Printable View
Sorry to be a downer on such a beautiful Wednesday morning but everyone needs to be aware of these developments.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...e_gun_ban.html
Huh, How the Hell is New Yorks' SAFE Act Constitutional? Do members of the court give the Constitution at least a casual glance before they make a decision?
The court just declared that no sales of semi's, no mags over 10 rounds and a gun owner and ammo registry are in fact, legal and Constitutional.
Unnerving.
Buy what you can, when you can. Things wont be any easier than they are today. Those restrictions will only get worse. Remember, the "modern man" has no need for a gun. That mantra is being pounded into younger generations. We've "evolved" beyond guns. Support for gun restrictions is growing with each shooting.
Wouldn't surprise me at all if this country just lies down and takes it when the day comes.
Only 2 percent of the able bodied men fought in the American revolution.
I believe it was 3 percent- hence my sig...Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
but keep in mind this was voted on by a subset of the 2nd district court- 2 judges appointed in the Clinton era, and one in Obama's (to replace Sotomayor)
This decision flies directly in the face of the Heller decision, and should be struck down by the SCOTUS... (but whether it will or not is another thing)
Never underestimate the will of Democrats to violate civil rights of those that they disagree with
It's a shame I just lost all of my guns by an inexplicable act of God.
Aggravted arson is an act of God now?Quote:
Originally Posted by esizer
God works in mysterious ways. OTOH boating accidents involving the loss of many firearms are quite prevalent.
because there are so many dangerous things on the water, many choose to bring all of their firearms to be prepared for any eventuality...Quote:
Originally Posted by roberth
This can lead to a loss of all firearms someone owns... I would suggest that in the future, we only bring 1/2 of your firearm collection on any one boat trip.
Just a thought.
That's why I took two trips
It surprises me when some threads get hundreds of responses yet others, with news which potentially will have a great affect on our lives, get <10 posts. [head-shake]
[LOL][Beer]Quote:
Originally Posted by Spdu4ia
Frustrating isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
It happens (in my case, anyway) because sometimes it's best not to post in "the heat of the moment". I know lots of things make me so angry I need some time to chill and give it some thought and let it rest. This is one of those times.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
On the other hand, it isn't surprising. With many gov't actions and court decisions over the last few decades that fly - obviously - in the face of law and tradition it serves to harden the emotions. Doesn't mean a guy won't continue to do what he can to reverse the problem, if that's even possible, but that it's just a reminder the war is far from over and yet another skirmish has broken out.
All I can do in the moment is shake my damn head...and continue to hate liberals and liberalism.
Lack of replies doesn't mean lack of concern, OR Action. Everyone here (ok most) feel the same way. Why parrot the same thing, over & over.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
When i asked for assistance with some needed work. I received 2-3 replies. The ph calls and pm's on the other hand, were over whelming.
I am a lurker in these forums, just look at my post count. But, I have been a member of these forums for many years. Like Kazoo said, "Lack of replies doesn't mean lack of concern, OR Action."
I take action and encourage others in my sphere of influence to take action. I read these forums to stay informed and to help spread the word to my coworkers, family and friends. Thanks to the OP for bringing us this story. At this point, our best course of action is to be educators, activists and voters. Most of all, to be prepared for whatever may come.
It will be appealed. In their decision, the Court stated: "In the absence of clearer guidance from the Supreme Court or stronger evidence in the record, we follow the approach taken by the District Courts and by the D.C. Circuit in Heller II and assume for the sake of argument that these “commonly used” weapons and magazines are also “typically possessed by law‐abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In short, we proceed on the assumption that these laws ban weapons protected by the Second Amendment."
They then go on to state that strict scrutiny is not required, and add unsubstantiated claims like "By their terms, the statutes at issue implicate the core of the Second Amendment’s protections by extending into the home, “where the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute.” semiautomatic assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines are commonly owned by many law‐abiding Americans, and their complete prohibition, including within the home, requires us to consider the scope of Second Amendment guarantees “at their zenith.”79 At the same time, the regulated weapons are not nearly as popularly owned and used for self‐defense as the handgun, that quintessential self‐defense weapon.” Thus these statutes implicate Second Amendment rights, but not to the same extent as the laws at issue in Heller and McDonald."
and "These weapons are disproportionately used in crime, and particularly in criminal mass shootings like the attack in Newtown. They are also disproportionately used to kill law enforcement officers: one study shows that between 1998 and 2001, assault weapons were used to gun down at least twenty percent of 9 officers killed in the line of duty." The first is wrong, as handguns are more commonly used, and the second fails in that this horrific period of danger to LEOs fell right in the middle of the AWB when these exact laws were in full effect on a national basis.
My favorite: " Large‐capacity magazines are disproportionately used in mass shootings, like the one in Newtown, in which the shooter used multiple large‐capacity magazines to fire 154 rounds in less than five minutes. Like assault weapons, large‐capacity magazines result in “more shots fired, persons wounded, and wounds per victim than do other gun attacks.” Professor Christopher Koper, a firearms expert relied upon by all parties in both states, stated that it is “particularly” the ban on large‐capacity magazines that has the greatest “potential to prevent and limit shootings in the state over the long‐run.” The shooter at Newtown could have used a backpack full of replica 1851 cap and ball black powder revolvers to shoot 26 unarmed, trapped victims. It would also seem that relying on the same "expert" as your opponent is a bad strategy. Funny how none of the mass shootings where limited capacity magazines were used to commit mass murder were mentioned.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
This also gives me hope that SCOTUS will grant cert to this case when appealed. They flat out stated that the law violates the 2nd. Previous decisions would just obstinately deny that any infringement occurred.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
The above is so blatantly false that I hope it is setting things up for an easier reversal. How does 2 out of 9 demonstrate a "disproportionate" use? On the other hand, wackier decisions have been allowed to stand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
I'm sure the conservative justices want to take it up, but only if they think they'll succeed in reversing the lower court. The pessimist in me says that the SCOTUS is done with the gun issue and will allow it to wither on the vine by way of unfailingly deferring to the "judgment of the legislature."
Thanks to unbridled immigration importing millions of new D voters, and D's promising ever-increasing bread and circuses for the masses, the influence of the Republicans will wane and more gun control is in our future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robb
Why do we allow these judges to stay on the bench a day longer again?
Voter apathy or lack of knowledge when they come up for reelection. IF there's only 1 choice, people tend to check that selection off. This year outside the front of the ballot. I left the back side blank. None of them appealed to me, or DESERVED MY VOTEQuote:
Originally Posted by SG1
Who knows this year i might not vote, fuk all of them.
Because Article III judges are essentially appointed for life or as long as they wish to serve unless they are impeached by Congress, which rarely happens. It is in the Constitution, give it a read sometime.Quote:
Originally Posted by SG1
[panic]Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone