24 states urge Supreme Court to take up assault rifle ban case

Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
614
Likes
322
Location
Middlesex County
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Did a quick search and didnt find it,so i thought I would post it up.

http://www.guns.com/2015/09/04/24-states-urge-supreme-court-to-take-up-assault-rifle-ban-case/

Some Highlights

Just shy of half the attorneys general across the country signed on to support a challenge to an Illinois city’s arbitrary ban on certain guns.

led by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, questions whether a municipal ban on possession of some of the weapons most commonly used for lawful purposes violates the Second Amendment.

In April, that three-judge panel, staffed by a trio of appointments by President Ronald Reagan, sided with the city and supporting gun control groups ........... wrote for the majority that assault weapon bans such as the one challenged are valid as long as they “make the public feel safer.”


This case could have some Serious implications for Mass.
 
in this case, if you substituted "gay marriage" in place of "assault weapon" people would have been taken to jail today.
 
Asking the unelected lifetime political appointees on the supreme court to rule on something that the fed gov is constitutionally not empowered to pass laws on is bound to end badly

The right solution remains at the state level

THIS !!!

Let's say Hillary gets in - I still think she will. Swap two members of the SCotUS, you will be amazed what isn't 'settled law' anymore.
 
Did a quick search and didnt find it,so i thought I would post it up.

http://www.guns.com/2015/09/04/24-states-urge-supreme-court-to-take-up-assault-rifle-ban-case/

Some Highlights








This case could have some Serious implications for Mass.

staffed by a trio of appointments by President Ronald Reagan, sided with the city and supporting gun control

Ah Ronald Reagan. The gift that keeps on giving....

Oh and seeing how Mass won't even acknowledge Heller and MacDonald, good luck with them recognizing a SCOTUS ruling on the AWB.
 
This case is comparable to rolling the dice with your life savings on the Craps table. I hope they win. If they do do win, I hope we can get 2A rights to be included as civil rights.

This needs to happen on every single document that has a line that reads: "...no discrimination based on sex, age, race, creed, color, firearm-owning status, sexual orientation, religion, etc."
 
This is a scary case. Given the lean of the supreme court recently, this could end very, very badly for gun owners. If the supreme court decides that they are protected, awesome. If they decide they aren't, get ready for a witch hunt of epic proportions.

“The Supreme Court has left open so many questions about the scope of the Second Amendment, including what types of weapons should be considered in ‘common use.’ Does that mean that the guns are commonplace or that they are commonly used for core Second Amendment purposes, like self-defense?”

If the central argument in this case is that AR15's fall into the common use category and therefore shouldn't be prohibited, I don't see any way the court could decide that they aren't in common use. I can't find figures that state how many AR15's are sold in the US each year, but it easily numbers in the millions.

This is a gun forum, so the numbers will be a bit slanted, but how many people do you know that own at least one AR15? I can think of a dozen folks off the top of my head. Most of those own a few of them. My 79 year old step-dad, whose primary interest in firearms is collecting early semi-automatic pistols, keeps three different AR15's stashed around the house to protect he and my mother.
 
Defining "common use" means I can't have an artillery piece if I want one because everyone else doesn't already have one. The common use of a firearm in this country should be to be owned without anyone else giving a damn about the owner's intentions.
 
i
This is a scary case. Given the lean of the supreme court recently, this could end very, very badly for gun owners. If the supreme court decides that they are protected, awesome. If they decide they aren't, get ready for a witch hunt of epic proportions.



If the central argument in this case is that AR15's fall into the common use category and therefore shouldn't be prohibited, I don't see any way the court could decide that they aren't in common use. I can't find figures that state how many AR15's are sold in the US each year, but it easily numbers in the millions.

This is a gun forum, so the numbers will be a bit slanted, but how many people do you know that own at least one AR15? I can think of a dozen folks off the top of my head. Most of those own a few of them. My 79 year old step-dad, whose primary interest in firearms is collecting early semi-automatic pistols, keeps three different AR15's stashed around the house to protect he and my mother.

My local club is likely to be similar to many sportsmen clubs in the less populated sectors of the state. The majority of members are more interested in clays and hunting than anything involving an AR. They are ambivalent to AR's, AK's, etc. There are a handful of anti-tactical types who find AR's at best annoying and at worst dangerous beacause of the 'Tactical Andy' stunts they have seen someone pull.

Yes, I know many who own AR's or at least want one. However, I would be cautious of expecting any common use categorization. I would wager that most gun owners do not own one. I hope that most gun owners at least would care that others maintain the right to have one.
 
Not to mention they're in common use by CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT. I think anyone would have a hard time allowing civilian policemen and women to have access to firearms that they prohibit from us proletariat.

Any court taking up this argument ought also to consider the VERY REAL possibility of another Civil War should they decide the wrong way. There are a shit-ton of us who won't give them up. I would seriously die before handing over my ARs.
 
Actually the right solution is in the hands of we the people. Unfortunately so far many of us have failed our responsibility.

Asking the unelected lifetime political appointees on the supreme court to rule on something that the fed gov is constitutionally not empowered to pass laws on is bound to end badly

The right solution remains at the state level
 
The mental gymnastics involved in trying to deny AR's aren't common use would be an amazing feat.
It would be like trying to claim Chevy's aren't a common vehicle.
 
Unfortunately, all of my AR-15's fell overboard in a tragic boating accident.
Keep your inventory stacked steep and deep......
 
Dangerous case simply because SCOTUS is not going to want to strike down all AWBs. Claiming ARs are common by the court would also include standard cap mags. I don't see that happening.
 
Dangerous case simply because SCOTUS is not going to want to strike down all AWBs. Claiming ARs are common by the court would also include standard cap mags. I don't see that happening.

I'd love to see the court's tortured argument to say they're not in common use though. It's been over 10 years since the AWB expired and there are millions of the guns that have been sold since then. ETA: an awb would be "cheap" for them to strike down, actually... only like, 5? states are going to bitch about it. Most of them will probably suck for some other bullshit likely permitted by the ruling, for example I would bet anything a
typical ruling would allow anti states to regulate AW ownership but not ban it outright. Think stupid shit like special licenses or special AW
registration. For shitholes like MA/NY/NJ/CT etc those things would actually be an improvement even though they are still
infringing.

Not to mention unless this thing is perfect they're going to deny it cert anyways, less than 3 pct of all cases are even taken by the supremes. The question either has to be ripe for an answer and my guess is unless whoever is running this thing is playing ball at somewhere near Alan Gura's level, this will fail and the supremes will dump it because they're inclined not to touch things like this. The only way it happened with Heller is Alan Gura backed them into a corner they could not get out of, due to its perfect textbook nature. That level of acumen is pretty rare.

ETA2: this already smells like shit, legally, its a bunch of braying AGs, where are the actual plaintiffs?

-Mike
 
Last edited:
This case could have some Serious implications for Mass.

Not really. People who want AWB banned guns in MA buy them anyways, whether the state likes it or not, outside of the people afraid of their own shadow. The biggest upshot would be that if it wiped wholesale bans it would stop these folks from being vulnerable to prosecution. I don't see that happening because I don't see the court even granting this cert. My prediction, it ends up something like the ATHF danger cart...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Asking the unelected lifetime political appointees on the supreme court to rule on something that the fed gov is constitutionally not empowered to pass laws on is bound to end badly

The right solution remains at the state level

you do know per federalist papers that the framers build the federal government for the limited purpose to reign in states that disregarded things such as the constitution. Madison goes into depth about this important aspect in convincing new yorkers. this is a common myth in my opinion that the federal government has ZERO place in state laws except arguably one of its primary reasons to exist (the federal government that is) is to give the majority of states a tool to control ones that act dumb for lack of prevailing wisdom.

edit: each branch is built with some regard of keeping states in check to a degree. at that time things like toll collection at state lines and state based tariffs where a big problem. the federal governments original purpose was to essentially be a hand maiden between all of the states. if you have a room full of children you dont let one become toxic to the rest without a time out.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Defining "common use" means I can't have an artillery piece if I want one because everyone else doesn't already have one. The common use of a firearm in this country should be to be owned without anyone else giving a damn about the owner's intentions.

How did "shall not be infringed" get perverted to "common use" anyway?

We're all ****ed.
 
How did "shall not be infringed" get perverted to "common use" anyway?

We're all ****ed.

Most likely from the SCOTUS 1939 Miller decision with regard to sawed off shotguns:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Miller&usg=AFQjCNH0mtsPPoPqr3tv42cs-qn26hYUUQ
 
Read the constitution

Its an outline for the creation of a limited federal government in which several sovereign states grant the *junior* federal gov the power and authority to perform those few limited tasks/powers

Furthermore it goes on in the BoR to say that just in case its not clear that only a few limited powers are granted to the fed gov....you are reminded that the fed gov may not do all of the things enumerated in the BoR and further everything else is reserved to the states

Even if you throw in the 14th the power of the fed gov is extremely limited to a few basic things like defending borders, money, naturalization and ensuring that trade is regular between the states (aka unimpeded)



What a pile of crap

The various branches of government are supposed to be a check on one another.....how well has that worked out.....not too well eh

Article V here we come

Peoples misunderstanding of history and what the constitution actually says and HOW it came to be written as it is is profound......most people who have come out of public schools are borderline retarded when it comes to american history

good luck on article V buddy.

some of those limited powers you talk of are exactly what im referencing? the creation of SCOTUS is a tool to prevent states from infringing on basic rights such as those in the constitution. by your argument California and Massachusetts have done no wrong (example). your rant on the federal government is really an executive branch rant. but this discussion pertains to the judicial branch. so you argue that the federal governments job was NOT to facilitate relations and interests of all 50 states?
 
The right solution remains at the state level

Does this guy live in MA? There is a "state solution" for ya. Anyone who is bit more than vaguely familiar with the legal system in MA knows that the State Supremes believe they are more powerful than the federal Supremes. Just ask them, and take a look at some of their convoluted decisions.
 
Most likely from the SCOTUS 1939 Miller decision with regard to sawed off shotguns:



https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...Miller&usg=AFQjCNH0mtsPPoPqr3tv42cs-qn26hYUUQ
" The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense"
So the court is saying we should have today's standard of military weapons instead of muskets and sawed off shotguns. OK with me.
 
Defining "common use" means I can't have an artillery piece if I want one because everyone else doesn't already have one. The common use of a firearm in this country should be to be owned without anyone else giving a damn about the owner's intentions.
common use should apply to what we would own if given a chance? most AR15 owners would not blink at spending $50 more to have a happy switch on their gun. they would be common use if given the chance.
 
Back
Top Bottom