> “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited…”. It is “…not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
what did he mean by this?
Private property?
Like if a property owner doesn't want someone to be armed on their property, they can tell that person to fuck off
>>30507788
not to hand out guns in a prison?
those sorts of things perhaps..
Just to understand, does he mean that the rights are limited whenever they reach a point where they would inherently infringe on another right, and that some weapons are inherently unconstitutional?
He meant that's a fucking retard.
Why are Republicans so upset about this guy dying again?
>>30507800
But does it potentially have any restrictions on personal usage of any kind of weapon? Because my friend made the argument that if a right isn't unlimited, it can be restricted in some way and that is constitutional. I'm guessing the counterargument is that just because it can be restricted doesn't mean it can be restricted for arbitrary crime numbers, but rather cases like your private property one
>>30507826
I think the idea is like what
>>30507804
said.
>it can be restricted in some way and that is constitutional
Shall not be infringed.
>>30507811
Hows the weather in Austin LOL
>>30507842
So, a gun owner has his rights unless he is infringes on another's. Where does this leave restriction on the type of weapons? How do they infringe?
Things like banning people from carrying guns in the Supreme Court would of course be reasonable.
He also said that guns that were bother dangerous and rare could be regulated. It seems from his opinion that that included sawed off shotguns (Miller). Even though I think Miller is incorrect in ruling that sawed off shotguns had no military value, having military value was explitely ruled as what the 2nd Amendment protects. So when dumbasses say that the AR-15 is a military rifle, even though it isn't one, refer them to Miller. Those are the guns that the 2nd protects. Heller affirmed that the 2nd was an individual right and added self defense as a category of arms protected.
>>30507788
Scalia was less concerned with all the bullshit mentioned in this thread and more concerned with interpreting the Constitution through the lens of a reasonable person at the time of it's drafting.
>>30507889
I just don't understand their criteria for banning certain kinds of guns. Can they be used for self defense? If yes, allow them. How did it get complicated?
>>30507901
What fucking interpretation does the second amendment need? It has existed as a natural right for infinite years, what are the things that could be interpreted?
>>30507788
Mostly the decision was written in such a way that Justice Kennedy, often the swing vote on the court, would vote in favor of Heller. Including "reasonable restrictions" got Kennedy to vote with the conservatives on the court.
>>30507906
I am not a lawyer, but I don't think Heller actually says. It does say it can't be a simple balancing test, which means the government can't just say "We have an interest in banning this gun so it is banned". It does specifically say that both dangerous and rare guns can be regulated. It also says that guns that are in common useful for lawful purposes can't be banned. It doesn't actually give a methodology for determining what types of guns can be regulated though.
>>30507942
What does dangerous mean? Aren't all guns dangerous?
>>30507906
I recommend reading Heller yourself. It was eyeopening for me: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
It does give an explanation for why handguns can't be outright banned. Maybe that would be helpful to you.
>>30507949
The "and rare" is important. And I don't know. Common handguns certainly don't count, because that is what Heller ruled against.
>>30507921
I don't know anon, why don't you go look at all the cases SCOTUS has ruled on the involve or affect the 2nd Amendment? Also time is finite so nothing can exists for 'infinite years'.
>>30507951
What do they mean by "in common use" or "use by militia"? Why do they matter? It's the right to bear arms in self defense, where did these arbitrary qualifiers come in? Are they saying a person carrying a rare and dangerous weapon is infringing on the rights of others just by owning it?
>>30507941
This, as well as Scalia's anti-federalist views. I've read his opinion on that case and as I understood it he was referring to the idea that certain states can restrict ownership of certain weapons if that decision was made by state level courts.
I.e. the right to own certain weapons isn't federally protected in states that say otherwise.
It's muddy water; make the second amendment federally controlled, or lend power to the states with a basic protection of firearms.
If you give powers to the federal government to restrict gun ownership it will likely disappear faster than state controlled gun laws.
>>30507973
I don't know. Read Heller and decide for yourself what Scalia meant: >>30507951
>>30507979
I posted because I read it and was confused and didn't understand why the previous concepts he raised even existed
>>30507788
Treason.
>>30507788
It means you don't have a right to commit crimes with the gun, murder with a gun is not constitutionally protected by the 2nd amendment.
Which is the example he tends to use when he says that.
>>30508177
>he tends to use
That should be "tended" now, I suppose.
>>30508179
>SCOTUS Justices will be a play day for Hillary Clinton
I spent my time being mad at Californians for moving here, but it's all useless now.
>what did he mean by this?
He meant you can't keep a nuke in your car "just in case" another nuclear state decides to invade.
>>30508187
I really wish there weren't so many sc seats riding on this election.
rights can be limited if there is a rational basis behind the restriction. For example zoning laws are acceptable if they are backed by some plausible reason for limiting people's right to build what they want on their land. This rational basis test applies to rights generally. For fundamental rights, government action has to pass a heightened test to be constitutional. Freedom of speech for example can be restricted only for a compelling government interest, and if government uses the least restrictive means narrowly tailored to the goal.
>>30508640
>rights can be limited if there is a rational* basis behind the restriction.
*as determined from a liberal mindset(meaning not rational at all)
>>30508648
It's basic constitutional law.
>>30507975
Your post is a great example of why people without legal training shouldn't read court decisions. You learn nothing, waste your time, and became even more ignorant somehow.
>>30507788
Means the wording sucks dick and right to bear arms doesn't specify which or how good
>>30507901
you know how i can tell you've never read a scalia opinion?
the faggot was totally willing to ignore hundreds of years of precedent to rule the way his cronies wanted him to.
>>30507804
I don't see how a weapon could be inherently unconstitutional. I do see how the government could restrict certain guns (imposing safety standards, imposing magazine limits or caliber restrictions, etc). No one would argue the self or national defense advantages of the 17 HMR or the 375 H&H rounds. There could be an argument for restricting those (not that I would support that but just saying they could make an argument for it).
>>30508672
I'd prefer if more people read and formed their own opinions, even if incorrect. Marketplace of ideas, etc, is better than parrots chirping in lockstep.
>>30508815
A weapon can't be inherently unconstitutional. No judge, let alone a supreme court justice, would say something so retarded. The Constitution regulates the relation between the government and the people, as well as setting up how the government works. It decides what laws and regulations are illegal. Whether things and acts are illegal or not, that's for regular laws to decide.
To illustrate, NFA regulates whether certain firearms are allowed or not, and the Constitution regulates whether NFA is legal or not.
>>30508838
People reading and forming "their own opinions" without the proper background necessary to understand the subject is exactly how you get parrots chirping in lockstep.
>>30508720
While I did agree with Scalia's and disagreed strongly with Stevens's readings of the wording of the 2nd, I agree that Stevens was absolutely right that Heller bucked over 100 years of precedent.
I have extreme cognitive dissonance when I think of balancing stare decisis against precedence based on reasoning I find extremely faulty.
>>30507901
Except for every time he went completely against that. Such as in any religious issue ever where he was more concerned with being a good like Catholic first and a "strict constructionist" second.
>>30508853
If that were true in this case, wouldn't we have hordes of anons claiming that Scalia backed the states to preserve the 2nd? Because that's the first I've read that opinion.
>>30508884
>backed the states
This shows that people don't even understand what opinions they should form. Heller was not about states' trying to protect gunrights against the evil federal gubberment. I don't know how anyone can even conceive of such an asinine interpretation but there you go.
>>30507788
the constitution was intended only to restrict the government, not the people. the people retain all other powers not expressly written. why is it that people think that "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means the complete opposite?
>>30507788
The Court upheld restrictions like the prohibition of arms by felons and the mentally ill, and carrying in certain prohibited places like schools and courthouses.
>>30508720
Bullshit, Scalia was the one with legal precedent behind him.
Meanwhile the liberals are the ones blatantly ignoring precedent to push their liberal agendas.
The current court is made up of 4 jews and 4 republicans
>>30508859
What precedent did it overturn?
It's laughable to see these liberal judges claim theres no constitutional right to gun ownership, then turn around and claim theres a constitutional right to gay marriage!
>>30508853
holy shit fucking kill yourself.
Opinions are written in such a way that any competent person can learn from them. We need more people reading them.
>>30507788
He meant that some citizens may have their 2A rights removed. Due process of law has to be involved.
He was also leaving a little wiggle room. SCOTUS has already ruled that 2A rights may be restricted or regulated. They draw the line at a ban.
Apparently restricting and regulating is not the same as infringing.
