Supreme Court turns away a 2nd Amendment challenge to blue-state bans on assault weapons

[Loulit01]

California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional.

MSN

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

"Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation," was one of the arguments in the article.
Hmmmmmmmm, marijuana use is likely MORE popular and widely used, yet many Red states want to keep that from being legal.

Either you believe in State's rights or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

 

[Moon]

California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional.

MSN

But Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh refused for nowto cast the key fourth vote. He called the lower court ruling upholding Maryland's ban "questionable," but agreed with the majority in turning down the appeal for now.

"In my view, this court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two," Kavanaugh said.

Patience.

 

[Loulit01]

Into my 30s I was self-medicating for Bipolar Disorder with alcohol and drugs. I did many incredibly stupid and dangerous things. I visited places that were not exactly safe. And I was in frequent contact with ex-cons, soon-to-be cons, gang members, South American coke dealers, also gentlemen from Harlem, Spanish Harlem, Washington Heights, Trenton, Camden, Newark, etc.

Never once in all that time did I think having a gun would make me safer or improve my chances of survival. I knew some of these people had guns, but I never saw a gun and was never threatened with a gun. They knew I wasn't strapped... I just wanted to trade money for drugs. I got ripped off a few times, not many. But I never felt my life was threatened.

I think this is because of the gun laws in NY and NJ. Honest citizens can buy and own guns in NJ and NY. But you get a background check and need permits. The laws for carrying a guns illegally are almost Draconian. The system works fine. Just check the violent gun crime stats compared to other states.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Patience.

Snopes was already remanded once back to the 4th Circuit after Bruen and the 4th Circuit pulled some shenanigans. Barrett and Roberts have turned out to be major disappointments as regards constitutional rights.

 

[RF667799]

Into my 30s I was self-medicating for Bipolar Disorder with alcohol and drugs. I did many incredibly stupid and dangerous things. I visited places that were not exactly safe. And I was in frequent contact with ex-cons, soon-to-be cons, gang members, South American coke dealers, also gentlemen from Harlem, Spanish Harlem, Washington Heights, Trenton, Camden, Newark, etc.

Never once in all that time did I think having a gun would make me safer or improve my chances of survival. I knew some of these people had guns, but I never saw a gun and was never threatened with a gun. They knew I wasn't strapped... I just wanted to trade money for drugs. I got ripped off a few times, not many. But I never felt my life was threatened.

I think this is because of the gun laws in NY and NJ. Honest citizens can buy and own guns in NJ and NY. But you get a background check and need permits. The laws for carrying a guns illegally are almost Draconian. The system works fine. Just check the violent gun crime stats compared to other states.

You can buy and own some guns in NJ and NY. The type of gun that is least used for criminal purposes? Can't buy those.

I've proposed a universal criminal background check for guns and motor vehicles countless times on these forums. It seems to be a non-starter among both the gun rights supporter and the gun control extremists.

I also have nothing against the idea of a permit or license to carry a gun for self defense. I do believe it must be on a shall issue basis and not be expensive or overly difficult to obtain. Something like a driver's license. But no permit or license to simply own a gun.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Justice Thomas’s dissent.

SNOPE v. BROWN

www.law.cornell.edu

2nd Amendment is still a 2nd class right.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Into my 30s I was self-medicating for Bipolar Disorder with alcohol and drugs. I did many incredibly stupid and dangerous things. I visited places that were not exactly safe. And I was in frequent contact with ex-cons, soon-to-be cons, gang members, South American coke dealers, also gentlemen from Harlem, Spanish Harlem, Washington Heights, Trenton, Camden, Newark, etc.

Never once in all that time did I think having a gun would make me safer or improve my chances of survival. I knew some of these people had guns, but I never saw a gun and was never threatened with a gun. They knew I wasn't strapped... I just wanted to trade money for drugs. I got ripped off a few times, not many. But I never felt my life was threatened.

I think this is because of the gun laws in NY and NJ. Honest citizens can buy and own guns in NJ and NY. But you get a background check and need permits. The laws for carrying a guns illegally are almost Draconian. The system works fine. Just check the violent gun crime stats compared to other states.

So what other constitutionally protected rights should require background checks and permits?

 

[Moon]

Snopes was already remanded once back to the 4th Circuit after Bruen and the 4th Circuit pulled some shenanigans. Barrett and Roberts have turned out to be major disappointments as regards constitutional rights.

I’m hoping they are waiting for the right case to address the infringements on the 2nd amendment once and for all. We’ll see.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So what other constitutionally protected rights should require background checks and permits?

All of them, if the state says so.

 

[Rich2018]

California adopted the nation's first ban on assault weapons in 1989. Since then, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Washington have enacted similar laws, all of which would have been struck down if Maryland's law were ruled unconstitutional.

MSN

Good for Maryland then.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Good for Maryland then.

The funny thing is that the Maryland ban is really badly written so it really wasn't a good case for SCOTUS to take.

What the MD General Assembly did was take all the long guns that required an additional state police background check and ban them. One of the original exceptions to the MSP check was a Colt AR Match rifle with Heavy Barrel. So, as a result, all AR-15's with heavy barrels are NOT banned in MD. Neither are AR-15's in alternate calibers like 6.5 Grendel.

In the same vein, possession of magazines greater than 10 rounds is not banned in MD but transfer or sale is. So, MD residents can legally travel to VA, buy magazines (take possession) and drive back to MD.

To clarify the barrel issue, an AR-15 in 5.56x45 with the top barrel profile is illegal to purchase in MD. One with the lower barrel profile is not.

 

[CLAX1911]

Into my 30s I was self-medicating for Bipolar Disorder with alcohol and drugs. I did many incredibly stupid and dangerous things. I visited places that were not exactly safe. And I was in frequent contact with ex-cons, soon-to-be cons, gang members, South American coke dealers, also gentlemen from Harlem, Spanish Harlem, Washington Heights, Trenton, Camden, Newark, etc.

Never once in all that time did I think having a gun would make me safer or improve my chances of survival. I knew some of these people had guns, but I never saw a gun and was never threatened with a gun. They knew I wasn't strapped... I just wanted to trade money for drugs. I got ripped off a few times, not many. But I never felt my life was threatened.

I think this is because of the gun laws in NY and NJ. Honest citizens can buy and own guns in NJ and NY. But you get a background check and need permits. The laws for carrying a guns illegally are almost Draconian. The system works fine. Just check the violent gun crime stats compared to other states.

So because I would need a permit and a background check drug dealers won't shoot you?

Explain that please.

 

[Noodlegawd]

"Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation," was one of the arguments in the article.
Hmmmmmmmm, marijuana use is likely MORE popular and widely used, yet many Red states want to keep that from being legal.

Either you believe in State's rights or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

Yes you can. You believe in states' rights for anything that doesn't violate the constitution. It's not complicated.

There's no constitutional right to smoke pot, or to use any kind of intoxicants for that matter. And I would gladly bet that more innocent people die every year as a result of people using marijuana, than as a result of people owning AR15s. In fact, no one has ever died specifically because AR15s are legal to own.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Yes you can. You believe in states' rights for anything that doesn't violate the constitution. It's not complicated.

There's no constitutional right to smoke pot, or to use any kind of intoxicants for that matter. And I would gladly bet that more innocent people die every year as a result of people using marijuana, than as a result of people owning AR15s. In fact, no one has ever died specifically because AR15s are legal to own.

it's legal to own a car too but use one to kill people, that is illegal, not to mention immoral. so, let me ask you, you condone immoral behavior just because you own a legal device?

 

[Noodlegawd]

it's legal to own a car too but use one to kill people, that is illegal, not to mention immoral. so, let me ask you, you condone immoral behavior just because you own a legal device?

I didn't say that killing people should generally be legal, so I have no idea what your point might be.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

so I have no idea what your point might be.

In fact, no one has ever died specifically because AR15s are legal to own.

 

[Noodlegawd]

And?

 

[natman]

"Today, the AR-15 and its variants are one of the most popular and widely owned firearms in the Nation," was one of the arguments in the article.
Hmmmmmmmm, marijuana use is likely MORE popular and widely used, yet many Red states want to keep that from being legal.

Either you believe in State's rights or you don't. Can't have it both ways.

Not a State's rights issue in any way, shape or form. Here's how it works:
In DC v Heller, SCOTUS ruled:

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.

The quote above about AR-15s being one of the most popular firearms establishes that they are "in common use for lawful purposes".

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Not a State's rights issue in any way, shape or form. Here's how it works:
In DC v Heller, SCOTUS ruled:

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.

The quote above about AR-15s being one of the most popular firearms establishes that they are "in common use for lawful purposes".

Yup, in the U.S. Some other court, hopefully, will interpret the Constitution differently. AND if such ever occurs, the bleating from the Right will be staggering. Everyone applauds a court's ruling when it suits them, but if a court rules otherwise, the applauders become complainers.

By here is a finer point: Just because you can, ask yourself why you HAVE TO? I am allowed to drive a big truck also. I choose not too. I can hoard my money and never give to charity. But I opt to not think that way. I have the "right" to be a bigot and call black people the N word, and that is protected speech, but I would never do so. You might not believe this, but I actually know some hunters. NONE of them own a AK-15. That is the truth. NOT ONE. If you need an AK-15 to shoot game then you aren't really a hunter, just a wannabee one.

 

[RF667799]

Yup, in the U.S. Some other court, hopefully, will interpret the Constitution differently. AND if such ever occurs, the bleating from the Right will be staggering. Everyone applauds a court's ruling when it suits them, but if a court rules otherwise, the applauders become complainers.

By here is a finer point: Just because you can, ask yourself why you HAVE TO? I am allowed to drive a big truck also. I choose not too. I can hoard my money and never give to charity. But I opt to not think that way. I have the "right" to be a bigot and call black people the N word, and that is protected speech, but I would never do so. You might not believe this, but I actually know some hunters. NONE of them own a AK-15. That is the truth. NOT ONE. If you need an AK-15 to shoot game then you aren't really a hunter, just a wannabee one.

That lack of AR ownership is due to your Canadian authorities deciding Canadian citizens aren't to be trusted with them.

 

[natman]

Just because you can, ask yourself why you HAVE TO? I am allowed to drive a big truck also. I choose not too. I can hoard my money and never give to charity. But I opt to not think that way. I have the "right" to be a bigot and call black people the N word, and that is protected speech, but I would never do so. You might not believe this, but I actually know some hunters. NONE of them own a AK-15. That is the truth. NOT ONE. If you need an AK-15 to shoot game then you aren't really a hunter, just a wannabee one.

The important part of your post is highlighted.

P.S. While hunting is one of the "lawful purposes" that are protected by the Second Amendment, it's not about hunting any more than it's about State's Rights.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

That lack of AR ownership is due to your Canadian authorities deciding Canadian citizens aren't to be trusted with them.

OMG, go away with those childish arguments.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

The important part of your post is highlighted.

P.S. While hunting is one of the "lawful purposes" that are protected by the Second Amendment, it's not about hunting any more than it's about State's Rights.

I GET THAT. Yet firearms are restricted. The divide comes from people who want less restriction or none, or those who want more. If you REALLY believe that an semi-auto is included in a right to bear arms, then I am sure you would be ok with my owning a bazooka or even a tank. Yet the law wouldn't allow me to, so my "constitutional rights" are being violated!!

 

[Maccabee]

Yes you can. You believe in states' rights for anything that doesn't violate the constitution. It's not complicated.

There's no constitutional right to smoke pot, or to use any kind of intoxicants for that matter. And I would gladly bet that more innocent people die every year as a result of people using marijuana, than as a result of people owning AR15s. In fact, no one has ever died specifically because AR15s are legal to own.

I thought the Constitution was to be read as "anything not explicitly forbidden by law is allowed."