Supreme Court turns away challenge to state bans on assault weapons

[ludin]

how reasonable is it for one to conclude that a high rate of fire weapons is to be used for hunting




.... anything else but humans

dodge what is the difference between those two guns?
if you can't answer the question then I understand just admit it.

both of those are perfectly fine for hunting.

 

[Visbek]

If it was in line with heller than they would have remanded it back to the lower court to reconsider the case with heller in mind.

Incorrect.

They had no need to hear this case because the lower court ruling was in line with Heller.

they didn't do that meaning that the lower court just invalidated heller and the right to gun ownership was overturned
and that the states can ban legal gun owners from owning specific guns.

the states just did block gun ownership.

Incorrect.

CT and NY barred the sale of rapid-fire assault rifles. They did not ban all arms sales.

Heller is still in effect. Absolutely nothing changed about it. Heller was quite clear that governments can regulate arms, as long as the regulations are not equivalent to a total ban. Heller did not, in any way shape or form, declare that the right to bear arms means ordinary citizens can purchase flamethrowers, tanks, Howitzers or any weapon they want whatsoever.

 

[ludin]

actually the remand should have been based on the incorporation case-McDonald v Chicago, not Heller which was based on federal bans

heller also ruled that the outright ban of certain firearms was unconstitutional as well.
which would make these state bans unconstitutional as they ban legal owners from owning legal firearms.

yet they didn't do that. I am sure mdconald would have precedent here but in this case all precedent just got thrown out the window.

 

[imyoda]

I still don't get why suicides are part of the discussion. Do people not have the right to harm themselves?

Well suicide is no longer against the law...........so there is one part of the multifaceted question you ask...........

 

[Henrin]

and anyone who believes your above post has an inability to think

So how do you keep the militia regular by disarming them?

Do you think the militia becomes more effective by having less access to firearms and having to wait before they get one?

Do you think that limiting the amount of ammo of the militia might make it less effective?

Do you realize that the word regulate in the second amendment meant to keep regular? Do you realize what it is speaking towards?

 

[justabubba]

You dont believe for a second that the 2nd Amendment has ANYTHING to do with hunting...so why would you make such a silly argument that you KNOW is not relevant?

good
then we can agree to dispense with the noting that these high rate of fire weapons are not intended to hunt anything other than humans

 

[TurtleDude]

heller also ruled that the outright ban of certain firearms was unconstitutional as well.
which would make these state bans unconstitutional as they ban legal owners from owning legal firearms.

yet they didn't do that. I am sure mdconald would have precedent here but in this case all precedent just got thrown out the window.

that is the biggest problem with the case law creation of our federal common law

Liberals don't respect precedent-if they did, none of the new deal idiocy like Wickard decision would have existed. but once liberals piss on precedent and create more governmental power, they expect (and are generally followed) conservative justices who come along later to respect THEIR precedent. Kogan stated under oath that she saw Heller as settled precedent. we will see-=but our biggest problem often comes from Justices like the Late Scalia who has stated that he was loathe to overturn unconstitutional precedent that has "become relied upon"

you give ANY of those justices a shot of truth serum and I bet they'd admit that the commerce clause has absolutely no relevance or authority for federal gun restrictions.

 

[ludin]

Incorrect.

They had no need to hear this case because the lower court ruling was in line with Heller.

no it wasn't as DC basically had banned handguns which is what heller was about.
Heller said that the state cannot ban firearms.

Incorrect.
CT and NY barred the sale of rapid-fire assault rifles. They did not ban all arms sales.

DC basically banned all handguns and heller overturned that.
therefore NY and CT are not in line with heller and the lower court overturned heller and other
past cases. the SCOTUS should have remanded the case back to the lower court citing heller and evidently Mcdonald as well.

Heller is still in effect. Absolutely nothing changed about it. Heller was quite clear that governments can regulate arms, as long as the regulations are not equivalent to a total ban. Heller did not, in any way shape or form, declare that the right to bear arms means ordinary citizens can purchase flamethrowers, tanks, Howitzers or any weapon they want whatsoever.

nope it isn't in effect as now another court can invalidate it with the right set of judges.
the judges in CT and NY ignored heller decision completely.
they can regulate not ban. NY and CT have banned legal gun owners from owning legal guns.

it is a total ban on semi-automatic rifles just as DC banned handguns.

ordinary citizens can own those things as long as they have the proper permitting from the ATF.
you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[TurtleDude]

good
then we can agree to dispense with the noting that these high rate of fire weapons are not intended to hunt anything other than humans

that's again moronic. its such a dishonest mis-interpretation of what VanceMack said that most people with a degree of intellectual honesty would be embarrassed to make that assertion

 

[TurtleDude]

no it wasn't as DC basically had banned handguns which is what heller was about.
Heller said that the state cannot ban firearms.


DC basically banned all handguns and heller overturned that.
therefore NY and CT are not in line with heller and the lower court overturned heller and other
past cases. the SCOTUS should have remanded the case back to the lower court citing heller and evidently Mcdonald as well.



nope it isn't in effect as now another court can invalidate it with the right set of judges.
the judges in CT and NY ignored heller decision completely.
they can regulate not ban. NY and CT have banned legal gun owners from owning legal guns.

it is a total ban on semi-automatic rifles just as DC banned handguns.

ordinary citizens can own those things as long as they have the proper permitting from the ATF.
you don't know what you are talking about.

a couple of clarifications

fully automatic weapons made before May 19, 1986 can be owned IF you get a tax stamp from ATF and YOUR HOME state allows it

Heller was not about state action but federal action

 

[VanceMack]

good
then we can agree to dispense with the noting that these high rate of fire weapons are not intended to hunt anything other than humans

Well no, Bubba...because that would be silly.

 

[VanceMack]

good
then we can agree to dispense with the noting that these high rate of fire weapons are not intended to hunt anything other than humans

However...we CAN dispense with the silly notion that the 2nd Amendment had anything to do with hunting. Right?

 

[Henrin]

Well suicide is no longer against the law...........so there is one part of the multifaceted question you ask...........

Which makes it even more interesting. Gun control supporters are commonly for having suicide being legal behavior, so the fact that they want the government to make it harder for people to do is interesting.

 

[ludin]

good
then we can agree to dispense with the noting that these high rate of fire weapons are not intended to hunt anything other than humans

you still have no answered the question. why not? what is the difference between the two guns I posted.
Yes they can be used for hunting. many people use them all the time.

when I did hunt I used semi-automatic rifles and shotguns all the time.
so you again are proven incorrect. spouting opinion as fact does not work well.

 

[VanceMack]

Bubba...in case you are REALLY interested in AR systems and hunting...

 

[VanceMack]

AND...the White House has ALSO proved they are an effective tool for home defense.

 

[Henrin]

AND...the White House has ALSO proved they are an effective tool for home defense.
View attachment 67203067

The only thing I love about politicians is how often they act in a hypocritical fashion.

 

[imyoda]

You dont believe for a second that the 2nd Amendment has ANYTHING to do with hunting...so why would you make such a silly argument that you KNOW is not relevant?

You sure have that right........

The Second Amendment was a compromise with the southern states.........namely South Carolina to get their vote to agree to the formation of the United States and acceptance of the Constitution...... and its purpose was to allow the formation of armed slave patrols whose only purpose was to arrest run away slave and return the property to its rightful owner........ and as a way to put down slave revolts which was a great fear in southern slave states

SEE:
Slavery and the Second Amendment: Slave Patrol Militias

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Slavery, the Second Amendment, and the Origins of Public-Carry Jurisprudence - The Atlantic

 

[VanceMack]

The only thing I love about politicians is how often they act in an ironic fashion.

Turns out Obama really likes fences. So much so that they built theirs even higher...and with spikes! They also are very much opposed to illegal immigration. Who can blame them?

 

[imyoda]

Which makes it even more interesting. Gun control supporters are commonly for having suicide being legal behavior, so the fact that they want the government to make it harder for people to do is interesting.

NO.............I believe the issue is a matter of caring for our brother..........more so as an argument of politics.......... To politicize it is sickening.........

 

[Henrin]

NO.............I believe the issue is a matter of caring for our brother..........more so as an argument of politics.......... To politicize it is sickening.........

If people have the right to end their own life then what authority does the state have in stepping in their way? Wouldn't the state be violating the right to suicide by making it harder for people to kill themselves?

If I remember correctly pro gun control people suggest that making people wait will decrease the chances someone will kill themselves. How is making someone wait to carry out a right not violating that right?

 

[TurtleDude]

You sure have that right........

The Second Amendment was a compromise with the southern states.........namely South Carolina to get their vote to agree to the formation of the United States and acceptance of the Constitution...... and its purpose was to allow the formation of armed slave patrols whose only purpose was to arrest run away slave and return the property to its rightful owner........ and as a way to put down slave revolts which was a great fear in southern slave states

SEE:
Slavery and the Second Amendment: Slave Patrol Militias

The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Slavery, the Second Amendment, and the Origins of Public-Carry Jurisprudence - The Atlantic

LOL that idiotic bull has been discredited for years. anti slave states had their own version of the second amendment in their state constitutions

BOGUS is a third rate law professor

however, the main concession to slavery in the constitution was the electoral college-its why Va got more EC votes than PA even though PA had more voters.

the people you quote are all major recipients of anti gun foundations and have little credibility. at the Cincinnati Yale Club meeting June 1, Sterling Professor of Constitutional Law at Yale, Akhil Reed Amar dismissed the 2nd amendment was a bone thrown to the slave states by noting what I just did.

all the crap you cite is based on the Bogus nonsense and one of those you cite Saul Cornell, is a major whore of anti gun foundations who pay him to write the swill he does-his major failure is he tries to pretend that the original writings were not pro gun but that the authority for constitutional gun bans comes 140 years later.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Yet you fail to restate the issue you raise........Why is that?

PLEASE NOTE:
Bothe Heller and McDonald affirmed the Second Amendment right to own a gun...........

In this case the issue was if the state and federal government had the right to regulate the sale and use of a gun.............And that issue was decided in SCOTUS by Scalia's majority decision affirming the right/duty of state/federal to do so.......... I hope this help clarify the issue decided by the Court

Now would you like to say something?

You need to re-read Heller and McDonald (McDonald in particular) - or maybe read it for them first time, given what you said above. I don't mean a wiki page or some talking points paper, but the actual ruling from the SCOTUS. You obviously don't understand what they say and what they don't say, what they allow and what they restrict, what they recognize and what they preclude.

 

[imyoda]

You need to re-read Heller and McDonald (McDonald in particular) - or maybe read it for them first time, given what you said above. I don't mean a wiki page or some talking points paper, but the actual ruling from the SCOTUS. You obviously don't understand what they say and what they don't say, what they allow and what they restrict, what they recognize and what they preclude.

You are wrong.............I have read both decisions and the minority decisions also...........It would seem from your reply you have NOT

 

[Visbek]

no it wasn't as DC basically had banned handguns which is what heller was about.
Heller said that the state cannot ban firearms.

Wrong.

From the first page of Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. (Emphasis added)

Heller specifically addressed handgun bans, and trigger locks that were such an impediment that it viewed the requirement as interfering with a basic right of self-defense (which, by the way, is not explicitly listed in the Constitution). Obviously, assault rifles do not fall into that same category, which is why the SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Or do you think that assault rifles are the exact same thing as a handgun...?

ordinary citizens can own those things as long as they have the proper permitting from the ATF.
you don't know what you are talking about.

You do not have the unilateral right to own a Howitzer. You can only do so if the government permits it. If the government decided that no one should own a flamethrower, there is no question they can ban them. Thus, restricting access to those weapons does not violate the 2nd Amendment, or Heller. Yes?