What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Schools are drug free zones. Makes no difference that drugs are illegal. Drugs are on school grounds every day.
Schools are gun free zones. Guns are not illegal, but you will rarely find a gun on school grounds.

These laws don't mean chit. Seems pretty simple to me...

You catch someone on school grounds with drugs and you arrest him.
You catch a someone on school grounds carrying a gun with intent to harm, you shoot the mutha fukka, then you arrest him.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

dxmnkd316 said:
Someone needs to re-read DC v. Heller and US v. Miller
Click to expand...

You probably don't want to throw Miller in there...

U.S. v. Miller said:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument....With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [a state Militia] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Click to expand...

As to what a "militia" is...

id said:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Click to expand...

My emphasis added (in bold).

As for Heller, it will be interesting to see how future cases are shaped by that decision (as it dealt primarily with handguns...not assault rifles).
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
You probably don't want to throw Miller in there...
Click to expand...

From Heller:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Click to expand...

Also:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical traditionof prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Click to expand...

This line makes me wonder if an "assault weapon" ban will be challenged:

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied toself-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on anentire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.
Click to expand...

Being that the AR-15 is one of the most popular weapons in America.
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

dxmnkd316 said:
From Heller:
Click to expand...

Did you read my quotes?

Also, I'm trying to find that quote from Heller. What page is it on?

EDIT: Nevermind, I found it.

I did find this interesting as well...

DC v. Heller said:
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
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

bigblue_dl said:
He asked you what page to find that quote on, I think that is a pretty good indicator that he actually read it....
Click to expand...

FWIW, I edited my post to ask that question...he/she may have not seen the edit until after they posted their response.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Correct. I did not see the edit and I was asking a legitimate question. :)

I did read yours and I posted mine in response.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
I did find this interesting as well...
Click to expand...

Heller is going to make for interesting arguments when the assault weapon ban hits the Supreme Court since the AR-15 is one of the most popular guns in America from what I understand. Being that it's one of the most popular and common guns in America, wouldn't it follow that it should be legal based on the "overwhelming choice for self-defense"?
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

dxmnkd316 said:
Heller is going to make for interesting arguments when the assault weapon ban hits the Supreme Court since the AR-15 is one of the most popular guns in America from what I understand. Being that it's one of the most popular and common guns in America, wouldn't it follow that it should be legal based on the "overwhelming choice for self-defense"?
Click to expand...
I just wish they weren't so **** expensive or I would have bought one for a coyote gun, instead of my Savage. They're excellent coyote guns, but I couldn't justify paying more than a grand (a lot more now) for a coyote gun.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

dxmnkd316 said:
Correct. I did not see the edit and I was asking a legitimate question. :)

I did read yours and I posted mine in response.
Click to expand...

Heller is a really good case for sides like the NRA; however, it is important to point out that it has not really been extended beyond a complete ban on handguns (the DC law from the Heller case).
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

dxmnkd316 said:
Heller is going to make for interesting arguments when the assault weapon ban hits the Supreme Court since the AR-15 is one of the most popular guns in America from what I understand. Being that it's one of the most popular and common guns in America, wouldn't it follow that it should be legal based on the "overwhelming choice for self-defense"?
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that there have been several decisions in the lower courts that have said that assault rifle bans do not violate the 2nd Amendment. Rest assured though, it will likely make its way up to the Supremes.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

bigblue_dl said:
I just wish they weren't so **** expensive or I would have bought one for a coyote gun, instead of my Savage. They're excellent coyote guns, but I couldn't justify paying more than a grand (a lot more now) for a coyote gun.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are a fun gun that is for sure. My wife's cousin and I shoot at old propane canisters up in the mountains with his AR-15.
 
Re: The 2nd Term - Round 1 - Diving for Dollars

Fighting Sioux 23 said:
Heller is a really good case for sides like the NRA; however, it is important to point out that it has not really been extended beyond a complete ban on handguns (the DC law from the Heller case).
Click to expand...

Well, the overturning of the complete ban on handguns had little to do with the fact they were specifically handguns, rather, it was because they were a widely accepted weapon used for self-defense. Or at least that's how I read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top