View Single Post
  #254  
Old 09-07-2019, 02:33 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 42,186
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
By a 5-4 vote along partisan lines and contrary to precedent. You surely can understand how a ruling can be wrong and wrongly arrived at, can't you?

....
What Precedent?

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment
Until 2008 the Supreme Court of the United States had never seriously considered the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment. In its first hearing on the subject, in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment prevented the states from “prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.” More than four decades later, in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), the Supreme Court cited the Second Amendment as enshrining that the duty of individuals “to defend our government against all enemies whenever necessity arises is a fundamental principle of the Constitution” and holding that “the common defense was one of the purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution.” Meanwhile, in United States v. Miller (1939), in a prosecution under the National Firearms Act (1934), the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment by merely holding that the “possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” was not “any part of the ordinary military equipment” protected by the Second Amendment.

Presser v. Illinois the Second Amendment prevented the states from “prohibit[ing] the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security So that's pretty close toHeller.

Do you mean Miller, which wasnt even defended? " the Supreme Court avoided addressing the constitutional scope of the Second Amendment"

So basically SCOTUS in Heller was following the precedent of Presser, however, in reality there had been no significant 2nd Ad cases up until Heller.

And Heller was caused by three cities deciding to push the boundaries are hard as they could by banning all handguns and for most purposes, all guns for home defense. DC, Chicago and to a lesser extent SF are the cause for Heller and rather than not liking "partisan lines" you should blame them for pushing the Supreme Court so hard it had to reluctantly rule on the 2nd.

And Heller is very reasonable. All it does it say you have the right to own a gun for sefl & home defense. It doesnt say you get to own machineguns or mortars or even "assault weapons". It doesnt allow concealed carry or many other things, and it explicitly allows for a whole range of gun control laws.

It was a good ruling and it's not gonna be overturned.

Last edited by DrDeth; 09-07-2019 at 02:34 PM.