Supreme Court turns away challenge to state bans on assault weapons

[TurtleDude]

how so?

I set out years ago why Heller helped the dems-an opinion several high level GOP operatives I know agreed with. Many union gun owners were on the fence-vote for Obama as their union wanted or vote for their gun rights. Well what Heller did was create complacency among "gun rights first" voters and they figured they would support their union since Obama couldn't ban guns. Now the NRA and more proactive groups like GOA and Buckeye Firearms and the CCKBA are all saying that Hillary wants to use the judiciary to accomplish what the executive branch cannot do and ban lots of guns. If a bunch of democrat judges rule against gun rights (and the Democrats on the court are monolithic in their statist disgust for gun rights) that is only going to invigorate the pro gun side

 

[haymarket]

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
see DC vs Heller.

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense

the same could be said of semi-automatic rifles.

Your last line is where you left the tracks. Equating handguns with AR 15's is ridiculous and is not at all anywhere near the same thing. Over half of all the guns in use are handguns. Banning that would indeed be a violation. Less than 2 or 3% of guns are the AR 15. Banning them - like we already did previously - was NOT a violation.

 

[danarhea]

they should have remanded it back to the lower court to consider their previous ruling on guns which said that states could not legally ban the guns.
how a lower court can override a previous SCOTUS ruling is beyond me.

that pretty much means that any lower court can reverse any SCOTUS that was made prior you just have to find the right set of judges.

That's actually not surprising. Sometimes SCOTUS rulings should be revisited. Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind here.

 

[justabubba]

I set out years ago why Heller helped the dems-an opinion several high level GOP operatives I know agreed with. Many union gun owners were on the fence-vote for Obama as their union wanted or vote for their gun rights. Well what Heller did was create complacency among "gun rights first" voters and they figured they would support their union since Obama couldn't ban guns. Now the NRA and more proactive groups like GOA and Buckeye Firearms and the CCKBA are all saying that Hillary wants to use the judiciary to accomplish what the executive branch cannot do and ban lots of guns. If a bunch of democrat judges rule against gun rights (and the Democrats on the court are monolithic in their statist disgust for gun rights) that is only going to invigorate the pro gun side

here is the flawed logic that does not permit your reasoning to stand up to scrutiny. i have emphasized it in your post, above

Obama cannot ban guns. not because of heller, but because the second amendment prohibits such a ban
and thus, no cover was provided to the left/Obama by the flawed heller decision

 

[ludin]

What is the ratio of AR-15s used in an act of self-defense vs. criminal activity? That is likely what would be considered.

ratio doesn't matter just the fact that it could.
that also doesn't consider the fact that people use it for hunting, target practice, and shooting competitions.

the state unconstitutionally banned a legal gun from legal gun owners for no reason.

 

[TurtleDude]

here is the flawed logic that does not permit your reasoning to stand up to scrutiny. i have emphasized it in your post, above

Obama cannot ban guns. not because of heller, but because the second amendment prohibits such a ban
and thus, no cover was provided to the left/Obama by the flawed heller decision

I guess you just cannot grasp that the campaign arguments against Obama was that he would be a gun banner. So tell me how Clinton didn't ban some guns

geez, what a stupid argument

 

[TurtleDude]

What is the ratio of AR-15s used in an act of self-defense vs. criminal activity? That is likely what would be considered.

that's a stupid argument too but if you want to go there, AR 15s have very little crime use compared to legal use. But then again Democrats banned machine guns made after 1986 even though the ratio didn't exist because there was NO case of a private citizen using a legally owned machine gun to commit a murder in 50 years

 

[ludin]

no, it means none of that

because you say so is meaningless as an argument.
the lower court just invalidated a previous ruling by the SCOTUS that allows legal home owners to own guns.
that guns cannot be banned outright.

this was proven in heller and other such rulings. the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and bear arms.
the fact that the SCOTUS has already ruled on this means the lower court upholding the ban counters previous
SCOTUS rulings that say otherwise.

 

[ludin]

That's actually not surprising. Sometimes SCOTUS rulings should be revisited. Plessy v. Ferguson comes to mind here.

that is for the SCOTUS to revisit and change not the lower appeals court.

 

[TurtleDude]

ratio doesn't matter just the fact that it could.
that also doesn't consider the fact that people use it for hunting, target practice, and shooting competitions.

the state unconstitutionally banned a legal gun from legal gun owners for no reason.

when are people going to get the fact that gun bans are political weapons against people liberals don't like and are not designed for crime control?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Why can't you cite the reasons why you believe me to being incorrect..................When did it become proper for the poster to make the other to prove himself wrong?

If you cannot in your own words prove what I say .... Is incorrect.................the it not an argument of worth........


BTW

THIS SUBJECT IS POSTED IN THE WRONG AREA................BELONGS IN GENERAL POLITICAL DISCUSSION - GUN CONTROL........

I did cite the reasons as did other members, in posts above yours, which is why I said to read the entire thread for your answer.

 

[justabubba]

ratio doesn't matter just the fact that it could.
that also doesn't consider the fact that people use it for hunting, target practice, and shooting competitions.

the state unconstitutionally banned a legal gun from legal gun owners for no reason.

saying i use a machine gun for hunting and shooting competition does not cause it to no longer be found ineligible for an individual's arm
the greater good must be evaluated, for other high rate of fire weapons, just as it was for the restriction/prohibition of the machine gun

 

[ludin]

here is the flawed logic that does not permit your reasoning to stand up to scrutiny. i have emphasized it in your post, above

Obama cannot ban guns. not because of heller, but because the second amendment prohibits such a ban
and thus, no cover was provided to the left/Obama by the flawed heller decision

yet here we have the government banning guns so your claim is falsified.
even though the majority of homicides and suicides are used by handguns not semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Napoleon]

ratio doesn't matter just the fact that it could.
that also doesn't consider the fact that people use it for hunting, target practice, and shooting competitions.

the state unconstitutionally banned a legal gun from legal gun owners for no reason.

It mattered in United States v. Miller. You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that rights are open ended. They aren't and never have been. The State had/has a very clear reason and whether or not that reason is compelling enough to justify a restriction on civil rights and liberties is up to the Supreme Court. For now, they don't see a reason to overturn it.

 

[justabubba]

I guess you just cannot grasp that the campaign arguments against Obama was that he would be a gun banner. So tell me how Clinton didn't ban some guns

geez, what a stupid argument

no, i can see how the ill informed segment of the voting population could be persuaded that false things are actually true. in your example that Obama cannot ban guns only because of heller

how clinton did not ban some guns. easy

everyone in the USA living in America during the clinton administration, please participate in answering the following question:

when clinton was president were you prohibited from bearing/owning/using arms? yes or no

 

[justabubba]

I guess you just cannot grasp that the campaign arguments against Obama was that he would be a gun banner. So tell me how Clinton didn't ban some guns

geez, what a stupid argument

to that i agree
as much as i agree with anyone concluding Obama could not ban guns only because of the heller decision
no person having any knowledge of the law could come to that conclusion, honestly

 

[VanceMack]

I dont pretend to know for sure, but maybe this is an issue the SCOTUS wants to hear with a full court. Deciding not to hear the case doesnt mean it cant be brought forward later.

 

[VanceMack]

to that i agree
as much as i agree with anyone concluding Obama could not ban guns only because of the heller decision
no person having any knowledge of the law could come to that conclusion, honestly

Obama cant ban guns because he is the President, not king. He can only sign law...not create new law.

 

[justabubba]

because you say so is meaningless as an argument.
the lower court just invalidated a previous ruling by the SCOTUS that allows legal home owners to own guns.
that guns cannot be banned outright.

this was proven in heller and other such rulings. the 2nd amendment protects the right to own and bear arms.
the fact that the SCOTUS has already ruled on this means the lower court upholding the ban counters previous
SCOTUS rulings that say otherwise.

no lower court invalidated a standing supreme court opinion
that cannot happen

 

[ludin]

saying i use a machine gun for hunting and shooting competition does not cause it to no longer be found ineligible for an individual's arm
the greater good must be evaluated, for other high rate of fire weapons, just as it was for the restriction/prohibition of the machine gun

I would say go for it if you want to use a machine gun for hunting. it isn't very practical and if you want to totally ruin what you are shooting at then that is your choice.
the 2nd amendment say otherwise to the greater good.

there is no difference between this
http://www.gandermountain.com/modpe...Model-750-Synthetic-Centerfire-Rifle&i=416731

and this
FN America FN 15 Military Collector M16 Centerfire Rifle-967541 - Gander Mountain

it is a matter of looks nothing more. so the argument doesn't stand on it's 2 feet.

 

[TurtleDude]

to that i agree
as much as i agree with anyone concluding Obama could not ban guns only because of the heller decision
no person having any knowledge of the law could come to that conclusion, honestly

in order to engage in contrarian nonsense, you are trying to finesse the term "ban" in order to try to claim I was wrong. Its a patently dishonest argument and we all know that the term "ban" guns by a president means either he signs a ban as clinton did, that was already passed by congress, or he engages in executive orders like Clinton did preventing the import of certain arms

 

[ludin]

no lower court invalidated a standing supreme court opinion
that cannot happen

yet it just did when they upheld the state ban and ignored previous SCOTUS rulings and the 2nd amendment.
you lose yet again.

 

[Visbek]

So, does the 2nd Amendment come before the 10th Amendment? SCOTUS, I think, just said no. However, the 10th Amendment says that rights not specified in the Constitution belong to the states, but the right to bear arms IS specified. I honestly believe that not taking this case was a bad decision.

Discussion?

This has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment.

No rights are absolute, including the right to bear arms. Heller was very clear that states and the federal government can regulate the ownership, transfer and sales of arms.

It is entirely constitutional for a state to ban the sale of assault rifles. What a state or municipality can't do is ban ownership and sale of all arms.

 

[justabubba]

when are people going to get the fact that gun bans are political weapons against people liberals don't like and are not designed for crime control?

never
because that is not a fact

amazed i have to notify a person of your background of such a fact

 

[TurtleDude]

saying i use a machine gun for hunting and shooting competition does not cause it to no longer be found ineligible for an individual's arm
the greater good must be evaluated, for other high rate of fire weapons, just as it was for the restriction/prohibition of the machine gun

the greater good would involve the gun banners being seen for what they are