100% of Florida Sheriffs Refuse to Enforce federal Gun Bans

[Prodigal_Son1]

I strongly recommend reading this decision as well as all the other court filings to understand how the court concluded that it is an individual right, not contingent on age or militia service, and for the purposes of self-defense, hunting and opposition to tyranny.

Individual rights do not have right to activate the militia. The militia responds to a controlling force, which becomes the ‘governing force.’ We can’t have 100s of groups decide they need to activate, and not for a common cause. That most certainly is not the ‘intent.’ When you have two sides decide to activate against the other, we have ‘civil war.’

We have a right to self defense, hunting, and opposition to tyranny. Didn’t the supreme court leave defining which weapons are allowed to the ‘government?’ (I don’t have time to look it up. Just got off a 24 yesterday morning, it was a busy shift, and wife has laid claim to today. And you folks are trying to convince me I have rights. )

 

[scipio337]

Y… I think there are other measures besides banning, but when people reject closing the private sale loophole, it makes me think they certainly wouldn’t be open to alternatives to a complete banning.

You’re darn right. I oppose closing the “private sale loophole” because I see your argument for what it is:

Today, just “close the loophole”.

Tomorrow, “banning ‘assault rifles’, but it’s okay if you already own one”.

Next week: "turn in your ‘assault rifle’, or be criminally charged with a felony’

What’s the adage about the frog in a boiling pot of water?

 

[styrgwillidar]

Individual rights do not have right to activate the militia. The militia responds to a controlling force, which becomes the ‘governing force.’ We can’t have 100s of groups decide they need to activate, and not for a common cause. That most certainly is not the ‘intent.’ When you have two sides decide to activate against the other, we have ‘civil war.’

We have a right to self defense, hunting, and opposition to tyranny. Didn’t the supreme court leave defining which weapons are allowed to the ‘government?’ (I don’t have time to look it up. Just got off a 24 yesterday morning, it was a busy shift, and wife has laid claim to today. And you folks are trying to convince me I have rights. )

The response to your question is the DC court decision. You’ll have to read it, the response and reasoning is very detailed.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E23F1D1340E39A99852574400045380B/%24file/04-7041a.pdf

The militia is the body of people. It exists without activation.

As I posted yesterday- SCOTUS indicated there can be reasonable restrictions but did not define what those are. They did not over reach but restricted their decision in Heller to the two issues raised before the court-

1. Could DC ban all handguns. Court said no.
2. Could DC order weapons to be stored in a home such that they couldn’t be used for self-defense. Court said no.

In McDonald (since the bill of rights are not automatically restrictions on state governments based on the Cruikshank and Slaughterhouse rulings, each right has had to be separately considered as to whether they are incorporated, i.e. restrictions on state governments as well as federal) the court limited their ruling to the single issue before the court-

1. Is the 2A a limitation on state government? Court ruled yes.

However, in their reasoning in Heller the court did refer to Miller which said weapons which are in common use and suitable for military purposes fall under the definition of arms to be protected by 2A. As I posted yesterday, this came up in orals before SCOTUS. The page 53a reference is the section I posted yesterday about the principles in the constitution apply even if technology changes. For example, just because cell phones and digital cameras didn’t exist in the founding fathers time the government still can’t simply hack and monitor our phones’ digital cameras and microphones, or use thermal imagery to randomly search premises from patrolling helicopters or cars.

Anyway, (GENERAL CLEMENT refers to the Solicitor General of the United States who was arguing in support of the ban).

supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf

(Continued - too long for one post)

 

[styrgwillidar]

(continued)

Orals regarding technology and definition of arms under 2A

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Well, it did. It said it’s just like the First Amendment. First Amendment has exceptions, but strict scrutiny applies. It says strict scrutiny applies here too.
GENERAL CLEMENT: I -
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that opinion also, it didn’t use the militia prologue to say it’s only the kind of weapons that would be useful in militia, and that are commonly – commonly held today. Is there any Federal exclusion of weapons that applies to weapons
that are commonly held today? I don’t know what you’re worried about. Machine guns, what else? Armored bullets, what else?
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult – I don’t want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day – but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that’s not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that’s what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn’t involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one – narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre -pre- law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn’t mean once it’s an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it’s an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is – which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is - it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well -
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don’t see why you have a problem.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I – I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it’s going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion – I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don’t see why this Court wouldn’t allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term “arms.” Now, if this Court wants to say that they don’t – I mean – I mean – we’d obviously welcome that
in our – in our obligation to defend the constitutionality of acts of Congress. The one other thing I would say is that this is an opinion that is susceptible of different readings.
It’s interesting that Respondents’ amici have different characterizations of it. The Goldwater Institute calls it strict scrutiny; the State of Texas calls it reasonable – reasonableness review.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, General.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Thank you.

This is interesting in that future decisions regarding reasonable restrictions will follow along similar lines in trying to apply the reasoning in Heller and McDonald to the cases in the future.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re darn right. I oppose closing the “private sale loophole” because I see your argument for what it is:

Today, just “close the loophole”.

Tomorrow, “banning ‘assault rifles’, but it’s okay if you already own one”.

Next week: "turn in your ‘assault rifle’, or be criminally charged with a felony’

What’s the adage about the frog in a boiling pot of water?

While it maybe other people’s argument, it’s not what I’m trying to convey.

Please explain how closing the private sales loophole would have a direct impact on your right to self defense? Is the assault weapon the only weapon you can defend with? Do you carry your assault weapon everywhere you, and your family goes?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The militia is the body of people. It exists without activation.

As I posted yesterday- SCOTUS indicated there can be reasonable restrictions but did not define what those are. They did not over reach but restricted their decision in Heller to the two issues raised before the court-

1. Could DC ban all handguns. Court said no.
2. Could DC order weapons to be stored in a home such that they couldn’t be used for self-defense. Court said no.

I’m not a lawyer, but I do appreciate the links for me to consider.

DC cannot ban all handguns, but are there handguns, or other guns, that can be banned?

I think it’s being used out of context to interpret a secure storage as weapons must be stored in a home so that they couldn’t be used for self defense. When people do not have their weapons in their possession, for use, they should be securely stored. Once a person returns home, the guns can be taken out for use, or self defense while there.

I’m out for awhile. I lost rights and have to go to the movies and dinner. Have a good day folks.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I can’t see much cooperation on this in Fla, highest transient state in the USA. Crime, well there have been books, TV -series, and movies done on Fla crime. Nevermind, Excellent hunting, fishing, and lots of exotic animals loose, Yes, you need a gun. Less you want to wrestle Pythons in your back yard. Or you believe your one of those individuals that nothing will ever happen to, or you reached the crowning level of Catholicism and I assure you, you are a better man than I.

I’m a sinner practicing Catholicism. Perhaps there’s a teaching I missed?

 

[styrgwillidar]

I’m not a lawyer, but I do appreciate the links for me to consider.

DC cannot ban all handguns, but are there handguns, or other guns, that can be banned?

 That's what the next round of court decisions will address. The court mentioned there could be 'reasonable restrictions' mentioning examples of denying RKBAs to groups of people like criminals as well as possibly types of weapons. But since their reasoning mentioned Miller and common use, opposition to tyranny ..blah...blah... blah.. Where's the line, rocket launcher? Bazooka? Full auto? (Based on my reading, and I'm not a lawyer and didn't sleep in whatever the heck hotel the ads are about, I would think the modern parallel to the musket, common infantry grade weapon but AR15 vice M16. ( I would think a restriction from full auto would be more defensible than magazine capacity. But heck full autos were legal to purchase new until 1986, so I could be and probably am all wet). Since the court didn't go into detail, folks like the sheriffs can only guess at what would be constitutional.  If a type of weapon can be restricted, does that mean a complete ban? Only a partial ban? on top of weapon type. As much as folks throw around the term activist court-- at both 'liberal' and 'conservative' decisions, in this case they did limit their decision to the actual 2 issues before the court as I indicated. Which leaves a lot of ground for future decisions to cover.
  The dicta, or reasoning is far more lengthy providing the rationale and background as to how they arrived at their decision. But, that is what lower courts consider as they look at new cases that are brought up.

I think it’s being used out of context to interpret a secure storage as weapons must be stored in a home so that they couldn’t be used for self defense. When people do not have their weapons in their possession, for use, they should be securely stored. Once a person returns home, the guns can be taken out for use, or self defense while there.

Whether the storage requirements precluded the use of the weapons for self-defense was critical to the case. That is, it was the basis for that part of the suit to begin with-- the plaintiff’s assertion that the DC gun storage laws were so onerous that they precluded using the weapons for self-defense. Both DC Court of Appeals and SCOTUS agreed with plaintiff on that point. So, DC may modify their rules on storage (or already have done so) something along the lines you state, which I think would be in keeping with the Court’s decision.

I’m out for awhile. I lost rights and have to go to the movies and dinner. Have a good day folks.

Hope you had a great dinner!,