Walmart and Dick's Raise Minimum Age for Gun Buyers to 21 - page 2

Read Article in its entirety... Read More

  1. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from chare
    Do you have a source for this? All I was able to find was reference to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's in Richmond, Virginia ruling. Thanks.
    While I don't know specifically what Munro is referring to, there is the Heller case from 2008. I will post link to NPR interview from this morning discussing why the Supreme Court reviews so few gun cases.
  2. by   Lil Nel
    Quote from chare
    Do you have a source for this? All I was able to find was reference to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's in Richmond, Virginia ruling. Thanks.
    There is no transcript of interview. You have to listen to it. It runs 3:52.



    Where The Supreme Court Stands On Gun Laws | Community Idea Stations
  3. by   Lil Nel
    I Googled Heller, Chare and lifted this part from the ruling.


    (2) 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. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
  4. by   herring_RN
    U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Assault Rifle, Open-Carry Appeals
    The U.S. Supreme Court steered clear of the intensifying gun debate after the mass shootings in Nevada and Texas, turning away two appeals from firearms advocates, including one that sought a constitutional right to own a semiautomatic assault rifle.

    The justices, without comment Monday, left intact a ruling that upheld Maryland's ban on assault weapons. In a separate case, the high court refused to require Florida to let handguns be carried openly in public.

    The Supreme Court has repeatedly rebuffed gun advocates since it ruled in 2010 that people across the country have the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. That case represents the last time the high court heard arguments on the reach of the Second Amendment....
    U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Assault Rifle, Open-Carry Appeals - Bloomberg
  5. by   MunoRN
    Quote from chare
    Do you have a source for this? All I was able to find was reference to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal's in Richmond, Virginia ruling. Thanks.
    The case initially went through lower courts, but it was the Supreme Court's ruling that has been a source of ongoing precedent. Here is the full text of the majority opinion written by Scalia:
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
  6. by   MunoRN
    The gist of DC vs Heller was that an individual challenged broad handgun restrictions based on the 2nd amendment, which then resulted in the courts having to determine the original intention of the 2nd amendment which basically came down to two words in the amendment; "well regulated". There's a reasonable argument to be made that "well regulated" refers to a local government based militia that is well practiced and organized. The pro-gun argument was that "well regulated" doesn't apply only to state militias but rather refers to 'regulated' in terms of restrictions and limits, specifically that the right is not unlimited. The criteria that the majority supported included that firearms are only protected when they have a primary lawful purpose.
  7. by   chare
    Quote from MunoRN
    ...The criteria that the majority supported included that firearms are only protected when they have a primary lawful purpose.
    Where exactly did you find this? While District Of Columbia vs. Heller, acknowledges that the right to own firearms is no unlimited, nowhere does require that a weapon have a "primarily lawful" purpose as a prerequisite for ownership, although it does state that weapons primarily used by criminals are not protected. Nor does it address private ownership of "assault weapons" in general, or weapons based upon the M-16/AR-15 specifically. The only mention of the M-16 at all was the following:
    It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service-M-16 rifles and the like-may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.
    As for the assertion that "..."well regulated" refers to a local government based militia that is well practiced and organized," this is addressed at length as well. Continuing the quote above:
    But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
    Further, the likelihood that the weapons that would be faced might be technologically superior was addressed as well:
    But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
  8. by   MunoRN
    Quote from chare
    Where exactly did you find this? While District Of Columbia vs. Heller, acknowledges that the right to own firearms is no unlimited, nowhere does require that a weapon have a "primarily lawful" purpose as a prerequisite for ownership, although it does state that weapons primarily used by criminals are not protected.
    There are a few different references to the 'lawful purpose' premise in Scalia's majority opinion: "We described the right protected by the Second Amendment as " ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose' "
    "We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
    "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose."
    "This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional."

    Quote from chare
    Nor does it address private ownership of "assault weapons" in general, or weapons based upon the M-16/AR-15 specifically. The only mention of the M-16 at all was the following:
    The M-16 was pretty clearly used an example, not that the reference to primarily military purposed weapons was exclusive to M-16's. The AR-15 and it's variants are effectively clones of the M4, a firearm designed specifically for military use.

    Quote from chare
    As for the assertion that "..."well regulated" refers to a local government based militia that is well practiced and organized," this is addressed at length as well. Continuing the quote above:

    Further, the likelihood that the weapons that would be faced might be technologically superior was addressed as well:
    The majority opinion found that the second amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to organized militias, but they also conceded that just because "regulated" isn't found to refer to the training a state militia receives, it doesn't mean you can just ignore the "well regulated" descriptor in the amendment, which means it must refer to the other possible meaning, which is that 'regulated' is taken to mean restricted through law.
  9. by   toomuchbaloney
    Four courts have said that there is no right to own those specific weapons.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.2ea06d4a4062
  10. by   Lil Nel
    Did you listen to the link I provided to the NPR story, Chare?

    I ask because Nina Totenberg lays out very nicely what the Heller decision is, and isn't.
  11. by   chare
    Quote from Lil Nel
    Did you listen to the link I provided to the NPR story, Chare?

    I ask because Nina Totenberg lays out very nicely what the Heller decision is, and isn't.
    Yes, I did, as I typically do when sources are provided.
  12. by   sirI
    20-year-old sues Dick's, Walmart over new gun policies

    An Oregon man filed suits Monday claiming Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmart discriminated against the 20-year-old when they refused to sell him a rifle.

    Dick's and Walmart restricted gun sales to adults 21 and older in the wake of the Florida high school massacre. The 19-year-old accused in the school slaying bought the AR-15 used in the attack legally.

    Oregon law allows residents to buy shotguns or rifles starting at age 18.
  13. by   chare
    I think age discrimination is an interesting approach, and one that might actually be successful. At least they were intelligent enough to not claim a violation of his second amendment right.

Must Read Topics


close