One More Massacre

Democracy4Sale wrote: "ex post facto"?....What's that got to do with what I said?

Stand back... The resident Sovereign Citizen wacko is cracking up again...

Try and pay attention SFB - you might actually learn a thing or two. The federal government can't outlaw high capacity magazines that are already in private hands from being held or sold. The limit of their ability might, and I stress the word might, be that they could enact a temporary ban as was done according to cosmetics back in 1994. No one challenged the law because it wasn't permanent and the government wisely decided not to seek an extension of that ban or to invite a constitutional challenge by attempting to make the temporary prohibition a permanent one.

There are 10's of millions of those high capacity magazines in the hands of your fellow citizens SFB. If the magazines were the source of the problem, then there would be millions of these types of massacres occurring each and every year. The incidence of these so called high capacity magazines being used for unlawful purposes is statistically insignificant compared to how many of them are held in the hands and homes of your fellow citizens. Legally owned guns and high capacity magazines are used in less than 5% of the crimes in which a firearm with such a magazine is used. That means that in over 95% of the cases in which a gun equipped with a high capacity magazine is used, the person perpetrating the crime has already broken the law with regards to their use of that weapon and that magazine. Here's a news flash for you SFB - criminals don't care about breaking the laws of the civilized society. In fact, they intend to break those laws in the commission of their crimes - that's what makes their actions against the laws of the society and what makes them criminals.

PrintSmith wrote: What can be "unusual" about the most commonly used magazine for the AR-15 rifle Dog? The 30 round magazine has been the standard magazine for the rifle and its variants (M16, M4 and others) for well over 50 years now. How on earth could you hope to classify the most common magazine for one of the most popular rifles as something that was "unusual"?

If, as you seem to believe, Congress could stop the manufacture and sale of all fully automatic weapons ever made without running afoul of the Constitution, why has that dog yet to bark?

What makes all of your attempts at comparison invalid is the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. There is no amendment that establishes that the right to keep bald eagle feathers or ivory tusks shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment says just that - that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A complete ban on the most common type of individual arm found on the battlefield couldn't be anything other than an infringement of the right to keep and bear that armament. The holding in Miller, which Heller didn't supersede, is that what is protected are the arms "in common use at the time". Note as well that Heller came before McDonald and may, in fact, be altered somewhat as a result of that later decision. The ruling in Heller was that a total ban on handguns by the District of Columbia constituted a violation of the 2nd Amendment. Pray tell us by what form of logic it would be supposed that if a total ban on one kind of arm is unconstitutional, how a total ban on any kind of arm in common use at the time would not also be unconstitutional. The purpose of having arms in common use at the time refers to those common on a battlefield so that an invasion or insurrection could be properly put down. During the time of the founding, that would have been smooth bore muskets, cannon, mortars and the like. After the end of the civil war, that would be a breech loading firearm, today, the type of arm that is most commonly in use is the automatic weapon. If the forces of the Queen of England were to invade today, their common soldier would be equipped with what is the most common type of arm in use by today's armies - a select fire rifle capable of fully automatic operation. It is not an unusual or dangerous weapon - it is in fact the most common of weapons to be found on the modern day battlefield. That we no longer have a formalized citizen militia in no manner detracts from the purpose of the amendment - the right is an individual one, not a collective one.

Mishmash of gobbleygook. As Justice Scalia stated in Heller:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone throughthe 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Scalia even specifically pointed out that M-16 rifles, even though they might be best suited to support the militia, may be banned under the Constitution.

As to the pre ban assault rifles, that was a compromise. The gun control advocates wanted a full ban, the anti gun control advocates wanted no ban. So they split the baby. There simply is nothing constitutionally that would prohibit Congress from enacting a ban on the sale of any assault weapon regardless of the date of manufacture and likewise the sale of high capacity magazines.

PrintSmith wrote:

Democracy4Sale wrote: "ex post facto"?....What's that got to do with what I said?

Stand back... The resident Sovereign Citizen wacko is cracking up again...

Try and pay attention SFB - you might actually learn a thing or two. The federal government can't outlaw high capacity magazines that are already in private hands from being held or sold. The limit of their ability might, and I stress the word might, be that they could enact a temporary ban as was done according to cosmetics back in 1994. No one challenged the law because it wasn't permanent and the government wisely decided not to seek an extension of that ban or to invite a constitutional challenge by attempting to make the temporary prohibition a permanent one.

There are 10's of millions of those high capacity magazines in the hands of your fellow citizens SFB. If the magazines were the source of the problem, then there would be millions of these types of massacres occurring each and every year. The incidence of these so called high capacity magazines being used for unlawful purposes is statistically insignificant compared to how many of them are held in the hands and homes of your fellow citizens. Legally owned guns and high capacity magazines are used in less than 5% of the crimes in which a firearm with such a magazine is used. That means that in over 95% of the cases in which a gun equipped with a high capacity magazine is used, the person perpetrating the crime has already broken the law with regards to their use of that weapon and that magazine. Here's a news flash for you SFB - criminals don't care about breaking the laws of the civilized society. In fact, they intend to break those laws in the commission of their crimes - that's what makes their actions against the laws of the society and what makes them criminals.

Nope, wrong again. Congress may regulate the sale of high capacity magazines regardless of the date of manufacture. There is nothing constitutionally that would prohibit such legislation.

Ever heard of Pre-Ban?

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Ever heard of Pre-Ban?

Ever read the posts above?

May regulate the sale of. They cannot come to your house an confiscate any in your possesion.
I shoot with lawyers. This silly statement comes up alot.
I can probably get the written word but i am sure it's more band width than SC wants here.

Private treaty sales between individuals of existing weapons and accoutrements within a state are not controlled by the federal ban on manufacture and sale.

Nor any that are have or already produced and in the public arena, sold to individuals or associations for the use of those individuals or associations,, da da da.

The debate was on whether Congress could pass such a ban on pre ban weapons and magazines, not whether they had.

I am going to just go back to the OP. It is despicable to draw a line between a nutcase person that just mass murdered and hurt hundreds of people directly and most likely hundreds of people indirectly (families) and thousands /millions indirectly (the city, state, county and world). I am telling you that no person left or right would in their right mind EVER advocate this or want it and it is not their fault.

I am going to go back to Paul Krugman in the NYTimes last September. He was despicable in what he did on that actual anniversary he attacked Bush. No caring about the victims in any way. That is what you are doing here. If you have to use current events before all the facts are known you are taking capitalizing on someone else's pain. This is not the time. The facts are not out and I would like to remind you that if guns were not available he easily could have bombed the place and killed more. So, this argument make no sense.