So Is There a Right to Bear Glocks?

The Clinton era awb was deemed constitutional at the time. It included restrictions on high capacity mags.

The current court "might" have struck it down. I tend to think they will if a similar case were brought today.


As far as legislation is concerned, remember Columbine? Nothing changed after that, nothing will change after this shooting either.
 
I thought we were a federal constitutional republic
Click to expand...

Yes, the US is all those things, and other things as well. The US can also be described as a "liberal democracy" (i.e., is based on free and fair elections and a competitive political process). Modern liberal democracies are also known as "liberal republics."

These terms only become contentious when people, either through ignorance or deception, misrepresent the meanings of these words - usually, to justify some spurious claim to the supremacy of one or the other of the major political parties on the basis of some supposed correlation between their name and the words used to describe the country. This kind of behavior is silly and does nothing to help us address the kind of issue we are discussing here.
 
Just the dunce in the corner trying to follow along. But when you said we are specifically a Democratic Republic, I got confused all of a sudden cause I was thinking about those huge female weight lifters representing East Germany in the Olympics. Don't mind me...it's a snow day.

These terms only become contentious when people, either through ignorance or deception, misrepresent the meanings of these words
Click to expand...
-
 
The problem is that terms like "democratic," "republic," "socialist" etc. etc. etc. can mean a LOT of different things, which is why you end with these long strings of words that endlessly qualify what you actually mean by using them...

"Liberal" as in "liberal republic" doesn't mean the same thing as when we talk about "liberals," and "socialist" doesn't mean the same thing when you are talking about Nazis as it does when you are talking about Soviet states, or when you are talking about publicly-owned utilities or services, and "republic" doesn't mean the same thing when you are talking about the US as when you are talking about China. It really does get confusing.

So my point was just that we should focus on how things really happen here, and not get lost in an endless political/philosophical debate over whether the US is "really" a democracy or a republic.
 
So my point was just that we should focus on how things really happen here, and not get lost in an endless political/philosophical debate over whether the US is "really" a democracy or a republic.
Click to expand...

Okay, we really don't vote for our President in our republic.
 
The whole "its a republic not a democracy" bit is a rhetorical trick used to divert and stall debate. It has no informational value.
 
Interesting points, but OT for the original questions:

Would the banning of semi automatic pistols be constitutional if revolvers were untouched? Can some arms be banned as long as all are not? How about Hi Cap magazines, would a ban on that pass strict scrutiny...how about intermediate scrutiny?
Click to expand...
 
From the Heller decision:
"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: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
Click to expand...

To me, this would imply that limiting the capacity of magazines could pass constitutional muster, as it is currently interpreted.
 
The whole "its a republic not a democracy" bit is a rhetorical trick used to divert and stall debate. It has no informational value.
Click to expand...

+1

Okay, we really don't vote for our President in our republic.
Click to expand...

Who defines democracy in terms of the direct election of a president? Don't know where you got that from. :confused:
 
this would imply that limiting the capacity of magazines could pass constitutional muster, as it is currently interpreted.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I can't see anything in Heller or elsewhere that would prevent this.
 
The Clinton era awb was deemed constitutional at the time.
Click to expand...
Really? I didn't think there was ever a definitive court challenge at the federal level. Please correct me if I'm wrong. :)
They would be much more so, if Kel-tec would get their PMR-30, out faster...
Click to expand...
AFAIK it is now shipping at the originally-promised rate, but many dealers are still trying to catch up with a backlog of orders.
 
If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10?
 
If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10?


I'm gonna be one step ahead of them, I'll get a Wheellock pistol, don't want to be caught with one of the assault flintlocks or tactical percussion pistols.
 
Actually, Frank Lautenberg is calling for a ban on "high-capacity clips" holding more than ten rounds.

Shhh...nobody correct him. :)
 
Peetzakilla:
"If the courts would find a magazine capacity limit to be constitutional, I wonder what would be the criteria for establishing the lower limit? Why not a max of 1, or 2, or 6? Why would they stop at 10?"
Click to expand...

Probably the criteria of what they arbitrarily perceive Joe citizen should be allowed to have, and swayed one way or the other by arguments from both sides.
 
Here's the problem as I see it. Assuming such a law were to somehow be enacted, and its constitutionality heard by the court, we face a Hobson's choice. By that I mean a lose-lose proposition. I think the court would first set out to determine, first and foremost, whether a magazine/clip/whatever is covered under Heller/McDonald. Likely, that test would be whether the loading device can be said to be a firearm. If it's not a firearm, then it is not covered under Heller/McDonald and therefore can be restricted statutorily. If it IS a firearm, then it would be subject to the same purchase restrictions, NICS check, etc. that a firearm is subject to. Either way, the antis win.
 
csmsss said:
Here's the problem as I see it. Assuming such a law were to somehow be enacted, and its constitutionality heard by the court, we face a Hobson's choice. By that I mean a lose-lose proposition. I think the court would first set out to determine, first and foremost, whether a magazine/clip/whatever is covered under Heller/McDonald. Likely, that test would be whether the loading device can be said to be a firearm. If it's not a firearm, then it is not covered under Heller/McDonald and therefore can be restricted statutorily. If it IS a firearm, then it would be subject to the same purchase restrictions, NICS check, etc. that a firearm is subject to. Either way, the antis win.
Click to expand...


I don't know if it could be that simple. There's got to be some sort of limit on restricting the necessary parts of a firearm. I mean, a barrel isn't a "firearm", could they set barrel length limits at 1 inch? Could they say you can own all the firearms you want but they're not allowed to have TRIGGERS.... or sights?
 
Expounding upon what type of political structure our nation entails, is off topic for this thread and off topic for TFL in general.

Be Warned.

I'm leaving the posts, as is, for now....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top