Shutguns and revolvers

If I hold a gun of any kind in my hand in public, is it a menacing firearm? Is that sufficient reason to ban a gun that someone considers "menacing"?
Are these opinions issued years after Heller of any legal value at all? Stevens supported the collective view in Heller; now he wants to repeal the entire Amendment.

 

Webster’s definiton of menacing..>Menace definition is - a show of intention to inflict harm : threat. <

Menacing has little to do with the actual function of a weapon. It has to to with the visually threat that a weapon shows. Under that definiton, if you carried a weapon, even unload or with welded internal parts and was completely functionless, it’s still menacing. The frighteners that Scalia refers to are large scary looking pikes that were paraded around for the soul purpose of frightening people. Any weapon, ncluding a firearm can be regulated .

 

Btw, displaying any firearm in a threatening manor can be crime, scary looking or not. We’re walking on thin ice if we walk around with a handgun in our hand on display in public. Our second amendment rights won’t guarantee us anything but trouble used in this manner.

 

Which is why there is a legal difference between menacing and open carry. It isn't the firearm; its the action with the firearm.

 

I know. The act is a crime; possessing the firearm is not, nor does the type of firearm owned matter.

 

The type of firearm certainly does. In Connecticut and NY ; it can’t be an assault weapon and regardless, you need a permit.
Everywhere, if it’s a shot gun the barrel length is subject to regulation. All state laws are subject to challenge for constitutionality. So regardless, the tougher state laws are just as constitutional till challenged and changed. In any state that requires a permit it’s a crime for you to process a firearm without it. Even if the state allows constitutional carry, you’re in violation of the law if you get stopped and the cop runs a quick felony background check on you and you can’t pass it. Every state has firearm regulations now. They just aren’t coordinated federally.

 

"assault weapons" in NY/CT aren't banned because they look menacing.

 

The word “menacing” is not spoken by either Justice Scalia or Chris Wallace anywhere in the interview.

The word “frightening” is not spoken by Justice Scalia or Chris Wallace anywhere in the interview. He referred to “affrighting,” thusly: (Speaking historically) “For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.”

 

I think you're suffering from squeaky wheel syndrome here. I dont see a lot of support for the establishments war on drugs and terrorism coming from the pro-gun (or anti gun control). That support is coming mainly from the establishment itself in the federal power feedback loop resulting from the politicorporate structure that we've all alowed to be built by delegating too much of our authority to 'the authorities.'

Marijuana restrictions, for example, are unpopular among both the left and the right (only slightly less so on the right). Yet its like pulling teeth to get the feds to give up their authority over it. Because its not about the drug or social safety, its about power monopolies.

 

Does it matter ? They’re banned and the judged referenced Scalia in general. If you like, you can google the opinion. I never said that was the reason for these states nor did I claim any other decisions were based on the look. All I said was, Scalia thought it was a reasonable POV and should be considered in the ruling. Like all court rulings,they’re backed by more then one reason.

 

Exactly. It has less to do with the actual efficacy of the drug then donors from big pharma. It’s difficult to make profit on a drug you can legally grow in your back yard if it’s legalize. When people drink liquor, they get mean and ornery. When they smoke pot, they curl up in a recliner and send out for an extra large pizza. It should be good for the fast food industry.

 

What did Scalia consider a reasonable POV, and what did the actual opinion in Heller say?

 

Well, I gave you two different references and not the same thing was said in both, we can go round and round on this but I am absolutely right if anyone cares to go on utube and listen to his name interviews or just google a plethora of references. The bottom line is, AT 15s function just like man “hunting weapons” and they aren’t really military weapons in function once you limite the magazine size. . And yet, they’re legally banned as of now in two states. I wonder why.
Im moving on from talking any more about it. How about that Lebron ?

 

You do have a computer. Google it yourself.

 

Yes he did use the word “frightening.”
According to the National Journal, Scalia said that “there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize.”

 

the federal government banned NOTHING until FDR's idiotic attack on the tenth amendment. Scalia's main problem is this-he knew the commerce clause expansion where the power to regulate firearms at a federal level came from was bogus. He knew that the founders never intended such nonsense. But he also knew that if he said that, hundreds of laws that "society had become reliant upon" (such as Titles IX and VII, Social Security etc) would be in jeopardy

 

Yet, the right wing prefers to increase defense spending and cut social spending.

 

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. That really is, the bottom line.

 

Gee, I didn’t know Scalia was around back then. . That would make him over 250 years old.

 

No, that would indeed be a fatuous statement.

 

Ill agree with you on defense spending.

I wanna cut both.

 

Fails Turing test.

 

Please state the weapons that were banned.

I double Dog dare you to find 1 weapon in the Era of the Founsing Fathers banned.
Frightening or otherwise.

You can't.

 

You’ll have to ask Scalia. He’s the one who made the statement.

 

Let's cut our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror simply Because, the right wing doesn't want to pay WarTime Tax Rates for them, like good and patriotic, Conservatives should.