View Single Post
Old 01-26-2013, 02:09 PM   #11
Atlanta Dan
Atlanta Dan's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,754
Member Number: 728
Thanks: 2,823
Thanked 9,183 Times in 4,000 Posts
Default Re: "Put simply, we cannot allow the rights of a few to override the safety of all"

Originally Posted by Killer View Post
she was hyperventilating about the "Founding Fathers" - neither one of you obviously din't know what they really said

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin
We disagree on this issue and I respect that you have grounds for your opinion - but stick it in your ear if you think you are the only one posting on this forum capable of forming a valid opinion on what the "Founding Fathers" intended and how it is to be applied to technological advances in weapons available in the 21st century. The Founders were bright guys but they were not able to divine the future (e.g. - the "Founding Fathers" said for purposes of the census slaves should count as 3/5 of a person - times have changed)

Since i know you have read the opinion of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a ban on the ownership of assault rifles and 30 round clips that the Supreme Court did not elect to review, please walk me through your basis for disagreeing with the rationale of the majority opinion that by application of the Supreme Court's decision in Heller regulation of firearms is subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny in order to determine whether such regulation runs afoul of the Second Amendment and that the right to possess any firearm is not absolute

As with the First Amendment, the level of scrutiny applicable under the Second Amendment surely “depends on the nature of the conduct being regulated and the degree to which the challenged law burdens the right.”...

We are not aware of evidence that prohibitions on either semi-automatic rifles or large-capacity magazines are longstanding and thereby deserving of a presumption of validity.* For the court to determine whether these prohibitions are constitutional, therefore, we first must ask whether they impinge upon the right protected by the Second Amendment. That is, prohibiting certain arms might not meaningfully affect “individual self-defense, [which] is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” McDonald, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599). Of course, the Court also said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for other “lawful purposes,” such as hunting, but self-defense is the “core lawful purpose” protected, Heller, 554 U.S. at 630....

As we did in evaluating the constitutionality of certain of the registration requirements, we determine the appropriate standard of review by assessing how severely the prohibitions burden the Second Amendment right. Unlike the law held unconstitutional in Heller, the laws at issue here do not prohibit the possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon,” to wit, the handgun. 554 U.S. at 629. Nor does the ban on certain semi-automatic rifles prevent a person from keeping a suitable and commonly used weapon for protection in the home or for hunting, whether a handgun or a non-automatic long gun. See Gary Kleck & Marc Gertz, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun, 86 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 150, 185 (1995) (revolvers and semi-automatic pistols are together used almost 80% of the time in incidents of self-defense with a gun); Dep’t of Treasury, Study on the Sporting Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles 38 (1998) (semi-automatic assault rifles studied are “not generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes”). Although we cannot be confident the prohibitions impinge at all upon the core right protected by the Second Amendment, we are reasonably certain the prohibitions do not impose a substantial burden upon that right. As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of self-defense or sport. Cf. Kleck & Gertz, supra, at 177 (finding that of 340,000 to 400,000 instances of defensive gun use in which the defenders believed the use of a gun had saved a life, 240,000 to 300,000 involved handguns). Accordingly, we believe intermediate rather than strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review....

We conclude the District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime. Accordingly, the bans do not violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here is the link to the decision to the extent you want to cite to specific points in the decision to support your views$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

Atlanta Dan is offline   Reply With Quote