SCOTUS To Rule On Legality Of Religious Cross

[The Emperor of Mankind]

The term separation of Church and State s not to be found in the Constitution.

The term 'semi-automatic rifle' is not in the Constitution. Does this make owning an AR-15 illegal?

 

[Skwim]

I have mixed feelings on this issue. Part of me would hate to see a tribute to the dead be disturbed.
However, there are serious issues in the States with the government giving special treatment to Christianity.

I think that government land should either display no prominent religious symbols or that it should allow them all.

I do too, although I would hope that the former would apply.

.

 

[Baladas]

I do too, although I would hope that the former would apply.

.

Agreed. I think that government land should be secular.

 

[shmogie]

The term 'semi-automatic rifle' is not in the Constitution. Does this make owning an AR-15 illegal?

Nope. The second Amendment is based upon original intent and common usage. There were multiple firing, i.e, semi automatic firearms at the time of the writing of the Constitution that no doubt the Founders were aware of, they were not proscribed. Under the second amendment when the founders were still alive, you could own a cannon. They weren´t illegal.

The AR 15 and itś variants are the most popular hunting rifle today. Americans own millions of them. That meets the criteria for common usage. As to such things as limited capacity magazines, that may be a gray area to be legally hashed out.

The Heller decision primarily, gutted many of the liberal judges ideaś on the second amendment. Many have tended to ignore it, and have allowed the passage of laws illegal under Heller, jamming up the system with appeals.

The Federal judiciary and indirectly state judiciaries have been put on notice by the Supreme court that it expects itś decisions to be followed.


It could get interesting.

I will keep my semi auto firearms, thank you very much.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Nope. The second Amendment is based upon original intent and common usage. There were multiple firing, i.e, semi automatic firearms at the time of the writing of the Constitution that no doubt the Founders were aware of,

No there wasn't. The first semi-automatic weapon successfully designed was by an Austrian gunsmith in 1885. The Constitution was written in 1787; almost a century prior.

If you're going on original intent and common usage, why are Americans allowed to own firearms outside the confines of a well-regulated and organised militia? That was the intent of one of the main framers of the Second Amendment, after all: to use state militias to curb the ability of a federal army to exert influence over state autonomy.

they were not proscribed.

Because they didn't exist at the time which validates my point is that the founders could not possibly have legislated in favour of things that wouldn't exist for at least another century.

Under the second amendment when the founders were still alive, you could own a cannon. They weren´t illegal.

Are U.S. citizens allowed to own functioning cannons and other artillery pieces under the Second Amendment?

The Heller decision primarily, gutted many of the liberal judges ideaś on the second amendment. Many have tended to ignore it, and have allowed the passage of laws illegal under Heller, jamming up the system with appeals.

The Heller decision did not remove all restrictions on gun ownership though; it says the right to bear arms is not unlimited and regulation can continue.

It's also worth pointing out that the Heller decision which affirmed Americans' rights to own guns for private uses as opposed to only for militia reasoning is only ten years old. That ruling was not in keeping with the original intent of the amendment and has not been the accepted legal position for the vast majority of the USA's history.

I will keep my semi auto firearms, thank you very much.

Then you ignore the original intent of the Second Amendment.

 

[Jainarayan]

If every single one of those men the memorial is in honor of were Christian, I don't have a problem. It's a memorial for them. If, however, even one of those servicemen was Jewish for example, the cross goes.

 

[shmogie]

No there wasn't. The first semi-automatic weapon successfully designed was by an Austrian gunsmith in 1885. The Constitution was written in 1787; almost a century prior.

If you're going on original intent and common usage, why are Americans allowed to own firearms outside the confines of a well-regulated and organised militia? That was the intent of one of the main framers of the Second Amendment, after all: to use state militias to curb the ability of a federal army to exert influence over state autonomy.




Because they didn't exist at the time which validates my point is that the founders could not possibly have legislated in favour of things that wouldn't exist for at least another century.




Are U.S. citizens allowed to own functioning cannons and other artillery pieces under the Second Amendment?




The Heller decision did not remove all restrictions on gun ownership though; it says the right to bear arms is not unlimited and regulation can continue.

It's also worth pointing out that the Heller decision which affirmed Americans' rights to own guns for private uses as opposed to only for militia reasoning is only ten years old. That ruling was not in keeping with the original intent of the amendment and has not been the accepted legal position for the vast majority of the U history SA's history.

Your knowledge of firearms and their history seems to be lacking. A firearm that held multiple rounds. firing one round with each trigger pull, without cocking between rounds, exactly what a semi auto does, existed in the time of the founders. Double action revolvers and rifles with a double action revolving action do exactly the same thing.

Semi automatic weapons are called such because their action (mechanism), is a restricted version of a fully automatic firearm , like a machine gun. The action, not the result was designed as you cited.

The results are the same, one trigger pull, one round fired, for revolvers, and others as, a semi automatic.

What is a militia ? At he time of the founders, it was a group of armed citizens called together, because of need. They were organized and regulated at the time of need, not before. At the time, virtually every household owned firearms, when a call went out, those who could showed up. The call could go out in virtually any area. And people would respond.

Heller was absolutely right based upon original intent. The 2nd amendment does not require the vision of a militia as a group of people who have been appointed to the militia, with a rigid command structure identified, trained to meet the criteria of someone, with a book of rules of engagement, and another of procedures, who are issued firearms at the time of need.

Nope, a militia is a group of personally armed individuals who come together in the common defense, who are organized as required at the time of need. That is thhe way it was in colonial times and after the Constitution was written.

Later reasonable restrictions were enacted, REASONABLE. Just as one is guaranteed free speech in the first amendment, but reasonable restrictions apply.

Denying the right of the citizenry to be individually armed, and thus unable to form a militia, as the term meant and was in common usage at the time of the Founders is denying them their fundamental right to own and bear firearms as clearly defined in the 2nd amendment.