• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans | Reuters
Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place gun control laws in New York and Connecticut that ban military-style assault weapons like the one used in last week's massacre at an Orlando nightclub, rejecting a legal challenge by gun rights advocates.

The court's action underlined its reluctance to insert itself into the simmering national debate on gun control. The Supreme Court issued important rulings in gun cases in 2008 and 2010 but has not taken up a major firearms case since. The justices declined to hear an appeal of an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld laws prohibiting semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines in the two northeastern states.

"Sensible gun safety legislation works. The Supreme Court's action today in declining to hear this appeal affirms that the reforms enacted in Connecticut following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School were reasonable, sensible and lawful," Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, a Democrat, said.................


Just as I have been telling yall……….

States can pass laws regulating guns…………..and can legally ban certain types of guns……….

And it’s all constitutional
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is unconstitutional and the SC justices have violated their oaths, nothing more and nothing new.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans | Reuters
Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place gun control laws in New York and Connecticut that ban military-style assault weapons like the one used in last week's massacre at an Orlando nightclub, rejecting a legal challenge by gun rights advocates.

The court's action underlined its reluctance to insert itself into the simmering national debate on gun control. The Supreme Court issued important rulings in gun cases in 2008 and 2010 but has not taken up a major firearms case since. The justices declined to hear an appeal of an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld laws prohibiting semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines in the two northeastern states.

"Sensible gun safety legislation works. The Supreme Court's action today in declining to hear this appeal affirms that the reforms enacted in Connecticut following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School were reasonable, sensible and lawful," Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, a Democrat, said.................


Just as I have been telling yall……….

States can pass laws regulating guns…………..and can legally ban certain types of guns……….

And it’s all constitutional

As I pointed out this morning, we are losing the reliable protection the Constitution. History demonstrates how interesting such periods can be
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
As I pointed out this morning, we are losing the reliable protection the Constitution. History demonstrates how interesting such periods can be

SCOTUS is the court whose duty is to interpret the constitution..............Not the NRA
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,331
Reaction score
84,960
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
As I pointed out this morning, we are losing the reliable protection the Constitution. History demonstrates how interesting such periods can be

some justices don't want people owning guns-those include Breyer, the two Obama leftwing parrots and RBG. three others are unsure at where the second amendment starts to prevent long accepted police powers of the state after McDonald. Thomas is the only one that is 100% pro second amendment.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
SCOTUS is the court whose duty is to interpret the constitution..............Not the NRA

Thank you. That is a very good piece of information in the context. ;)

But is immaterial to the point. You see, it does not help you that the organization that strips a minority of its rights is a court. When you had been acting on traditional interpretation of the words of the law and the law is the same, it might as well be the secret police. It is the de facto change of law and the process of this change that is of interest. The pertinent fact is that you could not influence the change of law by democratic means. So, what the comment aimed at is your seeming glee that law-making is shifting to the court and away from democratic process.

Now don't get me wrong. I am pretty indifferent to most of the matters concerned in the sense that, if the country wants to legislate on the matter, that is fine.

But obviously society does not "want" to legislate and the law changes anyway, almost by lingual slippage and redefinition. This is always a potential problem with legal systems that rely on precedence. It is usually beneficial in small dose and in connection with the large amount of differing detail no law can handle; at the edges of the law, so to speak. The law defining central and fundamental rights have another character. Here a slip in the meaning of the law is a change in the basis of the consensus on which the society is founded. The consequences of destroying this consensus can be various and is hard to predict both legally and worse by far socio-politically, as it will tend to destroy the impression of legitimacy of the Commons. This seems to have started in the US and it may prove a veritable Pandora's Box with all the interesting civil disorder that such periods bring with them.

And, ah yes. It is always interesting to watch the lesser actors in these things. The shift of bigotry to those holding with the illicit change away from those earlier accused of it or the glee aimed at those they are "winning" against the old ways and all that is really very interesting.
 

joG

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2013
Messages
43,839
Reaction score
9,638
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
some justices don't want people owning guns-those include Breyer, the two Obama leftwing parrots and RBG. three others are unsure at where the second amendment starts to prevent long accepted police powers of the state after McDonald. Thomas is the only one that is 100% pro second amendment.

That is important, but I think probably this transcends the question of which Justices we presently have.
It is a dangerous path we are on here. In the case of RoevsWade we did not see too much violence, but the ground is prepared by a few decades of law making by court instead of by Congress has led to a less stable legitimacy. The present nervousness in society is evident to anyone interested in such things.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is important, but I think probably this transcends the question of which Justices we presently have.
It is a dangerous path we are on here. In the case of RoevsWade we did not see too much violence, but the ground is prepared by a few decades of law making by court instead of by Congress has led to a less stable legitimacy. The present nervousness in society is evident to anyone interested in such things.

Well it is about time citizens woke up and figured government can stack the courts. Not only that as the paymaster and appointee government also commands some leverage.

What is citizens problem do they not have a voice and choice which it is their duty to use? The only way to get government to back off is to tell government "HANDS OFF" and mean it. Citizens right and duty to control their employee.
 

Crimefree

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,476
Reaction score
2,606
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
As I pointed out this morning, we are losing the reliable protection the Constitution. History demonstrates how interesting such periods can be

The only reason we lose is because we fail to object. The thief who steals your possessions has them if you do not act. It really is as simple as that.
 

haymarket

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
120,954
Reaction score
28,528
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The only reason we lose is because we fail to object. The thief who steals your possessions has them if you do not act. It really is as simple as that.

And what actions do you propose to correct what you view as this theft?
 

blaxshep

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
16,875
Reaction score
7,666
Location
St. Petersburg
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
SCOTUS is the court whose duty is to interpret the constitution..............Not the NRA

WRONG! The SCOTUS duty is to interpret if laws are constitutional NOT to interpret the constitution.
 

BretJ

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 19, 2012
Messages
6,457
Reaction score
2,533
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans | Reuters
Supreme Court rejects challenge to state assault weapon bans

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left in place gun control laws in New York and Connecticut that ban military-style assault weapons like the one used in last week's massacre at an Orlando nightclub, rejecting a legal challenge by gun rights advocates.

The court's action underlined its reluctance to insert itself into the simmering national debate on gun control. The Supreme Court issued important rulings in gun cases in 2008 and 2010 but has not taken up a major firearms case since. The justices declined to hear an appeal of an October ruling by the New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld laws prohibiting semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines in the two northeastern states.

"Sensible gun safety legislation works. The Supreme Court's action today in declining to hear this appeal affirms that the reforms enacted in Connecticut following the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School were reasonable, sensible and lawful," Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen, a Democrat, said.................


Just as I have been telling yall……….

States can pass laws regulating guns…………..and can legally ban certain types of guns……….

And it’s all constitutional

The same court said slaves had to be returned and Prohibition was the law of the land..... They do get it wrong sometimes.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Thank you. That is a very good piece of information in the context. ;)

But is immaterial to the point. You see, it does not help you that the organization that strips a minority of its rights is a court. When you had been acting on traditional interpretation of the words of the law and the law is the same, it might as well be the secret police. It is the de facto change of law and the process of this change that is of interest. The pertinent fact is that you could not influence the change of law by democratic means. So, what the comment aimed at is your seeming glee that law-making is shifting to the court and away from democratic process.

Now don't get me wrong. I am pretty indifferent to most of the matters concerned in the sense that, if the country wants to legislate on the matter, that is fine.

But obviously society does not "want" to legislate and the law changes anyway, almost by lingual slippage and redefinition. This is always a potential problem with legal systems that rely on precedence. It is usually beneficial in small dose and in connection with the large amount of differing detail no law can handle; at the edges of the law, so to speak. The law defining central and fundamental rights have another character. Here a slip in the meaning of the law is a change in the basis of the consensus on which the society is founded. The consequences of destroying this consensus can be various and is hard to predict both legally and worse by far socio-politically, as it will tend to destroy the impression of legitimacy of the Commons. This seems to have started in the US and it may prove a veritable Pandora's Box with all the interesting civil disorder that such periods bring with them.

And, ah yes. It is always interesting to watch the lesser actors in these things. The shift of bigotry to those holding with the illicit change away from those earlier accused of it or the glee aimed at those they are "winning" against the old ways and all that is really very interesting.


If the SCOTUS rules so................you never lost your rights...

Because you never had them in the first place.......

If you believe in the constitution you must accept the SCOTUS is the final interrupter of what the law is........not you, not the NRA..........its the SCOTUS that determines what the Constitution means......

Now if you do not want to believe and support that.........Then would it not be fair to say .........

You are no American...........
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
36,318
Reaction score
8,304
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If the SCOTUS rules so................you never lost your rights...

Because you never had them in the first place.......

If you believe in the constitution you must accept the SCOTUS is the final interrupter of what the law is........not you, not the NRA..........its the SCOTUS that determines what the Constitution means......

Now if you do not want to believe and support that.........Then would it not be fair to say .........

You are no American...........

LOL I don't agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Apparently only half the country still believes that. Not an American, what a retarded sentiment for someone that wants to protect their rights to self defense.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The same court said slaves had to be returned and Prohibition was the law of the land..... They do get it wrong sometimes.

No it was not the court...........It was the constitution
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
LOL I don't agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Apparently only half the country still believes that. Not an American, what a retarded sentiment for someone that wants to protect their rights to self defense.

They do not believe in your or even their right to self defense, they believe the government will protect their rights, while at the same time that same government violates the rights the founders installed. Amazing how stupid some people actually are.
 

imyoda

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
5,731
Reaction score
1,025
Location
Sarasota, Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
LOL I don't agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Apparently only half the country still believes that. Not an American, what a retarded sentiment for someone that wants to protect their rights to self defense.

So sorry the SCOTUS busted your bubble and told yall "What it really is".........Doesn't matter what what you think half of the country thinks ....It is the law so deal with it

BTW

Your so-called half of the country is about equal to 8%
 

Casper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2015
Messages
26,734
Reaction score
11,514
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Just curious did they bother to Define what an Assault Rifle is?
 

OpportunityCost

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2011
Messages
36,318
Reaction score
8,304
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So sorry the SCOTUS busted your bubble and told yall "What it really is".........Doesn't matter what what you think half of the country thinks ....It is the law so deal with it

BTW

Your so-called half of the country is about equal to 8%

That's a defined number, now you need to prove it. Please provide something to back that 8% number.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,331
Reaction score
84,960
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I heard it on Faux Noise the other day............. But lets see if this works for you.......

Poll: 92 percent of gun owners support universal background checks | TheHill

I realize you are afraid to respond to me on this board but the fact is-when people actually understand what a joke UBGCs are the number comes down. Are they told that the federal government most likely doesn't have the constitutional power to require them? or that the real reason for pushing those UBGC is to create a demand for gun registration or to turn lots of private sellers into criminals?

the problem with gun banners and their polls is that their polls are based on low information respondents. its funny how we are told that the public always supports this crap-we heard that in 1994 and look what happened
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
268,331
Reaction score
84,960
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Here are questions that need to be asked of the gun owners who allegedly support that idiocy

1) do you support UBGC because

a) you think it will actually keep criminals from getting guns

b) because you think this compromise will appease many or lots of Bannerrhoid movement members

2) do you understand that the Brady bill did NOTHING to decrease violent crime

a) do you understand that unlike licensed dealers, there is no way to enforce UBGC short of registration

3) do you support registration

a) if you do, do you realize that the supreme court has ruled that criminals and others who cannot legally own firearms CANNOT be prosecuted for violating a gun registration

b) so do you support gun registration knowing it cannot even be applied to criminals?
 

Beaudreaux

Preserve Protect Defend
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
18,233
Reaction score
15,861
Location
veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here are questions that need to be asked of the gun owners who allegedly support that idiocy

1) do you support UBGC because

a) you think it will actually keep criminals from getting guns

b) because you think this compromise will appease many or lots of Bannerrhoid movement members

2) do you understand that the Brady bill did NOTHING to decrease violent crime

a) do you understand that unlike licensed dealers, there is no way to enforce UBGC short of registration

3) do you support registration

a) if you do, do you realize that the supreme court has ruled that criminals and others who cannot legally own firearms CANNOT be prosecuted for violating a gun registration

b) so do you support gun registration knowing it cannot even be applied to criminals?

People that quote that poll, should also look at the way the question was asked, and what was left out - as you described by your post above: 59. Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

The average person is not educated on what is meant by UBGC. They have no clue that it would include if a father gives his son a firearm as a gift.
 
Top Bottom