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

[CTpatriot]

Sad when you consider the number of firearm owners compared to gays in U.S.

However, at the rate we going, by 2020 half the country will be gay, it's the new fashion statement.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

if the gays wanted machine guns to be sold at 7-11s, it would be law.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

hmmmmm..new tactic?

whatever it takes

Do it man, take one for the team.

 

[Chevy 2 65]

It would be tough for a lot of liberal politicians to oppose a bunch of rabid cross dressing RKBA advocates......just saying.......

I am going to buy a pink AR and have my Glock cerakoted pink with sparkles. It's for my inner feminine side.

 

[exo]

It would be tough for a lot of liberal politicians to oppose a bunch of rabid cross dressing RKBA advocates......just saying.......

We're here, we're AR-queer, get used to it?

 

[MachineHead]

The only way to disarm their (liberals) argument is to use their own views against them. Their arguments, their protests, their propaganda, all of it. If they're all about acceptance and diversity, then they have to accept me because I view self defense as my right how they view buggery as natural.

 

[rivet_42]

" 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.

One problem was that the Thompson SMG had been adopted by the US Marines and used during the Banana Wars; also that sawn-off shotguns had been used in trench warfare by US troops during WWI. Both full-auto guns and SBSes therefore fit the definition of "ordinary military equipment", contrary to SCOTUS's finding. However these facts, among others, were never presented to SCOTUS. Petitioner Miller unfortunately died before the case could be heard and thus never got a chance to present his side fully. The one-sided case resulted in the mess of a decision that still constitutes precedent to this day.

 

[Smash05]

People are being prosecuted for AWB Violations in MA as we speak. I have no faith that SCOTUS will touch it, more likely to say without saying it - we recognized a right, we incorporated it, we're done.

 

[60 buckscash]

As well as the .gov's argument that that specific sawed off shotgun was not part "of the ordinary military equipment."

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

[Chevy 2 65]

People are being prosecuted for AWB Violations in MA as we speak. I have no faith that SCOTUS will touch it, more likely to say without saying it - we recognized a right, we incorporated it, we're done.

it's laughable that .gov would prosecute someone for features of a material object. I know its not laughable, it's more like insane.

 

[wahsben]

Maybe we should contact the pink pistols and see if they might be interested in getting this started.

if the gays wanted machine guns to be sold at 7-11s, it would be law.

 

[Spanz]

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.

well, she WOULD have to promise something to Hiawatha to keep her from screwing up her run. Our first Native American supreme court justice??

 

[shadowr434]

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.

Heck, the challenge to the CT law went through the court here in CT. The judge admitted that the AR 15 was a common use weapon but still ruled against due to perceived public safety. They will always find a way if they want to. Our suit is still working its way toward the SCOTUS. We will see.

 

[Squire]

it's laughable that .gov would prosecute someone for features of a material object. I know its not laughable, it's more like insane.

What it is, is a politically calculated ban on the path to prohibition and confiscation of all firearms.

All semi-autos that "no one needs for hunting" are next.

Handguns are going to get Nat'l reciprocity (which means, Federal "shall issue"), and handguns will be for the politically connected only.

Gun control has one logical end: prohibition and confiscation, except for Agents of the State.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Discussed Today

This case, Freidman v. Highland Park, was scheduled for the justices' conference today. We may know on Tuesday if was granted certiorari.

Here's the petition.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED
1. Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a class of constitutionally protected “Arms” that includes the most popular rifles in the Nation.

2. Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with ammunition magazines that number in the tens of millions and make up nearly half of the Nation’s total stock of privately owned ammunition magazines for handguns and rifles.

 

[crazymjb]

How much have they changed since the McDonald court?

Mike

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

How much have they changed since the McDonald court?

Mike

No changes since 2010. However, last term they failed to take up a challenge to San Francisco's 'safe' storage law resulting in a blistering dissent from Thomas and Scalia. We'll see what they do here and with Caetano.

 

[Mr Weebles]

Petitioner Miller unfortunately died before the case could be heard and thus never got a chance to present his side fully.

He died after the case was heard but before the decision.

The feds knew he and his attorney wouldn't show.

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

One problem was that the Thompson SMG had been adopted by the US Marines and used during the Banana Wars; also that sawn-off shotguns had been used in trench warfare by US troops during WWI. Both full-auto guns and SBSes therefore fit the definition of "ordinary military equipment", contrary to SCOTUS's finding. However these facts, among others, were never presented to SCOTUS. Petitioner Miller unfortunately died before the case could be heard and thus never got a chance to present his side fully. The one-sided case resulted in the mess of a decision that still constitutes precedent to this day.

He died after the case was heard but before the decision.

The feds knew he and his attorney wouldn't show.

The Miller case was a set up from the get-go. The administration was, at the time, on very shaky ground when it came to the NFA. They needed a definitive case to validate the constitutionality of the NFA and Miller was it.

For your reading pleasure:

NYU Journal of Law & Liberty: THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER

[Judge] Ragon did not really think the NFA violated the Second
Amendment, and probably colluded with the government to create
the ideal test case. His opinion is peculiar on its face, begging for an
appeal. A memorandum disposition is appropriate when deciding a
routine case, but not when holding a law facially unconstitutional.
And Ragon was the first judge to hold that a federal law violates the
Second Amendment, even disagreeing with a Florida district court
that had dismissed a Second Amendment challenge to the NFA.​

 

[MachineHead]

Knuckle Dragger, what's your opinion on this matter? Just looking at it as a person who knows more about Law than a lot of us here.

Could an unfavorable ruling effectively start a cascade of nationwide infringing?

 

[exo]

Knuckle Dragger, what's your opinion on this matter? Just looking at it as a person who knows more about Law than a lot of us here.

Could an unfavorable ruling effectively start a cascade of nationwide infringing?

If the Supreme Court ruled an AWB constitutional? I'd think full retard places would go even more retarded, the usual suspects in congress and the Oval Office would push for another AWB, and I'd think it would set the extremely dangerous precedent that it's OK to ban even semi-automatic guns if enough bullshit public safety or government interest arguments could be made.

But I'm not Knuckle Dragger, so I am too interested in his response

 

[Knuckle Dragger]

Knuckle Dragger, what's your opinion on this matter? Just looking at it as a person who knows more about Law than a lot of us here.

Could an unfavorable ruling effectively start a cascade of nationwide infringing?

So, my opinion is worth about as much as you pay for it. My guess as to whether SCOTUS actually takes this case is worth even less.

SCOTUS grants cert in less than 1% of all petitions that come their way. Right off the bat the chances that this case will make any difference in Massachusetts or nationally is close to nil. If SCOTUS does grant cert and upholds the 7th circuits ruling, I don't think that there will be a flood of new AWBs around the country. An unfavorable ruling will effectively end an possibility of reversing AWBs in places like Mass.

 

[crazymjb]

Having read the Maryland decision Id rather not see this go to SCOTUS now. Havent looked at the 7th circuits decision yet. The judges decision in the MD case I thought to be intentionally ignorant of facts and technical knowledge, but there were some interesting points that would make me nervous about this going before SCOTUS.

Mike



Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...

 

[MachineHead]

Now, I ask, why would these 24 states urge the SCOTUS to take up this case? Is there something we don't know ? Especially seeing the possibility of an unfavorable ruling.

 

[xtry51]

Now, I ask, why would these 24 states urge the SCOTUS to take up this case? Is there something we don't know ? Especially seeing the possibility of an unfavorable ruling.

Just grandstanding politicians who don't care about the outcome. They just want to say they were out with their pitchforks, when what they were actually carrying were campaign donation bags.

 

[MachineHead]

Just grandstanding politicians who don't care about the outcome. They just want to say they were out with their pitchforks, when what they were actually carrying were campaign donation bags.

I totally hear you. I also see that there's very little chance of this case seeing light the light of day. However, the Illinois Rifle Association and the NRA are jumping in on this as well. There's something missing here. What do they have to gain from something like this knowing that, regardless of chances, there is a possibility of losing this potential case.

It's a lot like Russian roulette.

 

[Hoover]

I totally hear you. I also see that there's very little chance of this case seeing light the light of day. However, the Illinois Rifle Association and the NRA are jumping in on this as well. There's something missing here. What do they have to gain from something like this knowing that, regardless of chances, there is a possibility of losing this potential case.

It's a lot like Russian roulette.

They may be confident they won't take it up and will use the rejection as fundraising appeal. There may or may not be inside stuff going on here or in other cases.

Wasn't the NRA opposed to the McDonald case Gura was pushing? They don't take the right position each time.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

, I don't see any way the court could decide that they aren't in common use.

The same way Justice Sontameyer found that there is "no right to a handgun" in the constitution in the McDonald case, even though Heller established there was such a right and McDonald should have only been about "is the 2nd incorporated upon the states?".

The supremes can do anything they want and, when a justice feels strongly about the societal implications of a ruling, can ignore both law and precedent.

 

[wahsben]

This! They make their own laws instead of abiding by the COTUS which they are sworn to do.

The same way Justice Sontameyer found that there is "no right to a handgun" in the constitution in the McDonald case, even though Heller established there was such a right and McDonald should have only been about "is the 2nd incorporated upon the states?".

The supremes can do anything they want and, when a justice feels strongly about the societal implications of a ruling, can ignore both law and precedent.

 

[drgrant]

Wasn't the NRA opposed to the McDonald case Gura was pushing? They don't take the right position each time.

The NRA tried to torpedo Heller because they had this fear that there was a slim chance that the 5 majority would go activist and issue a more sweeping decision, and basically put the NRA out of business. Even the remote, improable prospect of this happening scared the shit out of the NRA and they tried to kill it. Gura throatpunched them in court when they tried to intervene and conjoin Heller with some shitty case they had
that was based off 4A issues or something to "get the laser off the 2nd." Thankfully it didn't work. Then NRA HQ got dump trucks full of hate mail and they suddenly did an about face and supported McDonald down the road.

As far as this case goes unless it is constructed perfectly and there is a lot of built in political pressure behind it, it will be denied cert like most other cases are. The supremes are about as eager to take another RKBA case as they are one on the A word.

-Mike

 

[Hoover]

The NRA tried to torpedo Heller because they had this fear that there was a slim chance that the 5 majority would go activist and issue a more sweeping decision, and basically put the NRA out of business. Even the remote, improable prospect of this happening scared the shit out of the NRA and they tried to kill it. Gura throatpunched them in court when they tried to intervene and conjoin Heller with some shitty case they had
that was based off 4A issues or something to "get the laser off the 2nd." Thankfully it didn't work. Then NRA HQ got dump trucks full of hate mail and they suddenly did an about face and supported McDonald down the road.

As far as this case goes unless it is constructed perfectly and there is a lot of built in political pressure behind it, it will be denied cert like most other cases are. The supremes are about as eager to take another RKBA case as they are one on the A word.

-Mike

They have an abortion case this term. I think it's the case out of texas/5th circuit court of appeals. Tx put some rules in place making the abortion places follow certain medical necessities. I think they also have the little sisters of the poor appeal, the obama admin is trying to force them to provide birth control as part of obamacare against their religious convictions, then the union case. I think there are two other hot button issues too.

I think scalia, thomas and alito are ready to go, roberts a little less so but the 4 of the don't think kennedy has the balls. I'll be happy if they shank the unions this term.