Doesn't Heller make Feinstein's Proposed Legislation Unconstitutional?

[Coded-Dude]

I thought that in D.C. vs Heller the Supremes ruled that the 2nd Amendment protected an individual right. Am I mistaken?

Correct, SCOTUS ruled the right to KEEP was in deed secured. It was narrowly focused to the home(i.e. they did not rule on BEAR). The BEAR case is looking good. Like I said, it's currently sitting in the 7th District of Appeals, and SCOTUS should uphold the decision(you cannot outright ban carry either - choose concealed, open, or both; no carry is unconstitutional).

[Murph]

Thanks for the clarification=)

[tweetr]

I think the constitution makes Feinstein's proposal unconstitutional.

Exactly right. It is the actual text of the Second Amendment that makes Feinstein's proposal unconstitutional. No Supreme Court decision can alter the text of the Constitution. (Quiz: in which branch does the power to amend the Consitution rest? Hint: not in the Judiciary and not in the Executive.)

Scalia’s establishment take on ‘gun control’ should be no surprise to gun owners

[The 2008 opinion he wrote for the majority in the landmark District of Columbia v Heller case made that clear, causing no small amount of consternation among gun rights advocates. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:...]

Yeah, I respected Scalia until I read his frankly idiotic comments on the subject. Even Scalia is flat, dead wrong. If memory serves he used contemporary comments of the founders to water down the Second Amendment guarantee. Such research can be enlightening when the actual text is in doubt, but cannot in any way be used to alter the text that is actually there and ratified by the states. "Shall not be infringed" leaves simply no wiggle room whatsoever. Any regulation of firearms whatsoever necessarily and intrinsically must "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms.

Will the media ever get it, if the second amendment is watered down or washed away, the first will not be far behind,

Certainly they get it! That is the whole and explicitly acknowledged point!

For that matter the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments already are summarily violated, to name only one example of many, every single time you fly. I am a professional pilot, in which capacity I have the exquisite pleasure of traveling weekly on the airlines. As I approach the federally mandated security checkpoint (entirely within the sovereign state in which the airport resides) I read federal signs informing me that I may be arrested if I utter a proscribed joke within the hearing of any of the twenty or so blue-shirted federal officers standing nearby. On the same federal sign is the instruction that carrying arms (or even a water bottle, for crying out loud!) will subject me to summary confiscation and even arrest. Next I prepare my person, papers, and effects for unreasonable search and seizure absent any warrant issued upon oath or affirmation for probable cause. Next I present my federally mandated identification to one of the blue-shirted federal officers for inspection to obtain his permission to go peaceably about my business - without which permission I may not on pain of summary arrest. During taxi out I listen for the umpteenth time to various announcements that federal law (not state law or airline company policy) imposes stiff penalties if I do this or that, and even requires that I obey all crewmember instructions (this too would be perfectly fine if it were merely airline policy as a condition for flying on their airplanes). All of this necessarily deprives me of liberty without due process of law.

This president has shown not only a disrespect for the Constitution but also a disregard for limitations placed on the executive branch by the Constitution.

Regrettably all too true. The Executive branch has no power, by executive order or any other means, to amend the Constitution. Ladies and gentlemen, if the people, or merely their stupidly elected masters in Washington, wish to circumvent the protections of the Constitution, there is only one legal way to do so: by Constitutional amendment! Any other method whatsoever, whether federal law, executive order, Supreme Court decision, or what have you - is utterly lawless! The relevant question, one for which I have no satisfactory answer, is: why do a free people permit frank, despotic usurpation of their God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty right out in the open and under their noses?

[Werewolf]

why do a free people permit frank, despotic usurpation of their God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty right out in the open and under their noses?

Because governments of all type and regardless of good intentions are inherently power grabbers. Human nature and practical considerations make it so that any people subject to governmnet will put up with a whole lot of BS before a limit is reached and they replace their government (I believe it was T. Jefferson that said something to that effect 200+ years ago). Eventually, the limit is always reached and every government is replaced.

If you are specifically asking about the USA - the limit just hasn't been reached yet.

[Coonskinner]

These politicians couldn't care less what is constitutional or not. They want gun control and they want it now. Constitution be damned.

I am afraid you are right.

[okietom]

I agree. It seems feinstein's Bill may be a red herring. the real one the libs want to pass may be the mag cap one. we need to ALL write to our reps on THAt one for sure.

I am sure the libs want pto pass them all. I think they know all of them won't pass. I am sure they think that what they get passed will never be repealed. I also think that Obama will try for more than he can get and try to get something as a compromise.