- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Heller v. District of Columbia........Round 2
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:42 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:42 am
Commonly referred to as Heller II
Remember all of the sarcastic quotes from a want, asurob, and other progresseives on the PB, whenever we have a gun control thread....oooohhh the irony. Case in point gentlemen...case in point.
LINK
:nb4 they're coming to get your guns:
quote:
Yesterday, Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion addressing the claims remanded by the circuit court.
quote:
Judge Boasberg determined that the appropriate level of constitutional scrutiny was "intermediate scrutiny", which requires that the District can show that the challenged laws are "substantially related to an important governmental objective" and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that objective
quote:
Judge Boasberg's willingness to stretch to find D.C.'s laws constitutional was perhaps most apparent in his reasoning for upholding the requirement that registrants bring each firearm they wish to register to the police station for inspection.
quote:
Continuing the trend of treating the right to keep and bear arms differently from all other constitutional rights, the court also upheld the District's requirement that a registrant must pass an exam before registering any firearms. Most these days would consider a competency test for the exercise of any of the rights protected by the First Amendment or the right to vote unthinkable, but such tests were deemed constitutional, at least in the District, when it comes to Second Amendment rights.
quote:
While upholding the registration requirements in their entirety required an unusual degree of deference to the D.C. Council in the face of a fundamental right, Judge Boasberg's discussion of the handgun rationing provision, which limits registrants to only one handgun registration in a 30 day period, is perhaps even more troubling. In upholding the rationing provision, the court found that "the District must respect the right of each resident to possess a handgun . . . for self-defense" and "[w]hile one or two firearms may be necessary for such purposes, a large collection of weapons is not." Although D.C. law limits applicants to registering only one handgun each month, Judge Boasberg seemed willing to endorse the constitutionality of laws that would restrict individuals to possessing only one or two firearms at any given time
Remember all of the sarcastic quotes from a want, asurob, and other progresseives on the PB, whenever we have a gun control thread....oooohhh the irony. Case in point gentlemen...case in point.
LINK
:nb4 they're coming to get your guns:
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:46 am to lsuroadie
quote:
the court also upheld the District's requirement that a registrant must pass an exam before registering any firearms
this is very funny when compared to voting
voting, which is not an explicitly stated right, cannot be restricted by an exam
possession of arms, however, which is explicitly stated in its very own amendment, can?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:47 am to lsuroadie
quote:
Continuing the trend of treating the right to keep and bear arms differently from all other constitutional rights
This seems like a loaded statement.
What constitutional right isn't somewhat limited?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:51 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
This seems like a loaded statement.
strict scrutiny is the standard for fundamental rights. i don't think any right listed in the constitution is not under strict scrutiny except for content-neutral speech (which is intermediate scrutiny)
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:53 am to Truckasaurus
shall not be infringed...
Posted on 5/19/14 at 7:57 am to wickowick
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:00 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
What constitutional right isn't somewhat limited?
the 2A has more restrictions than all others combined
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:16 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
a Wikipedia article
Because this is the one true authority when arguing Con Law.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:21 am to Five0
quote:
Because this is the one true authority when arguing Con Law.
Wait...
Is this board anti-Wikipedia too?!
Wikipedia?!?!
A non-government affiliated non-profit run website where anyone can edit? The well-cited, facts-only encyclopedia of the internet?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:22 am to lsuroadie
If only the government would restrict voters from voting more than once
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:24 am to Truckasaurus
quote:Yeah peeps like Rex can?
where anyone can edit
All you fricking need to know.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:26 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
Is this board anti-Wikipedia too?!
but you did address a 2ndA reference, with a Wikipedia article addressing the 1stA.
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:28 am to lsuroadie
common sense requirements for gun ownership...
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
but you did address a 2ndA reference, with a Wikipedia article addressing the 1stA.
Sorry. Didn't make it clear. My point was that even our fundamental rights have limits, including free speech.
Why should gun ownership not have "reasonable" limits? Whatever that might mean.
This post was edited on 5/19/14 at 8:34 am
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:38 am to lsuroadie
Appellate courts for the win.
The Consititution wins again!
The Consititution wins again!
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:40 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is very funny when compared to voting
I can smell the hypocrisy from here
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:42 am to lsuroadie
I no longer care...DC has had rampant gun violence since enacting it. Let them burn
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:42 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
Why should gun ownership not have "reasonable" limits? Whatever that might mean
Why should people with "unreasonable" ideas, be able to make those "reasonable" limits?
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:43 am to dante
quote:
If only the government would restrict voters from voting more than once
that's racist, you're ignorant...that's ignorant
Posted on 5/19/14 at 8:45 am to Alahunter
quote:
Why should people with "unreasonable" ideas, be able to make those "reasonable" limits?
Constitutionally elected individuals and confirmed appointees?
If you don't like it, vote them out.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News