IAlreadyFappedToIt t1_ir7ziu1 wrote
Reply to comment by Spirit117 in Reported Shooting at University of Arizona by OakTeach
Their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not false simply because their example is already rendered moot by law. In fact, the fact that the 1934 NFA act exists actually demonstrates their point for them perfectly that the 2nd Amendment does not exclude the possibility of restrictions. So congrats. You don't even know what you're getting defensive about, you just know that any talk of gun control gets your little hackles raised and you just need to bite something.
Spirit117 t1_ir81zqi wrote
The Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens have a right to own semi automatic weapons including handguns (which cause far more deaths annually than rifles do in the USA) - so the NFA clearly cannot be expanded to include semiautomatic weapons without stepping on this ruling.
No ruling exists that explicitly protects automatic or other "exotic" weapons, which is why the NFA hasn't been thrown out yet.
When people talk about banning automatics, there's really no point as the NFA already exists, and it just shows they are uneducated in a field they want changes made in
. When they talk about banning semi automatics, which is really what they mean when they say they support more gun control, then you have Supreme Court cases that says that is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.
[deleted] t1_ir82pq9 wrote
[removed]
LankyJ t1_iralum0 wrote
We all found out this year that what the Supreme Court has already ruled on is not set in stone.
Spirit117 t1_iraumpr wrote
It's set in stone until another Supreme court ruling overturns it.
There is absolutely zero chance the current court overturns heller vs DC.
pokeybill t1_ir84jy6 wrote
If we can restrict fully auto, we can restrict semi auto or anything else via a law similar to the NFA, period.
The trick is finding a congress willing to step up and pass a similar law. Until then, states will continue to struggle with the gray area left open by the 2a.
Spirit117 t1_ir84qgr wrote
No you can't, because DC already tried and the Supreme Court threw it in the garbage where it belonged in heller vs DC.
That's why congress hasn't tried, because it would be useless political pandering and would be thrown out in the first court case against it. Congress doesn't even care enough about useful political pandering in most cases, so they won't even waste their time here.
The only way to get rid of heller vs DC is to get rid of the 2nd amendment itself which cannot be done by congress.
Even places like California haven't tried a complete ban on anything semi automatic because they know it will not stand, so they've opted for things like magazine and " assault feature" bans.
OptimisticBS t1_ir86p4j wrote
We have recently seen that previous Supreme Court rulings don't mean jack shit if the current court wants to throw it out. A different Court makeup could make Heller as valid as Roe.
pokeybill t1_ir86ghv wrote
I struggle to understand how a Supreme Court decision supercedes an act of congress - the Supreme Court was literally created by an act of congress and can be undone by one as well. The heller decision only stands until an act of congress counters it, which is entirely possible in the future.
Its not political pandering to enact Sane and rational gun control.
Spirit117 t1_ir88mmk wrote
If the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitional, then it's unconstitutional and is thrown out, even if it was a law from congress. Maybe you need to study basic American civics?
It's a major check on the power of the legislative branch, congress cannot just pass whatever the hell they want if it's blatantly unconstitutional else it will be thrown out
If an act of congress goes against heller, someone will sue to block it. It will either be thrown out in a lower court, or it will be appealed. It may end up being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if they choose to hear it. The court will then either throw it out, again, and cite their interpretation of the laws and previous rulings like heller, or they will overturn it, like roe v wade.
It is political pandering to propose laws that your party knows has zero chance of passing, and then even if it does pass, will be in direct violation of a previous ruling that was already tossed out for being unconstitutional.
pokeybill t1_ir88utp wrote
How on earth does the NFA stand? The reasoning in Heller would easily extend to it if any inkling of what you are asserting is true.
Perhaps you misunderstand what an Act is versus a statutory law? Heller was a statutory decision. Acts of congress duly ratified and constitutional amendments are significantly different than statutory law.
Spirit117 t1_ir893j1 wrote
No it doesn't. Heller reaffirmed the right to semi automatics, handguns, and certain long guns and shotguns.
The NFA doesn't apply to literally any of these. It applies to full automatic weapons, destructive devices (grenade launchers, tank guns, etc), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and suppressors.
Heller affirmed none of those, and that's how the NFA has been allowed to stand. For the record, I wish that law would be done away as well, short barreled rifles and suppressors shouldn't be a part of that.
pokeybill t1_ir89hvu wrote
You are citing statue law mixed with acts of congress again. Heller didn't overturn an act, and a Supreme Court decision is not a law - many Supreme Court decisions are overturned when later laws or acts are passed.
Spirit117 t1_ir89pq0 wrote
So what's your point then? You believe if congresses passes an act that outlaws all semi autos, that someone isn't going to sue and the Supreme Court isn't going to toss it in the garbage? They'll probanly even cite heller as a precident for declaring it unconstitutional.
pokeybill t1_ir8b0bg wrote
The Heller decision was a re-writing by the court of all previous interpretations of whether the second amendment conferred a personal right.
A similar decision could completely undo it, because again, its not a codified law - just a decision throwing out a DC statute.
Until an Act of congress defines things more narrowly,we would expect to see statutory laws unduly restricting access for home defense thrown out.
An act of congress could entirely change that, just like the Heller decision threw out all existing precedent.
So yes, a law could be passed and brought before the court which leads to yet another reinterpretation of the 2a and disregard for precedent, including Heller.
A friendly reminder there were dozens of court rulings on the 2a before Heller with far different results, and there will continue to be due to the antiquated and vague wording of the amendment.
[deleted] t1_ir8kvfs wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments