If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
if the court ruled that an AWB was unconstitutional, why wouldnt Mass have to end theirs?
if the court ruled that an AWB was unconstitutional, why wouldnt Mass have to end theirs?
Thanks for the info. Unless you deflate something it takes years.IF SCOTUS did rule that the Highland Park ban was unconstitutional, it would probably apply to the Massachusetts ban as well. But, I don't expect that to happen without a lawsuit directly challenging our AWB. A lot can happen in the interim. Much would depend upon how the court actually worded their decision. I also would expect Massachusetts to be very creative in carving out legal theory as to why our AWB was different than the one challenged in Highland Park.
Let's put this in perceptive. Supreme Court rulings don't automatically force all relative laws to fall. Despite the speed with which marriage equality was recognized by the court, there are still some local jurisdiction that have put up residents. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. In 1957 Little Rock Central high School was still racially segregated and in 1963 Alabama Governor Wallace was fighting to keep his state's schools segregated. And school segregation continue into the 1980s. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and more than 40 years later, we still have law makers trying to effectively ban what was at stake in that case.
This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.
IF SCOTUS did rule that the Highland Park ban was unconstitutional, it would probably apply to the Massachusetts ban as well. But, I don't expect that to happen without a lawsuit directly challenging our AWB. A lot can happen in the interim. Much would depend upon how the court actually worded their decision. I also would expect Massachusetts to be very creative in carving out legal theory as to why our AWB was different than the one challenged in Highland Park.
Let's put this in perceptive. Supreme Court rulings don't automatically force all relative laws to fall. Despite the speed with which marriage equality was recognized by the court, there are still some local jurisdiction that have put up residents. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. In 1957 Little Rock Central high School was still racially segregated and in 1963 Alabama Governor Wallace was fighting to keep his state's schools segregated. And school segregation continue into the 1980s. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and more than 40 years later, we still have law makers trying to effectively ban what was at stake in that case.
This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.
IF SCOTUS did rule that the Highland Park ban was unconstitutional, it would probably apply to the Massachusetts ban as well. But, I don't expect that to happen without a lawsuit directly challenging our AWB. A lot can happen in the interim. Much would depend upon how the court actually worded their decision. I also would expect Massachusetts to be very creative in carving out legal theory as to why our AWB was different than the one challenged in Highland Park.
Let's put this in perceptive. Supreme Court rulings don't automatically force all relative laws to fall. Despite the speed with which marriage equality was recognized by the court, there are still some local jurisdiction that have put up residents. Brown v. Board of Education was decided in 1954. In 1957 Little Rock Central high School was still racially segregated and in 1963 Alabama Governor Wallace was fighting to keep his state's schools segregated. And school segregation continue into the 1980s. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 and more than 40 years later, we still have law makers trying to effectively ban what was at stake in that case.
This isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.
Here is the earlier thread on this topic. Some interesting direct analysis of the ruling.
http://www.northeastshooters.com/vb...ules-Assault-Weapons-Ban-OK-Based-on-Feelings
Right you are. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion because SCOTUS already did rule on this. That was, as often happens, ignored by other courts. This court just happen to not only ignore it, lie about what SCOTUS said, and make the dumbest and obviously unfounded in law argument that feelings trump everything else.
The United States Supreme Court will not decide until at least Monday whether or not to hear the case of Arie Friedman vs. the City of Highland Park, a challenge to the city’s ban on assault weapons, the Chicago Tribune reports.
Arie Friedman, a Lincolnshire pediatrician, sued the city after an ordinance passed banning semi-automatic “assault weapons” that carry more than 10 rounds. A federal appeals court upheld the city ordinance on a 2-1 vote.
“Assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate,” the appeals court’s majority opinion read. “Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?”
That was in post #72. If recent history is any indication, the case will likely be re-listed several times before they deny cert.
This is their way of like dragging it out and then "dropping it when nobody is paying attention" type of deal? Like some plane will crash the same day and supremes will deny it cert 10 minutes later....
-Mike
This is their way of like dragging it out and then "dropping it when nobody is paying attention" type of deal? Like some plane will crash the same day and supremes will deny it cert 10 minutes later....
-Mike
“Heller and McDonald set limits on the regulation of firearms; but within those limits, they leave matters open. The best way to evaluate the relation among assault weapons, crime, and self‐defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court’s opinions,” said Easterbrook in April 2015.
Judge Daniel Manion disagreed with Easterbrook in a strongly worded dissent. Limiting gun ownership restricts self-defense and represents an “enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government – a result directly contrary to our Constitution and to our political tradition,” he wrote.
The ban “upholds an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment rights of its citizens to keep arms in their homes for the purpose of defending themselves, their families, and their property,” Manion concluded.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the attorneys for Friedman want the Court to spell out some more details on its Second Amendment jurisprudence.
“The Seventh Circuit upheld bans on commonly possessed firearms and magazines that clearly are unconstitutional under Heller, and it did so by applying a newly minted three-part test, all three parts of which stand in direct conflict with. Enough is enough,” their brief says.
Not in today's orders. Relisted again. There's no conference this week, so we're looking at another two weeks before we might learn something.
Its only a matter of time before the unconstitutional regulation of 2A via Heller/etc comes back to bite everyone 10x as harder than any imagined good that could have possibly come out of a federal one size fits none solution.
Solution was and always has been at the state level
yea because our great blue state of MA likes your thought process. and they will continue to pork us with that thought process.
The beauty of it being left to the states is if the issue means enough to you, you can move.
Moving is not an option for everyone. Its all BS to have to move, when its a ****ing right.The beauty of it being left to the states is if the issue means enough to you, you can move.
Tell my wife. Here because of family. Even though Vermont is 20 mins away grrrr
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Moving is not an option for everyone. Its all BS to have to move, when its a ****ing right.
The AR is the text book definition of "common use". It's the most popular model firearm in the country. If that doesn't define common - then everything could be banned.