Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: SCOTUS just killed a favorite liberal argument against the 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Team GunsNetwork PLATINUM 10/2012 rci2950's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    under your bed
    Posts
    4,720

    SCOTUS just killed a favorite liberal argument against the 2nd Amendment

    http://personalliberty.com/scotus-ju...2nd-amendment/

    In a hasty move this week, the Supreme Court gutted liberal arguments that the 2nd Amendment was only intended to protect the American right to bear primitive firearms like the muskets in common use at the time of its writing.

    The case came after Jaime Caetano, a homeless woman with an abusive ex-boyfriend, was arrested for defending herself from the abuser with a stun gun after police failed to keep him away pursuant to the multiple restraining orders she had filed against the man. Prosecutors charged that Caetano had broken the law by defending herself with the stun gun because the devices were illegal under Massachusetts law and not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

    The Supreme Court cited Heller earlier this week as it unanimously overturned a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in the case which maintained that stun guns are not protected as self-defense weapons under the 2nd Amendment because they “were not in common use” when the Bill of Rights was composed.

    That, as you know, is also a common refrain from anti-2nd Amendment Americans who don’t believe law abiding citizens should have access to semi-automatic firearms and high capacity magazines.

    Here’s what the Supreme Court had to say about the lower court decision:

    The Court has held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller… and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago… In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”
    In Heller, the Supreme Court cemented the right of the individual to keep firearms in the home for self-defense without interference from government regulatory schemes aimed at making gun ownership impossible.

    The later McDonald case cleared up some confusion left after the Heller ruling, with the Supreme Court deciding that state and local governments must adhere to the same 2nd Amendment standards as the federal government.

    The Supreme Court declined to take on the case at the federal level, instead sending it back to the lower court demanding “further proceedings not inconsistent” with the SCOTUS opinion.

    Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas chided the Massachusetts court and said if the courts aren’t willing to protect Americans’ self-defense rights, no one will.

    “If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe,” they noted.

    Gun rights advocates applauded the Supreme Court’s position on the stun gun issue in Massachusetts.

    Alan Gottlieb, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement. “Just because something didn’t exist at the time the Constitution was ratified doesn’t mean it isn’t protected. By that same reasoning, no modern newspaper, online publication, or broadcast media would be protected by the First Amendment in the Bay State, and we all know that’s nonsense.”

    Still, the Supreme Court’s decision to send the stun gun case back to the Massachusetts court rather than clearing up what lower courts continue to get wrong about its rulings in cases like Heller and McDonald leaves plenty of room for uncertainty about how it may handle future 2nd Amendment challenges.
    Gunsnet member since 2002
    Salt Water Cowboy - Dolphin 38

  2. #2
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    Pretty sad when people in power in the land of the "free" home of the "brave" believe like the British that we kicked out, that people do not have the right to self defense. Glad our top court keeps reaffirming the obvious.

    When people ask me why I am constantly armed, I tell them it is because I cannot carry a police officer with me at all times. You should see the look on their face!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Aggressive Perfector's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,790
    So... Shouldn't SBR's, MG's, and suppressed firearms fall under that blanket?
    "Never take pity on a blind man. He may not be able to see, but he saves a fortune by getting the butt ugly hookers".

  4. #4
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggressive Perfector View Post
    So... Shouldn't SBR's, MG's, and suppressed firearms fall under that blanket?
    And now you see why I keep complaining about the AT and unconstitutional F. It does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms with long guns that have a minimum length of 26 inches, rifles with barrels no shorter than 16 inches, shotguns with barrels no shorter than 18 inches, fires no more than one round per trigger pull and no muzzle device that reduces sound levels, and imported long guns with no more than 10 imported parts, shall not be infringed." But that unfortunately is the new ATF second amendment.

  5. #5
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    harms way
    Posts
    17,741
    Quote Originally Posted by Aggressive Perfector View Post
    So... Shouldn't SBR's, MG's, and suppressed firearms fall under that blanket?
    They ruled short shottys are not protected by the US Constitution as they aren't in use by US mil forces, so it would have precedent that if the US mil uses it it's 2nd amendment approved.
    "And how we burned in the camps later thinking, what would things have been like, if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain, whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

  6. #6
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    Actually short shotguns were used by the military in the War to End All Wars. They were known as Trench Guns. Unfortunately when a moonshiner got caught with a shotgun with a barrel shorter than the ATF second amendment, he and his lawyer mysteriously failed to show up for the hearing, and although others like his were used by the military, the wonderfully honest ATF used his serial number as proof that his specific shotgun was not. And the supreme court agreed!

    Was that Miller? I don't remember. All I know is the supreme law of the land is very specific in the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There was no specific type of "arm" which means anything should be legal.

  7. #7
    Team GunsNet Platinum 02/2014 Hatedbysheeple's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    714
    In modern times short barreled shotguns are used, but mainly as a breaching tool, not so much as an offensive weapon even though it does that well. SBR's, suppressors, and MG's are in regular use though. I often am carrying all three at once. A Suppressed, select fire (safe/semi/full), 10inch upper m4, is my issued weapon.
    Initial Success or Total Failure

  8. #8
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    12,280
    I believe that it was Justice Scalia in his opinion in Heller V District of Columbia who stated that using the first part of the second amendment would mean that we the people should have the same weapons available to any militia, and that the current weapon, the M16 would fall into the category of the type of weapon that we the people should be proficient in and should be able to keep in our home.

    Taking his position to it's logical conclusion, which mirrors that of our founders, is that we the people are the militia and that no weapon should be illegal.

  9. #9
    Team GunsNet Silver 07/2012 Hobe Sound AK's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Hobe Sound, Fla.
    Posts
    2,196

    Question

    How Long were the Barrels on the Winchester M-1897 and M-12 Trench Shotguns of WW1? I recall getting to shoot a M-12 at Ft. Carson in 1977.
    Honored Nephew, of RM2. Robert E. Truitt, CA-35, U.S.S. Indianapolis, 30-July, 1945.

    In Loving Memory of CW4. Paul E. Truitt 22-September, 1929, 23-February, 2018.

    In Loving Memory of Montell W. Truitt 8 March, 1933, 3 June, 2021

  10. #10
    Team GunsNet Platinum 02/2014 Hatedbysheeple's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    714
    Quote Originally Posted by Hobe Sound AK View Post
    How Long were the Barrels on the Winchester M-1897 and M-12 Trench Shotguns of WW1? I recall getting to shoot a M-12 at Ft. Carson in 1977.
    The 1897, 1912, and Ithaca 37 all had 20in barrels, so none of them were short barreled shotguns. Modern combat shotguns have between an 18 and 20 inch barrel, I believe except for some full auto shotguns in testing all issued combat shotguns are sold on the civilian market. Only the breaching shotguns with cut down barrels and reduced magazine capacity would be considered nfa items.
    Initial Success or Total Failure

  11. #11
    Senior Member Aggressive Perfector's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,790
    Quote Originally Posted by imanaknut View Post
    And now you see why I keep complaining about the AT and unconstitutional F. It does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms with long guns that have a minimum length of 26 inches, rifles with barrels no shorter than 16 inches, shotguns with barrels no shorter than 18 inches, fires no more than one round per trigger pull and no muzzle device that reduces sound levels, and imported long guns with no more than 10 imported parts, shall not be infringed." But that unfortunately is the new ATF second amendment.
    I've never really not understood. You are 100% right, I'm just aghast at how some of the SCOTUS decisions haven't been used to strike down these unconstitutional laws yet.
    "Never take pity on a blind man. He may not be able to see, but he saves a fortune by getting the butt ugly hookers".

  12. #12
    Senior Member NAPOTS's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    3,750
    And this is without scalia. It sounds like he made an impression on the other justices

  13. #13
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Wreckless driving on dirty back roads
    Posts
    8,959
    what was the vote?

    The Supreme Court cited Heller earlier this week as it unanimously overturned a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling
    Last edited by l921428x; 03-24-2016 at 09:27 PM.
    While no one ever listens to me,
    I am constantly being told to be quiet.

    In a world of snowflakes,
    be the heat..

  14. #14
    Team Gunsnet Platinum 06/2016 ltorlo64's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Back in the Pacific Northwest!
    Posts
    8,174
    Quote Originally Posted by l921428x View Post
    what was the vote?

    The Supreme Court cited Heller earlier this week as it unanimously overturned a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling
    I believe the OP is about the decision you are remembering.
    "Nothing ever gets so bad that government "help" can't make it worse." Pat Garrett, March 22, 2014

    "HATE IS GOOD, WHEN ITS DIRECTED AT EVIL." PROBASCO, April 20, 2012

    I tried to push the envelope, but found that it was stationery.

    Have you heard about the new corduroy pillows? They're making head lines!

    NRA Endowment Member

  15. #15
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,842
    Until they get one more on the court, then it will be a different story.......Comeon gunowners you can trust us now, even though 4 of us found no individual right in Mcdonald or Heller.

  16. #16
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    8,842
    Like I thought, I was listening to Cam on XM radio last night and he had a great guest on evaluating the "turn of events". Fact is they punted. They didn't rule on the case, they kicked it back to the state to formulate some weasel actions. The 4 also deny cert for several cases involving " assault weapon" bans. THEY ARE PUNTING UNTIL THEY HAVE 5. Libtards have a goal.

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
  •