Third Circuit: Law Barring Possession of Unmarked Firearms Constitutional

[vvvvvvv]

The case is United States v. Marzzarella.

Here's a interesting quote:

"...because § 922(k) is designed to regulate the commercial sale of firearms and to prevent possession by a class of presumptively dangerous individuals, it is analogous to several longstanding limitations on the right to bear arms identified as presumptively valid in Heller."

 

[1shot(bob)]

That's a whole lot of presumpting going on there.

 

[LightningCrash]

Interestingly enough, Heller decided that only weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" are covered by their view of the 2A... Does that mean when the FOPA 86 kills off most machine guns and the cartels have more MGs than the citizens, they can ban MGs altogether?

Food for thought...

 

[vvvvvvv]

That's a whole lot of presumpting going on there.

That's been one of my issues with Heller, and my issue with McDonald is that any and all aspects of the Second Amendment are subject to Due Process with restrictions being presumed to be Constitutional.

The slope is getting slipperier. (btw, that passed spell-check)

 

[Glocktogo]

That's a whole lot of presumpting going on there.

I assume you presume to impugn the views of the court?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"...because § 922(k) is designed to regulate the commercial sale of firearms and to prevent possession by a class of presumptively dangerous individuals, it is analogous to several longstanding limitations on the right to bear arms identified as presumptively valid in Heller."

What in the name of all that's holy does a serial number have to do with whether a gun is held by a violent criminal or a law abiding citizen? It's the PERSON who isn't supposed to have the gun, not the specific gun not to be in the hands of a criminal! The CRIMINAL already has a number as do all the rest of us! The criminal's number is on the NICS.(The Second Amendment considered notwithstanding for the sake of discussion.)

Woody

Woody

 

[Werewolf]

Interestingly enough, Heller decided that only weapons "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes" are covered by their view of the 2A... Does that mean when the FOPA 86 kills off most machine guns and the cartels have more MGs than the citizens, they can ban MGs altogether?

Food for thought...

IMO that's exactly what it means.

But the decision is even more insidious than that. It means that clever law makers can ban new types of weapons simply by writing into the ban that the weapon type is not typically possessed by law abiding citizens. Thus a weapon suitable for use in a militia which is the intent of the 2nd, or even a weapon suitable for home defense or hunting, would never become "typically possessed".

 

[SevenSixTwo]

Its so hard to keep a positive attitude with all this crap going on. Every time one of those people on capitol hill opens their mouth, I hear a toilet flushing as we lose a little more liberty. Every time I hear somebody talking politics nowadays I have this little internal monologue that repeats: "We're screwed, we're screwed..." Sorry that I'm not adding anything to this thread, I just needed to vent.

Why is it that a simple reading and interpretation aren't viable for establishing the meaning and spirit of the constitution? Why does everything have to be so bloody complicated? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How hard is that to understand????

 

[vvvvvvv]

Its so hard to keep a positive attitude with all this crap going on. Every time one of those people on capitol hill opens their mouth, I hear a toilet flushing as we lose a little more liberty. Every time I hear somebody talking politics nowadays I have this little internal monologue that repeats: "We're screwed, we're screwed..." Sorry that I'm not adding anything to this thread, I just needed to vent.

Why is it that a simple reading and interpretation aren't viable for establishing the meaning and spirit of the constitution? Why does everything have to be so bloody complicated? The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How hard is that to understand????

Well, the SCOTUS was 8-1 in McDonald that it is just fine to infringe upon our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Four said that there were no protections of that Right in the Constitution, four said there are protections but such protections are subject to Due Process, and one got it right and said that we need to revisit and fix Slaughter-House. The four that said that the Second Amendment is subject to Due Process admitted that Slaughter-House is fundamentally flawed but refused to touch it (presumably to get Justice Kennedy's vote).

 

[MaddSkillz]

It still amazes me how many educated folks on Constitutional law such as supreme court judges can't understand a simple phrase as "shall not be infringed."

I mean, I can't really respect their opinions on these matters due to that.