Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: Where in Heller does one find that "Reasonable Restrictions" are allowable?

  1. #1
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,421

    Where in Heller does one find that "Reasonable Restrictions" are allowable?

    I cannot find it. I did find this:
    There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S. ___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose. Before turning to limitations upon the individual right, however, we must determine whether the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment comports with our interpretation of the operative clause.
    and this:
    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
    And find this part to be very interesting:
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. 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.
    We are fast losing the narrative on what Heller said. We need to take it back!

  2. #2
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    No where in the Court opinion are the words "reasonable" and "restictions" paired together as one idea.

    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  3. #3
    Team GunsNet Silver 03/2014 sevlex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    CO
    Posts
    4,462
    There is also this:

    http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content...06/07-2901.pdf

    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 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.
    Pp. 54–56.
    Telling the truth is treason in an empire of lies.

    WWG1WGA

    Nothing good ever comes from a pinched sphincter

  4. #4
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2012 Warthogg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,648





    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
    Yup....not absolute.



    Wart
    "Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit,
    occidentis telum _est"

    "A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands"
    Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)

  5. #5
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Warthogg View Post
    Yup....not absolute.



    Wart
    But what the 2nd applies to...it applies absolutely.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  6. #6
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by sevlex View Post

    Yeah, I saw that in the summary but didn't include it as it referenced the excerpts I posted. It still goes to the heart of my point. The MSM has taken the "reasonable restriction" meme and run with it. They've done this despite the fact that that phrase is NOWHERE in the SCOTUS decision. AND to add insult to injury they refuse to look at the parts that call out AR type rifles as being protected.

    It's all very frustrating.

  7. #7
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    Yeah, I saw that in the summary but didn't include it as it referenced the excerpts I posted. It still goes to the heart of my point. The MSM has taken the "reasonable restriction" meme and run with it. They've done this despite the fact that that phrase is NOWHERE in the SCOTUS decision. AND to add insult to injury they refuse to look at the parts that call out AR type rifles as being protected.

    It's all very frustrating.
    The politicians always talk about "hunters rights".

    If you look at the wording of the Second Amendment - "hunting" and "sporting" firearms are the ones NOT "protected".

    If the Second Amendment means what it says, then an M16/M4/any military small arm is protected, while Elmer Fudd's "duck hunting gun" is not.

    Oh and be careful using the phrase "AR type rifle". WE know you mean "AR-15 pattern" rifle, but a disturbingly large number of gun owners (Fudds I suspect) lately are using the term "AR" to mean "Assault Rifle".

    Some of them even claim that the "AR" in AR-15 means "Assault Rifle"!!! (Guess they never heard of the ARmalite division of Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Company).
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  8. #8
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    19,019
    It's interesting how some governors and local politcians tend to, totally, ignore the SCOTUS rulings and act with impunity towards their goal of disarming their constituent citizens.

    I guess the only way for any citizen to respond to this is to get arrested and then sue the state/municipality and carry it all the way to SCOTUS. Even then, the state/municipality can drag their feet "complying" with the ruling, just as DC is doing.

  9. #9
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by alismith View Post
    It's interesting how some governors and local politcians tend to, totally, ignore the SCOTUS rulings and act with impunity towards their goal of disarming their constituent citizens.

    I guess the only way for any citizen to respond to this is to get arrested and then sue the state/municipality and carry it all the way to SCOTUS. Even then, the state/municipality can drag their feet "complying" with the ruling, just as DC is doing.
    In New York, already sheriffs and county clerks are stating, in writing (via written resolutions) that they do not agree with the new law and do not intend to comply with it or enforce it.

    The only people supporting it are the little blue infected city areas of NY. The rest are telling governor Cuomo to go fuck himself.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  10. #10
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    We are fast losing the narrative on what Heller said. We need to take it back!
    We aren't "losing" a damned thing. Supreme court decision is precedent. It doesn't matter what the MSM says or thinks.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  11. #11
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Western Oregon
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Krupski View Post
    It doesn't matter what the MSM says or thinks.
    And THERE is where you and those who think like you are incorrect. If you REALLY dont' believe it matters what the MSM says or thinks, just sit back, drink some more Kool-Aid, and wait.
    Why the HELL do you think people spend so much time going over what the MSM says or thinks?
    The gun-toting practitioner of the Middle Path.

  12. #12
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by AK again View Post
    And THERE is where you and those who think like you are incorrect. If you REALLY dont' believe it matters what the MSM says or thinks, just sit back, drink some more Kool-Aid, and wait.
    Why the HELL do you think people spend so much time going over what the MSM says or thinks?
    Do you really think that a talking head from CNN influences a SCOTUS judge? If so, they aren't qualified to BE a judge.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  13. #13
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2012 Warthogg's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,648
    Quote Originally Posted by N/A View Post
    But what the 2nd applies to...it applies absolutely.
    Yes BUT.........does a single shot .410 shotgun satisfy the Second Amendment requirements ?? There are many court cases to come before we will know what we we won......and lost.



    Wart
    "Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit,
    occidentis telum _est"

    "A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands"
    Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)

  14. #14
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by Warthogg View Post
    Yes BUT.........does a single shot .410 shotgun satisfy the Second Amendment requirements ??



    Wart
    It satisfies the requirement to not infringe on the "right to keep and bear arms", but it fails miserably on the requirement of "a well organized militia, necessary for the security of a free state".

    We cannot very well defend our Country from any enemy, foreign or domestic, with a single shot shotgun.

    And anyone who thinks rifle armed civilians are "no match for tanks and drones", just look at the Middle East and see what small handfuls of dedicated fighters with little Kalashnikov rifles are doing to the UNITED STATES MILITARY!

    I am not suggesting any hostile actions against our own people (unless they shoot first). My point is that "insurgents" or "guerrilla fighters" with puny rifles can send every enemy soldier ducking for cover and take them out of the fight.

    Think about it... if our little rifles are so hopeless... if we don't stand a chance against a "real" army, then why are the dems and liberals SO AFRAID of our guns?
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  15. #15
    Team GunsNet Silver 12/2011 N/A's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Texas...at the intersection of I-20 and the Korean War Veterans Memorial Higheway
    Posts
    5,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Warthogg View Post
    Yes BUT.........does a single shot .410 shotgun satisfy the Second Amendment requirements ?? There are many court cases to come before we will know what we we won......and lost.



    Wart
    Of course it does...it is an "arm". A Hawk missle battery does not.
    No enemy of America would have ever been killed if they didn't show up to be killed. HDR

  16. #16
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Krupski View Post
    Some of them even claim that the "AR" in AR-15 means "Assault Rifle"!!! (Guess they never heard of the ARmalite division of Fairchild Engine and Aircraft Company).
    I have not seen this yet but I will not doubt you. That is typical of the anti's. Disinformation is the best thing they've got. They just can't speak the truth.

  17. #17
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    For what it's worth, the original AR-15 that was presented to the army, and later became the M16 was in fact select fire. The sad thing is the propaganda machine has tacked on the word "assault" to make the rifle seem more evil. We know better, but the sheep, force fed by the news media don't know.

    "Reasonable restriction" is found, not stated that way somewhere in page 56 - 64 where Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.

    This statement went against what the 5 justices that voted for Heller wanted to hear. Because Heller opened it up, they had to go along with this as "reasonable" even though they believe as we do that the second amendment is a right that shall not be infringed.

  18. #18
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker View Post
    I have not seen this yet but I will not doubt you. That is typical of the anti's. Disinformation is the best thing they've got. They just can't speak the truth.
    It's funny you say "antis" because the first time I saw "AR" to mean "Assault Rifle" was on a GUN BOARD infested with Fudds...
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  19. #19
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    15,653
    Quote Originally Posted by imanaknut View Post
    For what it's worth, the original AR-15 that was presented to the army, and later became the M16 was in fact select fire.
    AR-10 actually. Same thing, but in 7.62 NATO (7.62x51/.308)
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

  20. #20
    Senior Member L1A1Rocker's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    TX Hill Country
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by Krupski View Post
    It's funny you say "antis" because the first time I saw "AR" to mean "Assault Rifle" was on a GUN BOARD infested with Fudds...
    That's a very good example of how the anti's misinformation gets picked up and repeated as true by the ignorant. And of how we can/do loose the narrative if we do not stay vigilant. Of course, most "Fuds" are really anti's anyhow. They're FOR just about any and all anti 2A laws that come down the road because it never hurts their bolt action rifles or over/under shotties.

    You wouldn't happen to have a link to that? (I'm assuming that you did correct the Fud right?)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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