View Full Version : ALERT: SCOTUS sides with gun control group, rejects to hear challenge to Illinois AWB
Huge defeat. AWBs are constitutional. The scale is tipping.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/supreme-court-rejects-challenge-to-assault-weapon-ban/ar-AAg7cOi?li=BBnbfcL&ocid=mailsignout
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a challenge by gun rights activists to a Chicago suburb's ordinance banning assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, handing a victory to gun control advocates amid a fierce debate over the nation's firearms laws.
The 2013 ordinance passed by the city of Highland Park, Illinois will remain in place. By opting not to hear an appeal of a lower-court ruling that upheld the measure, the justices declined to take up what would have been a high-profile gun rights case following a succession of mass shootings including the one last week in San Bernardino, California.
The Highland Park measure bans various semi-automatic weapons, including well-known guns such as the AR-15 and AK-47, in addition to magazines holding more than 10 rounds of bullets.
Two conservatives on the nine-member court, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, said the justices should have taken the case.
MountainRaven
12-07-15, 12:52
Not huge. Just means we have to keep fighting dozens of smaller fights, instead of a few big ones.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 12:55
Along with "free speech zones" and "warrantless wiretapping".
:sarcastic:
The 9-headed hydra can go choke on a sack of dicks.
AWBs are constitutional.
I remember reading on here, I think, that all AR's we own today, will be considered 'pre-ban' by this time next year. I hope that does not become true.
Who makes the call on whether they hear a case or not? Roberts, being the Chief Justice?
Not huge. Just means we have to keep fighting dozens of smaller fights, instead of a few big ones.
Wrong. It suggests a majority of the SCOTUS does not have a problem with AWBs (including mag cap bans).
30 cal slut
12-07-15, 13:19
More here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/court-leaves-intact-an-assault-weapon-ban/
SomeOtherGuy
12-07-15, 13:31
They declined to take a case, and that's a tiny, tiny fraction of the harm that taking the case and ruling against freedom would have had.
Bad news, but not big bad news.
The Supreme Court is almost routinely on wrong side of things lately, including interpreting the Constitution. Obamacare as a "tax", anyone?
Far more important is that public opinion seems to be swaying more towards the freedom side and further away from the totalitarian side. There is probably 5-10 years of unpleasant legal and political action over guns in the immediate future, but the odds are strongly favoring a pro-freedom resolution in the end.
BrigandTwoFour
12-07-15, 13:46
Declining to take it only means that the subject is still up for future hearing. That is a far better outcome than the court granting cert and then ruling against us, which would establish hard precedent. My guess is that one of two things happened:
1) The justices did a "straw poll" of sorts and the "pro gun" side realized that it might not go their way. They decided to vote for denying cert, while publishing a pretty biting dissent, and left the door open for the future.
2) They did not think this was a good vehicle for further establishment of 2A rights expansion.
I'm inclined to go with option #1
Who makes the call on whether they hear a case or not? Roberts, being the Chief Justice?
It's a vote among the justices. I can't remember how many are required for cert but I think it's less than a majority.
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 13:52
Cut 'em some slack, homie.
The word, "State" is an extremely complicated, nuanced word, whose very meaning is radically subjective...
The Supreme Court is almost routinely on wrong side of things lately, including interpreting the Constitution. Obamacare as a "tax", anyone?
MountainRaven
12-07-15, 13:55
Wrong. It suggests a majority of the SCOTUS does not have a problem with AWBs (including mag cap bans).
Which changes nothing.
It just means a longer slog to liberate Chicago, California, New York, &c.
This relatively minor defeat doesn't mean that we're automatically in for a nationwide AWB2, it just means that we can't rely on SCotUS to sink it for us.
And even if they did, the gun grabbers have ample opportunity to follow the examples laid out by anti-abortion folks to make life difficult for us, anyway.
SomeOtherGuy
12-07-15, 14:24
It's a vote among the justices. I can't remember how many are required for cert but I think it's less than a majority.
IIRC any Justice can put a case on the list for discussion, and it requires 4 out of 9 to vote in favor to grant cert.
I'm not sure how many Justices are pro-2A at this point - Scalia is the only one I'd have much confidence in, but even then he has a variety of strong beliefs that could make him rule in a way you wouldn't expect ideologically.
I'm not sure how many Justices are pro-2A at this point - Scalia is the only one I'd have much confidence in, but even then he has a variety of strong beliefs that could make him rule in a way you wouldn't expect ideologically.
This I just don't get.. What part of the 2nd Amendment is up for debate? No infringement means no infringement period. It has nothing to do with personal political opinions. Yes, I know, not in this time of America..
Outlander Systems
12-07-15, 14:42
Without
Rule
Of
Law
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/bundy-free-speech-zones.jpg
This I just don't get.. What part of the 2nd Amendment is up for debate? No infringement means no infringement period. It has nothing to do with personal political opinions. Yes, I know, not in this time of America..
Dist. Expert 26
12-07-15, 15:08
I'm actually relieved they didn't take it, given the extreme left turn the court has taken as of late. This might not be the best outcome, but it could be far worse.
There is also a case from CT making its way up to SCOTUS. Maybe they did not take the case knowing another case is around the corner?
Which changes nothing.
It just means a longer slog to liberate Chicago, California, New York, &c.
This relatively minor defeat doesn't mean that we're automatically in for a nationwide AWB2, it just means that we can't rely on SCotUS to sink it for us.
And even if they did, the gun grabbers have ample opportunity to follow the examples laid out by anti-abortion folks to make life difficult for us, anyway.
Nothing changes, and no national AWB will come as a result of this, but their reluctance to hear the case is telling. Heller leaves the door open to an AWB, and if I'd have to guess, the current SCOTUS would rule constitutional an AWB and mag ban.
AR lowers, rifles, and mags have never been cheaper. Buy now. An AWB is coming down the pipeline. It's written in the stars.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-15, 17:16
Punting this to later down the road is not going to go well for us. Every day the court gets a little more left, and when Hillary gets anointed after her buddy Trump goes third party, the next one of our 4-5 guys will be replaced with some freakshow.
What we need is a case for high caps in someone's house. You might get a decision that you can have high caps in your house. Kennedy might tolerate that. Then build form there.
Just like the Progressives with the queers, take any victory you can get in any court or election and consolidate that gain and move forward to the next step. Gun guys always go for the big wins. Take small wins and build on it.
As to Heller and the AWB. People tout Scalia's comments. But from what I understand, that is dicta and isn't what the decision is about. I don't think it matters, because the left latchonto anything they can.
I just wish Obama was as respectful gun owners as he was of his fellow muslims. ;)
devildogljb
12-07-15, 17:44
Heres a question i always been wondering. How can they tell whats preban and post ban? Just the serial number?
Nothing changes, and no national AWB will come as a result of this, but their reluctance to hear the case is telling. Heller leaves the door open to an AWB, and if I'd have to guess, the current SCOTUS would rule constitutional an AWB and mag ban.
AR lowers, rifles, and mags have never been cheaper. Buy now. An AWB is coming down the pipeline. It's written in the stars.
IIRC any Justice can put a case on the list for discussion, and it requires 4 out of 9 to vote in favor to grant cert.
I'm not sure how many Justices are pro-2A at this point - Scalia is the only one I'd have much confidence in, but even then he has a variety of strong beliefs that could make him rule in a way you wouldn't expect ideologically.
Scalia and Thomas were in the dissent so that's 2. Of the remaining potential friendlies I think Allito is probably with us. Kennedy leans libertarian more often than not so I think he's possibly with us.
That leaves Roberts and his deference for legislatures. I do suspect that this is another instance of Roberts screwing us.
Reading the tea leaves, if justices know they have 4 but not 5 as probable, they can easily vote to scuttle cert
There is also a case from CT making its way up to SCOTUS. Maybe they did not take the case knowing another case is around the corner?
That's a possibility. Refusal to grant cert isn't necessarily an endorsement of a lower ruling. They could be waiting to see I there's a circuit split that nearly has to be resolved
MountainRaven
12-07-15, 18:20
Nothing changes, and no national AWB will come as a result of this, but their reluctance to hear the case is telling. Heller leaves the door open to an AWB, and if I'd have to guess, the current SCOTUS would rule constitutional an AWB and mag ban.
AR lowers, rifles, and mags have never been cheaper. Buy now. An AWB is coming down the pipeline. It's written in the stars.
And like Orion chasing after the Pleiades, being written in the stars doesn't mean anything. Read tea leaves, cast bones, scry runes... man makes his own destiny.
Heres a question i always been wondering. How can they tell whats preban and post ban? Just the serial number?
The serial.
ETA: there may be no grandfathering.
And like Orion chasing after the Pleiades, being written in the stars doesn't mean anything. Read tea leaves, cast bones, scry runes... man makes his own destiny.
Notwithstanding your philosophical beliefs, the longer this matter is punted, unresolved, the more likely AW/mag restrictions are ruled constitutional. Societies tend to embrace social "progress," which in our case would include firearm restrictions similar to those in place elsewhere in Western nations.
Below is a good read on the constitutionality of a hi-cap mag ban.
A federal district court has refused to issue a preliminary injunction blocking Sunnyvale, California’s ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds. (Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2014).) A large part of the court’s rationale was that “a prohibition on possession of magazines having a capacity to accept more than ten rounds applies only the most minor burden on the Second Amendment,” and I think that’s both correct and legally relevant.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/06/are-laws-limiting-magazine-capacity-to-10-rounds-constitutional/
That's a possibility. Refusal to grant cert isn't necessarily an endorsement of a lower ruling. They could be waiting to see I there's a circuit split that nearly has to be resolved
Perhaps. In this case, it sounds as if the liberal Justices did not want the cases, whereas the conservative Justices did. The SCOTUS is as politicized as the other two branches, and I bet in a critical election year, they don't want to stir the hornets' nest.
devildogljb
12-07-15, 19:29
I was thinking the same thing and no sunset . But i'm trying wrap my head around how he could manage this. Idk I'm trying to think positive about this whole thing. But obviously our rights don't mean any thing any more.
The serial.
ETA: there may be no grandfathering.
MountainRaven
12-07-15, 19:57
Notwithstanding your philosophical beliefs, the longer this matter is punted, unresolved, the more likely AW/mag restrictions are ruled constitutional. Societies tend to embrace social "progress," which in our case would include firearm restrictions similar to those in place elsewhere in Western nations.
Below is a good read on the constitutionality of a hi-cap mag ban.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/06/are-laws-limiting-magazine-capacity-to-10-rounds-constitutional/
If SCotUS had ruled in 1985 or 1995, I'm willing to bet that they would have found an AWB and magazine capacity ban to be Constitutional. It's only in the last ten years that things have started to swing our way.
The more time passes, the more people buy guns, the more people buy magazines. The more guns and magazines that are out there - particularly guns and magazines that would be impacted by such a ban - the more likely SCotUS will have to make a decision that is either positive or neutral for our rights because any other ruling would be impractical or unenforceable.
I don't mean to draw similarities between the slave trade and firearms, but is it even imaginable for SCotUS to have ruled slavery unconstitutional in 1858? Given the right to vote to black men and aboriginal Americans in 1831?
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-07-15, 20:53
I was thinking the same thing and no sunset . But i'm trying wrap my head around how he could manage this. Idk I'm trying to think positive about this whole thing. But obviously our rights don't mean any thing any more.
Uhm, door to door seizures?? You can't do it without registration first. You have to know where they are to get any kind of fraction of them turned in. That is why you have to fight BGC, because that is the first step towards registration.
I think Roberts is playing the long game. We have been wrong about his intentions before, but going after a full AWB reversal would probably lose Kennedy. The CT law has more restrictive provisions it seems? That mag issue with 10 rounds sounds like it could be pretty easy to poke holes in. There is a pretty good equal protection clause kind of thing going with pre-94 guns and post. Which would be an interest precedent to set in regards to the NFA machine guns.
ETA: Are their any cases in lower courts where we might get an overturn of a mag or AWB? Someplace down south with a dem city with bad laws, but good courts?
This is going to be a huge problem for us in Commiefornia. The legislature is fired up about banning all semi-auto rifles. They passed a ban about 18 months ago but Gov. Jerry "flush it down" Brown did a pocket veto. This time the political pressure will be more than Gov. Moonbeam will want to take and we will end up with some impossible restrictions. Including a possible complete ban on semi-autos.
My wife just told me that "no matter what" we are moving out of this commie nut-ball state as soon as the kids are through HS. My family represents five generations of Californians, but the progressives have ruined this state and it is time to move on.
SomeOtherGuy
12-07-15, 21:58
This is going to be a huge problem for us in Commiefornia. The legislature is fired up about banning all semi-auto rifles. They passed a ban about 18 months ago but Gov. Jerry "flush it down" Brown did a pocket veto. This time the political pressure will be more than Gov. Moonbeam will want to take and we will end up with some impossible restrictions. Including a possible complete ban on semi-autos.
Talk about starting at full-retard and and getting an icepick lobotomy on top of it. The San Bernardino attack seems to completely prove the uselessness of gun restrictions. But politicians in general don't seem capable of intelligent thought.
MountainRaven
12-07-15, 22:03
Talk about starting at full-retard and and getting an icepick lobotomy on top of it. The San Bernardino attack seems to completely prove the uselessness of gun restrictions. But politicians in general don't seem capable of intelligent thought.
Just remember: If gun control isn't working, it's because you're not using enough of it.
I don't understand how an AWB would be able to include pre ban firearms. Isnt there something about ex post facto in the constitution?
Shit, we have the Second Amendment in the Constitution and they ignore that.
SomeOtherGuy
12-07-15, 23:12
I don't understand how an AWB would be able to include pre ban firearms. Isnt there something about ex post facto in the constitution?
It has been interpreted that "ex post facto" does not preclude banning the continued ownership of something, even if you acquired it legally before it was banned. As far as I know, "ex post facto" has been held only to prohibit criminalizing past actions, not continuation of an action/status that was once lawful and has now been made unlawful.
You might question whether this limited interpretation is actually fair or reasonable.
I listen to an extreme liberal radio station. I know I will have to explain myself, it is just entertaining, I cans study how they argue their points, also I get to hear their banter. So, what I keep hearing is: "No needs Assault weapons, there is no purpose for them. Only to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible."
That is the general consensus among the people I hear. They go with the usual 'high power' BS. But do they not realize that .223 is often criticized for being a small round? I know, when the Liberals talk, they know nothing about guns. Most people know nothing. Thus, what is spewed is absorbed as fact.
AR's are useless for everything excepting killing everything. Great, take them away. I can see the public getting swayed by this easily.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-08-15, 02:27
It seems to me that the NRA is sitting back and letting this ferment till we all throw money at them like they are lesbian strippers in the shower at the nudie joint. MAKE IT RAIN....
This gun control BS is so out of hand even the MSM reporters are throwing flags.
Maybe this is why Roberts held off on the Chicago gun suit, maybe he knew there were more draconian things coming that would be easier to get Kennedy on board.
Counting on Roberts to save the day is like waiting for your buddy to show up to help you move. Don't hold your breath and you had better be prepared to do all the heavy lifting.
ETA: Veterans and the military are some of the most trusted people in society. Get some commercial and interviews where they talk about 1. How these are not the weapons they used and 2. The bad guys will always get guns.
So we get attacked and the idea is to disarm us? That is like getting raped and putting on lip stick.
"there is no purpose for them. Only to kill a lot of people as quickly as possible."
Well, I mean, they're not entirely wrong. The AR-15 was designed to efficiently kill as many people as possible. It was originally a weapon of war, after all.
And it is used for destroying things or practicing to destroy things. Sure, some have turned that practice into a sport, but it's still about destruction in the end.
And I'm ok with that. That's actually why I own and practice with one, for the lawful destruction of as many threats as possible in the shortest amount of time.
If SCotUS had ruled in 1985 or 1995, I'm willing to bet that they would have found an AWB and magazine capacity ban to be Constitutional. It's only in the last ten years that things have started to swing our way.
The more time passes, the more people buy guns, the more people buy magazines. The more guns and magazines that are out there - particularly guns and magazines that would be impacted by such a ban - the more likely SCotUS will have to make a decision that is either positive or neutral for our rights because any other ruling would be impractical or unenforceable.
I don't mean to draw similarities between the slave trade and firearms, but is it even imaginable for SCotUS to have ruled slavery unconstitutional in 1858? Given the right to vote to black men and aboriginal Americans in 1831?
The United States is creeping toward democratic socialism, a tyranny by the majority, similar to what is present in many European countries, and it is inevitable that The People will be granted less liberty. Despite a few good rulings from the judiciary, an AWB is entirely consistent with the recent SCOTUS decisions.
Well just remember your life and death decisions are decided by people whose security and safety are guaranteed
Outlander Systems
12-08-15, 08:11
Even the ****in' Dalai Lama has an armed PSD.
So, unless my local PD is going to assign me a 24/7 Personal Protective Officer (PPO), any politician who asks for my disarmament can go henceforth choke on a bag of wieners.
Well just remember your life and death decisions are decided by people whose security and safety are guaranteed
The Highland Park, IL, ban includes not just the sale or transfer, but also possession, correct?
I see this as a way that large blue cities will craft their own laws like Highland Park did instead of waiting on the feds.
Even the ****in' Dalai Lama has an armed PSD.
So, unless my local PD is going to assign me a 24/7 Personal Protective Officer (PPO), any politician who asks for my disarmament can go henceforth choke on a bag of wieners.
They'll send armed men to your house to take your guns, and they'll shoot your dog and children.
They'll send armed men to your house to take your guns, and they'll shoot your dog and children.
I, for one, will say "f--k all that noise, jack". Some may do that...some may. Especially this new breed.
But not all.
I, for one, will say "f--k all that noise, jack". Some may do that...some may. Especially this new breed.
But not all.
The US government killed more children at Waco than were murdered at Sandy Hook. I hope you're outraged.
http://unitedstatesman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/children.jpg
source: beforeitsnews.com
So we get attacked and the idea is to disarm us? That is like getting raped and putting on lip stick.
There it is. This is exactly what I have been telling folks since San Bernardino. The progressive solution: Want to stop the jihadi attacks? Strike fear in the heart of the enemy?
Disarm.
These politicians prove their total lack of faith in the tactic. Pelosi, The dunce in the Oval Office, Feinstein and Reid surround themselves with guns.
It's so asinine... breathtakingly stupid. I feel dumber just considering their words.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-08-15, 10:11
Well, I mean, they're not entirely wrong. The AR-15 was designed to efficiently kill as many people as possible. It was originally a weapon of war, after all.
And it is used for destroying things or practicing to destroy things. Sure, some have turned that practice into a sport, but it's still about destruction in the end.
And I'm ok with that. That's actually why I own and practice with one, for the lawful destruction of as many threats as possible in the shortest amount of time.
Actually designed to wound, not kill and I missed out on the option for the 'fun switch' on mine.
A jeep is a vehicle of war.
Radios would not be anywhere without the military.
It's all how you use them.
I don't think that it is that an AWB is consistent with Heller and others, it is that there is not determination that it is or it isn't. People can point to Scalia's comments, which are dicta, or they can actually look at the meat of the decisions. Of course a leftist never saw the right in the 2A to begin with, so they won't see it in any other decision.
Once again the fate of our country rests in the hands of Kennedy...
The US government killed more children at Waco than were murdered at Sandy Hook. I hope you're outraged.
http://unitedstatesman.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/children.jpg
source: beforeitsnews.com
What do you want me to do about it?
Actually designed to wound, not kill
That's more related to bullet design due to hague conventions.
Outlander Systems
12-08-15, 10:41
My 14' Alumacraft, Minn Kota, and all my bullet hoses are parked at the bottom of Lake Lanier. If they want to send a dive team in for recovery, I'll split the insurance check with 'em.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/2-rescued-when-boat-sinks-in-lake-lanier/ncsPF/
I should'a listened to my buddy when he suggested I NOT bring every gun I own on a duck hunting trip.
Considering it was a quota hunt, I wasn't taking any chances.
Oh well, ya live 'n ya' learn.
If someone comes knocking for guns at the Outlander House, they'd better get ready for a handful of pocket lint and well-wishing.
I, for one, will say "f--k all that noise, jack". Some may do that...some may. Especially this new breed.
But not all.
Dist. Expert 26
12-08-15, 16:41
I saw an article (linked on Facebook) from the huffington post suggesting complete and total disarmament of the civilian population. Of course they used the example of the UK, where its impossible to get guns illegally and the police are also unarmed (definitely not packing MP5's). What really baffles me is they recognized that there are over 250 million guns in this country, yet somehow it wouldn't be an issue to round them all up.
Somehow they also missed that just recently in France where gun ownership is almost as restrictive as in England they had machine gun toting assholes rampage through the city killing people including unarmed cops. Or in jolly England a crazy goat jumper beheaded a serviceman. How can criminals wantonly kill innocents in such paradise?? With guns not available those places should be free of all crime. LOL
Dist. Expert 26
12-08-15, 17:03
I think its pretty safe to say that those people are, at best, completely delusional. At worst they may be mentally deficient. I have to work to remember that their articles aren't satire.
President Obama sold 100 million guns in fewer than 8 years!
My 14' Alumacraft, Minn Kota, and all my bullet hoses are parked at the bottom of Lake Lanier. If they want to send a dive team in for recovery, I'll split the insurance check with 'em.
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/2-rescued-when-boat-sinks-in-lake-lanier/ncsPF/
I should'a listened to my buddy when he suggested I NOT bring every gun I own on a duck hunting trip.
Considering it was a quota hunt, I wasn't taking any chances.
Oh well, ya live 'n ya' learn.
If someone comes knocking for guns at the Outlander House, they'd better get ready for a handful of pocket lint and well-wishing.
Smart man. Live to fight another day, yada yada. Screaming "Molon Labe, come and get 'em" with a rifle by each window gets you dead----quick. It also prevents you from any further contribution to the "Long War".
Just sayin'........
Outlander Systems
12-08-15, 19:11
I wish I was that clever.
Just a piss-poor rookie duck hunter, with a shitty boat.
Smart man. Live to fight another day, yada yada. Screaming "Molon Labe, come and get 'em" with a rifle by each window gets you dead----quick. It also prevents you from any further contribution to the "Long War".
Just sayin'........
What do you want me to do about it?
I don't know what you should do about it. But for heaven's sake, don't pack a truck full of ANFO.
I'll put out Hillary signs on my lawn and slap NRA stickers randomly throughout the neighborhood on dope houses.
I'll put out Hillary signs on my lawn and slap NRA stickers randomly throughout the neighborhood on dope houses.
I like it. You seem like an alright dude.
I don't know what you should do about it. But for heaven's sake, don't pack a truck full of ANFO.
With all due respect, I don't know how to take you. Like at all.
Like really. Like ever.
With all due respect, I don't know how to take you. Like at all.
Like really. Like ever.
Hahaha....I really should try to be consistent with my meds.
“The justices don’t reveal their reasons for denying review, but one thing is clear,” said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “The justices certainly aren’t eager to take up a Second Amendment case these days.”
“One has to wonder,” he said, “if the Supreme Court is having second thoughts about the Second Amendment.”
In dissent on Monday, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, accused the court of abdicating its responsibility to enforce the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the Heller case, which was decided by a 5 to 4 vote.)
“Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles,” Justice Thomas wrote, referring, he said, to “modern sporting rifles.”
“The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting,” Justice Thomas wrote. “Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.”
The Highland Park ordinance was drafted with those cases in mind, said Steven M. Elrod, a lawyer for the city and the author of the law. “The rights secured by the Second Amendment are not unlimited,” he said.
Since 2010, the Supreme Court has turned away appeals in any number of Second Amendment challenges to gun control laws. Monday’s move was telling, Professor Winkler said.
“The court’s action will encourage gun control advocates to push for bans on assault weapons,” he said. “This is one of the items at the top of the gun control agenda. Now advocates have less to fear from the courts on this issue.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/supreme-court-will-not-hear-challenge-to-assault-weapons-ban-of-highland-park-ill.html
As is his wont, Justice Clarence Thomas penned an opinion, joined only by Justice Antonin Scalia, bemoaning the court’s refusal to hear the challenge—and sharply criticizing the law itself. The 7th Circuit found that the Highland Park ban was constitutional because semiautomatic weapons weren’t available during the ratification of the Second Amendment, weren’t related to the preservation of a “well-regulated militia” and weren’t necessary for self-defense in light of other available weapons. Thomas rejected this analysis, arguing that courts should instead ask whether any given firearm is “commonly used for a lawful purpose.” If so, a ban on that weapon is “highly suspect.” And the semiautomatic weapons outlawed by Highland Park, Thomas claimed, are common enough to gain constitutional protections (citations omitted):
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/07/supreme_court_assault_weapons_case_scotus_won_t_hear_challenge_to_ban.html
wilson1911
12-08-15, 23:52
In the 2nd amendment it states a well regulated militia, to say AR's do not fall under what was in use then is accurate, only because it was not invented yet. But this is a direct contradiction to the spirit of what it means. Why would you want a well regulated(trained) militia to use inferior arms ? What chance does a militia using slingshots or 300 year old Chinese rifles have to defeat the govt's assault weapons?
Can you imagine one of the founders of our country entering the store to buy a gun and being told, nay nay good sir, those are for the govt only....come over here and let me show you this fine 300 year old Chinese gun.
On the other hand of course........If I were to take a founder into a gun store today. I Would not have to even ask which one he wanted. I can see him walking behind the counter and picking up that m249 SAW off the wall and saying, SOLD !!! I need some ammo now. Founder returns to the battle field giggling to himself while saying "here kitty kitty".
They often leave out every man had to bring the best he could afford, along with enough powder, shot, and satchel. The common use argument is bullshit also.
This is why I love lawyers so much. They seek to define the definition of something and throw out every scrap of common sense on the table. They belong in the same cesspool as bankers and politicians.
I'll put out Hillary signs on my lawn and slap NRA stickers randomly throughout the neighborhood on dope houses.
Sir, you kill me. That's some funny Sheet', Damm. I always enjoy your thoughts and stories.
Crow Hunter
12-09-15, 07:36
This is an incredibly dangerous legal theory that I am really, really surprised that the SCOTUS didn't overrule just for that reason regardless of the merits of the law.
The same legal theory should now apply for:
-1st Amendment rules don't apply for anything other than printed media from manual wine press printers all computers, smart phones, telephones, radio and television programs, etc are no longer secured by the 1st
-Only things that existed during the late 18th century are secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Everything else is fair game.
-Only things that are considered "cruel and unusual" in the 18th century apply to the 8th Amendment. So torture, waterboarding, execution by hanging, etc are fully acceptable.
-Only white males are allowed to vote
-Slavery is legal and appropriate
-Indentured servitude is acceptable
-Abortion is illegal
And so on.
This is an incredibly dangerous legal theory that could be used by the unscrupulous and corrupt to destroy our Republic as it is currently accepted to be. I just can't understand the Appeals court letting this stand much less the SCOTUS not blasting this decision back to the stone age as being totally out in left field.
I'll put out Hillary signs on my lawn and slap NRA stickers randomly throughout the neighborhood on dope houses.
After Reagan lost the nomination to Ford in 1976, I was visiting San Diego, California and I was involved in some political vandalism. In the fancy hotels downtown like the US Grant Hotel on Broadway and others, I went into the Men's restrooms an placed white self adhesive stickers on the stainless steel toilet seat cover dispensers. These stickers said:
"Free Carter Campaign Hats"
I really wanted to do this in the 2008 and 2012 election for Obama, but life as a hardworking adult doesn't leave a lot of time. Maybe for the election next year.......? :)
Oh! Shenanigans! I love shenanigans!
I'm morbid. Like in the sense that I always thought living to see a nuclear war or maybe ending up in a Bangkok jail would be thrilling.
So I plan on 2016 being more fun than the year 2000.
The pranking, the hurt feelings, the bitterness, the uncertainty.
I may end up in a communist concentration camp but dammit man, dis gonna be good
ETA I remember picking up chicks at Gore boosters and pep rallies.
Good times.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.