SCOTUS, here we come.
The ruling and dissent:
http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/u...nc-opinion.pdf
Printable View
SCOTUS, here we come.
The ruling and dissent:
http://guptawessler.com/wp-content/u...nc-opinion.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Huffing Paint Post
So no Garands then too?
Or semi-auto pistols, repeating shotguns, bolt action rifles or replice Colt Army black powder revolvers. Dang.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Miller says otherwise. Put simply, the Second Amendment doesn't have to be extended to cover weapons in common use by LE or MIL because they are implicitly covered. Denying access/ownership of such weapons is a violation of the Second Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by TFOGGER
Heller might have tried to scale this back (thanks Scalia) but I don't understand how some of the amendment can be incorporated but not all. Nothing in BoR is severable, that's the whole point of incorporation. Imagine such a thing done to any other amendment. You can't. Could a state say you are free to practice a religion but not free to speak against local government? Could a state prohibit racial discrimination but allow gender discrimination?
It's clear they are operating on feels and not the law. So no matter what, they are going to win because feels.
The whole thing needs a reset.
Congress should impeach the judges and try them for treason.
Congress won't do it ... its going to take an Article V Convention to clean up the mess that our courts have become.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hummer
I am no lawyer so what does this mean to the common man/woman today?
Neither am I...Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
We are allowed to own a firearm but a state/local government can restrict that right as they see fit.
This is really bad news for challenging our state mag ban. I've long wanted these bans reconciled with Miller but unless we get a USSC ruling to overturn this, it sounds like they can completely ignore it. Banning a firearm component (magazine) in common use is the same as banning the firearm itself so this would seem like a slam dunk.
That if a court decides that a class of firearms is "like" an M16, the sale/transfer and perhaps possession can be prohibited. For whatever definition of "like" the majority can agree upon.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
Wasn't the 2nd to allow citizens to have military grade weapons to keep our government in check?
Yep. Throughout history those with the best weapons of the time were able to control those without whether by force or ordained by higher authorities. Our founders knew this point very well and understood it was to be needed to keep our Gov in check. The time has come and gone outside of the voting booth and never ending judicial challenges with winning verdicts for this to happen with the advent of a national military and all the Fed agencies that have been created to support the Gov. The original revolutionaries would have been rounded up and imprisoned long ago.
Simply put, in layman's terms? Don't move to Maryland.Quote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
I ran some numbers using FBI UCR data. Since 2004, Maryland has averaged 3.3 homicides by rifle through 2015. In fact, from 2013-2015, they had 4 in total. They've had a total of 40 rifle homicides during that time period. They've had 3,659 homicides by handgun. They've had 716 homicides by knife. They've not had a single random mass shooting with any kind of firearm.
So to protect the people of Maryland they pass and uphold a law that doesn't take away any guns, instead of addressing preventing the criminals from using handguns that kill 91 times the number of people killed by all types of rifles or addressing knives that were used to kill 18 times the number of people killed by someone with a rifle.
I bet they're real proud today.
I just noticed that there is no grandfather clause for the Maryland law. Owners who did not register them before 1994 must get rid of them.
How can experienced jurists claim that they can't assume 2nd Amendment protections to "weapons of war" when US v Miller does exactly that?
They're super proud. You better believe it. Some of their electorate are just stupid. And some of them are incredibly savvy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
The savvy ones are trying to create a precedent and a larger movement. They're proud. The stupid ones are patsies and believe they're doing something for the greater good. They're proud, too.
^^Nice stats. Thanks!
This is horse****. It's like liberals know they have a lock on the courts and are coming up with the dumbest rulings possible just to piss off conservatives.
I don't just mean the decision to uphold vs overturn, but especially the "reasoning" in the decisions.
Boom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rucker61
After we get the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
This is about control not guns.
Can you imagine if they said you can't have books or magazines with too many pages or because they look scary just based on the cover.
BOOKS ? no one reads anymore, that's so 20th century. Hell people are too mesmerized by their cell to look up when crossing a street.Quote:
Originally Posted by DOC
No one but the police and military should have books. Politicians were elected to lead not to read.
“A book is a loaded gun in the house next door...Who knows who might be the target of the well-read man?”
― Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
There is a book set in alternative history where video and the internet come out before novels. Novels become popular and all the adults freak out over kids "reading" these stories with a pre-determined story.
The courts are making a great case for limiting the power of the Judiciary branch.
Attachment 69338
They will scream and whine but they have done this to themselves...
Uh...guys? I saw this today. Hmmmm. Anyone else hear about this?
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...itia-purposes/
The opinions I've read seem to suggest it won't be worth much but could cost states/cities more trying to defend their bans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonsey
The idea of our RKBA being fungible and not entitled to strict Constitutional scrutiny but upheld by the whim of an EO is laughable. The Founders must getting quite an ab workout rolling in their graves.
I have seen it. But I was to see it put into action. There is a great case to throw a certain career communist in jail for 20 years and they are not acting on it. So seeing it in action is believing it.
An EO is weak sauce. It can be undone as easily as it was done.
We need some strongly worded supreme court rulings. That's the only thing that will change what's happening at every level of government.
O2
Not impressed in the least...First, because as previously mentioned, an EO is pretty worthless in the long run...
Secondly, this implies acceptance of the currently (extremely) watered down version of the 2A based on what is currently popular from the FUDD perspective - e.g. semi-auto blah blah....30 round mag blah blah...
EO considerations aside, if this was really aligned to the intent of the 2A, it would be at the minimum, inclusive of select fire, crew-served, and DD/artillery classifications. As it's written right now, complete bullshit and in no way aligned to the intent of the Founders.
Thanks for the perspectives.
DireWolf, I think these are valid points you are making.
I am also hoping on the supreme court.[mop]
Quote:
Originally Posted by DireWolf