Really bad ruling from: 2nd Circuit on NY & CN

[platoonDaddy]

http://law-policy.com/wp-content/upl...N-10192015.pdf

We hold that the core provisions of the New York and
21 Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault
22 weapons and large‐capacity magazines do not violate the Second
23 Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not
24 void for vagueness. The particular provision of New York’s law
25 regulating load limits, however, does not survive the requisite
26 scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut’s prohibition
27 on the non‐semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally
28 infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we
29 AFFIRM in part the judgment of the District Court for the District of
30 Connecticut insofar as it upheld the prohibition of semiautomatic
31 assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines, and REVERSE in
32 part its holding with respect to the Remington 7615. With respect to

[Straight Shooter]

Im am in no way surprised. And, this other "assault weapons" law that SCOTUS is supposedly maybe going to take and review..Im guessing/betting they wont take it...but..if they do..itll be about the same.
We will end up with basically what we've already got now: Free states that allow such weapons...and Commie states that don't.
Itll be your choice then as to where you want to live, as it is now.
The writing is on the wall for the 2A.

[jpmuscle]

So using that logic why aren't we banning hammers?

Substantially related to government interests...

How about constitutionally protected freedoms become substantially related to government interests.... Damn lib POSs

[platoonDaddy]

Based on the ruling, it is "Public Safety", now it wouldn't surprise me if potus does ban large capacity magazines & AR's. Of course he doesn't have the legal power, but he has the pen and he doesn't care if it is legal or not.

[BoringGuy45]

So, basically, it's okay for the government to ignore Constitutional rights when they feel that it's in their best interests to do so.

Well, if the 5 who ruled in favor of Heller and McDonald do their jobs, that's a pretty easy one to overturn. However, that's a big IF.

[platoonDaddy]

The 2nd Circuit decision exemplifies the pattern in many lower federal courts of defying the Supreme Court’s admonition in McDonald v. Chicago that the Second Amendment is not “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.” The approach of some lower courts seems to be that Heller stands for little beyond its holding that handgun bans are unconstitutional. In Heller, the court chastised lower courts for having “overread” the court’s 1939 decision in United States v. Miller; the Miller court had upheld the federal tax and registration system for sawed-off shotguns, but many lower courts asserted that Miller had ruled that the Second Amendment is a “collective right” that no individual can assert. Among the lower courts which, according to Heller, placed “erroneous reliance” on an incorrect interpretation of Miller, was the 2nd Circuit, in United States v. Scanio, No. 97–1584, 1998 WL 802060 (2d Cir., 1998).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ller-mcdonald/

[TMS951]

26 scrutiny. One further specific provision—Connecticut’s prohibition
27 on the non‐semiautomatic Remington 7615—unconstitutionally
28 infringes upon the Second Amendment right. Accordingly, we

This says it all to me. This is where we are headed. It is clearly spelled out.

Semi Auto is not protected under the constitution. More than 10 rounds is not protected under the constitution.

But then we have the in 'common use' language, it would be very difficult to say semi auto is not common use. It will be very interesting to see what happens when this hits the supreme court.

If the supreme court upholds that all the constitution entitles us to is manual loading fire arms to not hold more than 10 rounds I would think the debate will be settled as to what the 2nd amendment entitles us to. There will be no going back on it. Every state that wants can adopt the SAFE act word for word.

I don't think this will be the end though, then they will start in with prohibitive taxing, need for insurance and licensing. All designed to make gun ownership unaffordable and difficult.

[platoonDaddy]

I don't think this will be the end though, then they will start in with prohibitive taxing, need for insurance and licensing. All designed to make gun ownership unaffordable and difficult.

Yes it is coming, firearm owners who state it will never happen in my state, get ready partner it is coming:

There are two methods of removing guns from citizens.

The first is when governments ban types of firearms. Australia banned many types of semi-automatic, self-loading rifles and shotguns in 1996. The United Kingdom banned semi-automatic, pump-action and private handgun ownership in mainland Britain in 1997. President Obama praised these as common-sense gun laws in his speech the night of the Oregon shootings.

The second is when governments tax guns out of existence. Muhlenberg College English professor Alec Marsh proposes a $10 per round annual tax assessed on each weapon's loaded ammunition capacity.

http://www.mcall.com/opinion/letters...017-story.html


Don't believe this will occur in my lifetime, but for many of my young firearm friends it is a possibility:

[Munsta750]

Molon labe.

[wilson1911]

When I look at that picture, I wonder how many of those guys said they would never turn their guns in........Molon Labe is not going to keep your family safe, feed your children, or keep you warm at night.