Caetano v. Massachusetts

Author: TheDredPriateRoberts ,

Posts

Total: 8
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
why I never came across this until recently, I have no idea.
Does this seem to put the kibosh on any ak/ar bans?

There are cases still pending because of the fascist state of NY attempt to destroy the 2a, but that's nothing new.
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 969
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
There's been no legal danger to your guns ever since the Heller decision and there won't be any danger until the decision is overturned. The question to banning guns in America comes purely from a moral and sensibility perspective
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,608
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @dustryder
How are people going to commit suicide without handguns? Don't you want their suffering to end?
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @dustryder
so the candidates who say they will ban them are knowingly and willfully going to violate the constitution and supreme court rulings?
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 969
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Not really. It's true that attempts to ban conventional firearms is likely to be a futile effort and that any candidate who is aware of the Heller decision should probably know of this.

However the constitution and supreme court rules have enough wiggle room in their wordings such that it is the right of the lawmakers to argue on the basis of those wiggle rooms.




Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 10,608
3
3
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
3
8
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
I am pretty sure when they get into office that they will promise to appoint judges to reinterpret the constitution.
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,360
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
--> @dustryder
However the constitution and supreme court rules have enough wiggle room in their wordings such that it is the right of the lawmakers to argue on the basis of those wiggle rooms.

I guess that is what I was actually wondering, you just said it better than I did, do you think there's still wiggle room given this case/ruling?

"the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 969
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Of course there is

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 Court’s 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. Miller’s 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.