to an improper citation of a Supreme Court that actually ruled that the Constitution did not guarantee the specific right to own a shotgun with a barrel 18" in length and so overturned the lower courts ruling the indictment was a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

    I'm quite frankly amazed you cherry picked some of their cited pre-Constitution review of Virginia colonial statute to try and convince the board the Supreme Court didn't in fact rule there wasn't a 2nd Amendment right to bear specific arms.

    The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

    1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.

    2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

    The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
    Last edited by Seran; 11-21-2022 at 06:02 PM.

  2. #112

    Default

    I just wanna know, did the Flordia guy leave his truck unlocked? how did he go get the gun, did he have the buttons on the door? Who would leave their car unlocked in a bar parking lot. With a gun in it at that.
    Last edited by Realk; 11-21-2022 at 06:22 PM.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rubble of the fifth wall.
    Posts
    17,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Realk View Post
    I just wanna know, did the Flordia guy leave his truck unlocked? how did he go get the gun, did he have the buttons on the door? Who would leave their car unlocked in a bar parking lot. With a gun in it at that.
    I dunno, but this made me try and remember (am failing ) @ trying to find the movie where I think Richard Pryor opens up his trunk and gets a flamethrower from it. Fuck, can't remember shit.

    Alright, you guys have a good day.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anticor
    If you and Jar Jar Binks had a child it would rule the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Burrell
    Wikka wikka my nikka yo yo yo yo: CHECK IT. Tha thang in the thang and bedump bedump da BEBANG knowwhatIsayin?!

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    yo mama
    Posts
    5,331

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seran View Post
    Nice, your entire argument falls to an improper citation of a Supreme Court that actually ruled that the Constitution did not guarantee the specific right to own a shotgun with a barrel 18" in length and so overturned the lower courts ruling the indictment was a violation of the 2nd Amendment.

    I'm quite frankly amazed you cherry picked some of their cited pre-Constitution review of Virginia colonial statute to try and convince the board the Supreme Court didn't in fact rule there wasn't a 2nd Amendment right to bear specific arms.
    You have no idea what you are talking about. Just stop.

    Shotgun with barrel lengths less than 18 inches in length are NFA regulated firearms. It requires a $200 tax stamp to own one, and the ATF records everything about you owning the firearm. We’re not talking about the NFA here.

    That’s an earlier decision US vs Miller 1939 which upheld the NFA that was formed in 1934, but that has absolutely nothing to do with defining a well regulated militia as you just made an argument for. I’d tell you to read DC vs Heller 2008 which goes into excruciating detail of the language and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but you won’t.
    Last edited by Suppressed Poet; 11-21-2022 at 06:55 PM.

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    yo mama
    Posts
    5,331

    Default

    A further dismantle of the common thoughtless argument that firearms are only a right to government regulated armies…

    The second amendment has a prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” and an operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It has been ruled by the SC more than once that the prefatory clause is not a prerequisite to the right granted in the operative clause, but rather an simple explanation as to why the operative clause is a recognized right. So even if you were to disagree on the meaning of “well-regulated militia” in the time and context it was written, the operative clause still stands independent of the prefatory clause.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Isla de Roatan
    Posts
    705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Burrell View Post
    I dunno, but this made me try and remember (am failing ) @ trying to find the movie where I think Richard Pryor opens up his trunk and gets a flamethrower from it. Fuck, can't remember shit.

    Alright, you guys have a good day.
    Was it “Deal of the Century” Mr. Sbee?
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085412/

    Gregory Hines
    Semper superne nitens.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Rubble of the fifth wall.
    Posts
    17,972

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Seizer View Post
    Was it “Deal of the Century” Mr. Sbee?
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085412/

    Gregory Hines
    Ohhh snap. Totally is. Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by Anticor
    If you and Jar Jar Binks had a child it would rule the world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Burrell
    Wikka wikka my nikka yo yo yo yo: CHECK IT. Tha thang in the thang and bedump bedump da BEBANG knowwhatIsayin?!

  8. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet View Post
    You have no idea what you are talking about. Just stop.

    Shotgun with barrel lengths less than 18 inches in length are NFA regulated firearms. It requires a $200 tax stamp to own one, and the ATF records everything about you owning the firearm. We’re not talking about the NFA here.

    That’s an earlier decision US vs Miller 1939 which upheld the NFA that was formed in 1934, but that has absolutely nothing to do with defining a well regulated militia as you just made an argument for. I’d tell you to read DC vs Heller 2008 which goes into excruciating detail of the language and purpose of the 2nd Amendment, but you won’t.
    The ruling upheld that controlling firearms isn't a violation of the 2nd Amendment. ROFL. You're quoting a fraction of the text of a Supreme Court ruling that directly rebuts the point you're trying to make.

    That's like taking the recent abortion ruling and because it mentions babies and a prior ruling in favor of abortion, that the Supreme Court just ruled in favor of states being unable to impede a woman's right to abortion. LOL.

    You can't cite prior caselaw from the Supreme Court proving your point, as outside of this current makeup, prior caselaw to doesn't exist. I'm amazed you think a Supreme Court ruling citing your argument as being insufficient to uphold a 2nd Amendment argument is suddenly proof the argument is now successful.
    Last edited by Seran; 11-21-2022 at 09:16 PM.

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    34,084
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Suppressed Poet View Post
    A further dismantle of the common thoughtless argument that firearms are only a right to government regulated armies…

    The second amendment has a prefatory clause “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” and an operative clause “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It has been ruled by the SC more than once that the prefatory clause is not a prerequisite to the right granted in the operative clause, but rather an simple explanation as to why the operative clause is a recognized right. So even if you were to disagree on the meaning of “well-regulated militia” in the time and context it was written, the operative clause still stands independent of the prefatory clause.
    He has been told this numerous times. He has been shown literal SC cases. He continues on with his bullshit because he either can't read, comprehend what he reads, or is a massive troll and he enjoys spewing shit. This is why he enjoys eating poop.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  10. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    All that already exists.
    This is correct.

    You enjoy eating poop.
    This is even more correct.
    Discord: 3PiecesOfToast
    [Private]-GSIV:Nyatherra: "Until this moment i forgot that i changed your name to Biff Muffbanger on Lnet"
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman. I'm diagnosed with cancer. I'm a human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    So here's the deal- I am just horrible



Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •