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

[RF667799]

OMG, go away with those childish arguments.

View attachment 67572759

That isn't an argument. It's a statement of fact which seems to upset you.

 

[natman]

Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the Court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated. SCOTUS, Singleton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

My take on this: SCOTUS wants to deal with the closely related cases of AW bans and magazine capacity bans together, rather than dealing with them as two separate cases. They almost had that combination with Snope v Brown and Ocean State Tactical v RI cases, except that Ocean State was interlocutory, i.e., it's still being tried in the lower court. SCOTUS does NOT like to get involved with cases that are not completely finished at the lower court level, so Ocean State wouldn't do. I expect that next year they'll have a fully baked cases on AW bans and magazine capacity and will take both of them up as one case.

 

[RF667799]

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!!

Haha! It doesn't matter what we are ok with. Your own government has decided you won't own an AR-15. Or a handgun. What Constitutional rights are you assuming you have?

Anyway...talk about childish arguments. Yours is stupid and childish. It could as easily apply to any gun. It could even apply beyond guns. It's just wind.

 

[Lees]

Have blue states defined an 'assault weapon'?

If I got a...sling shot, with 10 rocks in my pocket, is that an 'assault weapon'?

Lees

 

[natman]

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!!

This was explained to you in post #19, only an hour and a half ago. There's no excuse for not understanding it.

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".

Is an AR-15 "in common use for lawful purposes"? Yes.
Is a bazooka "in common use for lawful purposes"? No.

 

[CLAX1911]

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!!

I bought a bazooka when I was 15 from an army surplus store it was 60 bucks. These aren't controlled at all why would they be if it's just a tube.

I yes you can have a tank I think tank is just a truck.

 

[JMB1911A1]

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.

What you think someone “needs” has zero bearing. For example, if you saw me driving around by myself in my Ford Super Duty, you would say, “why does he need such a big truck?”

Because on the weekends, I tow a boat or camper. Your thinking that you know what people need is the height of liberal arrogance.

And the AR-15 (not AK-15) is an excellent hunting platform, available in multiple calibers. Just google “AR-15 hunting” and you might become educated.

 

[NolanVoyd]

What you think someone “needs” has zero bearing. For example, if you saw me driving around by myself in my Ford Super Duty, you would say, “why does he need such a big truck?”

Because on the weekends, I tow a boat or camper. Your thinking that you know what people need is the height of liberal arrogance.

And the AR-15 (not AK-15) is an excellent hunting platform, available in multiple calibers. Just google “AR-15 hunting” and you might become educated.

It pertains to the balance between individual rights and public safety.

 

[JMB1911A1]

It pertains to the balance between individual rights and public safety.

And with regards to enumerated constitutional rights, we need to sue strict scrutiny to balance rights vs safety.

Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose.

The MD AWB is neither narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means.

 

[NolanVoyd]

The MD AWB is neither narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means.

Apperantly the supreme court disagrees.

The laws dont ban your right to bear arms, just certain arms.

Apperantly the supreme court didnt think the challenges to those laws had merrit.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Apperantly the supreme court disagrees.

The laws dont ban your right to bear arms, just certain arms.

And the MD General Assembly’s criteria for banning them was basically “scary looking black guns”.

Apperantly the supreme court didnt think the challenges to those laws had merrit.

The Supreme Court did not rule for MD, they just refused to take the case. Big difference.

Snopes had already been vacated once and sent back to the 4th circuit who jerked everyone around for a year and then agreed with MD. I think we have four justices who would have taken Snopes and ruled for freedom. But Roberts is a squish and Barrett is an unknown. I think we will have a better shot at the IL AWB which is working its way up.

If you wish to become informed, I suggest that you read Justice Thomas’ dissent.

 

[NolanVoyd]

And the MD General Assembly’s criteria for banning them was basically “scary looking black guns”.

Ok.

The supreme court has said, so far anyway, that the law is ok. Thry denied the challenge to it.

The Supreme Court did not rule for MD, they just refused to take the case. Big difference.

It means the law stands. They declined to overturn it.

If you wish to become informed, I suggest that you read Justice Thomas’ dissent.

If you want to become informed learn that the dissent isnt what decides the case.

The law stands. The supreme court declined to overturn it.

 

[Rich2018]

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.

So MD need to employ better lawyers when drafting new laws.

 

[natman]

Apperantly the supreme court didnt think the challenges to those laws had merrit.

No. This is a common misconception. From post #27:

Inasmuch, therefore, as all that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari means is that fewer than four members of the Court thought it should be granted, this Court has rigorously insisted that such a denial carries with it no implication whatever regarding the court's views on the merits of a case which it has declined to review. The Court has said this again and again; again and again the admonition has to be repeated. SCOTUS, Singleton v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue. [emphasis added]

 

[natman]

And with regards to enumerated constitutional rights, we need to sue strict scrutiny to balance rights vs safety.

Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose.

The MD AWB is neither narrowly tailored or the least restrictive means.

This was true at one time but Heller and repeated in Bruen made any level of scrutiny obsolete when it comes to the Second Amendment:

We declined to engage in means-end scrutiny because “[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634. We then concluded: “A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” Ibid.
NYSRPA v Bruen, page 14. [emphasis in the original]

 

[Fearandloathing]

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

Your credentials on Canadian law and traditions is vaporous.

I like to copy this shit and publish it as humor on other sites. Truly it is ****ing out of this world in the stupidity department

Americans are a ****ing riot!

 

[JMB1911A1]

Your credentials on Canadian law and traditions is vaporous.

I like to copy this shit and publish it as humor on other sites. Truly it is ****ing out of this world in the stupidity department

Americans are a ****ing riot!

Are AR-15s legal in Canada? | [June Updated]

Are AR-15s Legal in Canada? No, AR-15s are not legal in Canada. They have been prohibited since May 1, 2020, following an Order in Council. This ban encompasses all variants and derivatives of the AR-15 platform, classifying them as prohibited firearms. Understanding the AR-15 Ban in Canada The...

thegunzone.com

No, AR-15s are not legal in Canada. They have been prohibited since May 1, 2020, following an Order in Council. This ban encompasses all variants and derivatives of the AR-15 platform, classifying them as prohibited firearms.​

​

Can I own an AR-15 in Canada if I had one before the ban?​

No, you cannot legally own an AR-15 in Canada, even if you possessed it before the May 1, 2020, ban. The amnesty period, which initially protected owners from prosecution while they waited for the compensation program, has now expired.​

Not even grandfathering them. Just a decree by the Canadian government and the dutiful little subjects obeyed their lords and masters.

 

[RF667799]

Your credentials on Canadian law and traditions is vaporous.

I like to copy this shit and publish it as humor on other sites. Truly it is ****ing out of this world in the stupidity department

Americans are a ****ing riot!

Nothing of substance to contribute, eh?

 

[Spock]

Justice Thomas’s dissent.

SNOPE v. BROWN

www.law.cornell.edu

2nd Amendment is still a 2nd class right.

Not enough dead Americans, apparently. Less regulation of firearms will tend to promote more death and injury from firearms.

 

[Spock]

The challenge will be to decipher the meaning of "infringed" in 2A. To do that will generate some truly imaginative fabrication.

 

[RF667799]

Not enough dead Americans, apparently. Less regulation of firearms will tend to promote more death and injury from firearms.

Why do you speculate it will, when there is no evidence it has?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

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

Sounds like a wise policy IMO.

I'd like to see a WHOLE LOTTA that actually.

 

[RF667799]

Sounds like a wise policy IMO.

I'd like to see a WHOLE LOTTA that actually.

Projection.

 

[Noodlegawd]

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

Where did you get that idea? More importantly, what does that have to do with my comment?

 

[Spock]

Why do you speculate it will, when there is no evidence it has?

You know the numbers very well. There would not be 100,000 dead and injured yearly from firearms without firearms. More guns with greater capacity and muzzle energy will just add to the tragic loss of life.

The facts do not support your fantasy.