Exceptions are good. Exceptions are usually where the logical fault-lines lie.
Hmmm? I wonder what they are ...
Feinstein and Cruz Fight About Guns
by Amy Davidson, newyorker.com -- March 14, 2013
[Sen. Feinstein's reply to Ted Cruz:]
Let me just make a couple of points in response -- one, I’m not a sixth grader, Senator, I’ve been on this committee for twenty years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode… Look, there are other weapons. I’m not a lawyer, but after twenty years, I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war…and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so you know, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time.
She noted that there were a lot of guns that people could still carry (“Do they need a bazooka?”). She added, “So I come from a different place than you do.”
[...]
The Heller case was about the blanket ban on handguns and the requirement of trigger-locks on the remaining "allowed" guns, in the possession of the residents of Washington DC. In this case, the conservative-opinion won a 5-4 Supreme Court decision,
led by Antonin Scalia, and ruled these local DC gun constraints were "unconstitutional."
So what were the "three exceptions" to which Senator Feinstein was referring? Let's see if we can find them, shall we ...
12/18/12 Assault Rifles should not be constitutionally protected.
by Brian Cunha, Law Offices, -- Dec 18, 2012
[...]
The Heller decision [2008 District of Columbia v. Heller] offers “a lot of room” for Congress to act, said Jon Lowy, director of the Legal Action Project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
“The Supreme Court was clear in Heller that while law-abiding, responsible citizens have the right to a gun in the home for self defense, there is a wide variety of sensible gun laws that remain constitutional,” explained Lowy. “Assault weapons and background checks for all gun sales and other sensible restrictions would clearly be permitted by the Second Amendment.”
[...]
In Heller, a 5-4 majority, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a gun unconnected with service in a militia, and to use the gun for traditionally lawful purposes, such as in the home for self defense. The decision invalidated the District of Columbia’s handgun ban -- considered the strictest in the nation -- and its requirement that firearms kept in the home be disassembled or have a trigger lock.
[...]
“From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” wrote Scalia. “For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”
[...]
Another “important limitation,” explained Scalia, was contained in the justices’ 1939 decision in Miller v. U.S. “Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’ ” he wrote. Based on Miller, the Second Amendment does not protect weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns, he added.
Uber-Conservative Scalia (ugh) has left a LOT of room for sensible gun restrictions --
Who knew?
Here's some snippets from that actual 2008 Supreme Court ruling which struck a major blow against "gun control." But in the process, also outlined several "legal exceptions" where gun ownership could be "constitutionally" constrained.
"three exceptions" ... "three exceptions" ... What were they, again?
[...]
1.(f) [...]
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
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.
[...]
--
District of Columbia v. Heller - 07-290 (2008) -- supreme.justia.com
When you reflect further on Feinstein's congressional statements ... she expands on "one of those exceptions" (the Assault Weapons ban exception) with some cold, hard numbers:
Sen. Feinstein's reply:
[...]
"Incidentally, this does not prohibit. You used the word prohibit. It exempts 2271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people of the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so -- so I come form a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views."
Sen. Diane Feinstein Slams Sen. Ted Cruz at Gun Hearing
by ericlewis0, on DailyKos -- Mar 14, 2013
2271 exemptions vs 3 exceptions ... all to protect against an "imagined threat" -- vs. protecting against some very real, and very fatal threats, instead ...
[...]
In the 21 years since my own children and I were among those crouching on the floor of an office in Van Allen Hall at the University of Iowa while a gunman killed five people, gravely wounded a friend of ours, and then shot himself, the only progress we've made in addressing gun violence is to train our children to hide in a bathroom, art supply closet, or science cupboard during "Active Shooter Lockdowns" in their schools. Yeah. We're training our children for wartime defense, because it's "too hard" for us to stand up to irrational fears of an imaginary civil war perpetrated by "the government."
Moms Take the Hill: The Rhetoric of Misinformation and Misunderstanding
by MsSpentyouth, on DailyKos -- Mar 14, 2013
Bottom-line is according to even Justice Antonin Scalia, some rights are NOT Absolute. There are some very real, and very legitimate "exceptions" to the NRA-claimed "absolute freedoms" with respect to arms.
Even more than 3, depending on how you bother to count them up ...