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***
www.breitbart.com
They don't care. Simple as that.
No, they’re not. Not yet, anyway. This case is still on interlocutory appeal. No final judgment has been made in the case, this was a decision on a motion for preliminary injunction as the case continues. SCOTUS almost never gets involved with these matters.Well, it looks like SCOTUS is going to have to rule on this, finally.
7th Circuit: AR-15s Not Protected by Second Amendment
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit decided AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment.
Easily - they see themselves on par with scotus and therefore not bound by the higher courts opinions.
law.justia.com
Decision here: The court bought into the argument that AR-15's are military weapons:
Caleb Barnett v. Kwame Raoul, No. 23-1825 (7th Cir. 2023)
Caleb Barnett v. Kwame Raoul, No. 23-1825 (7th Cir. 2023) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Quoting:
In short, there is a long tradition, unchanged from the time when the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, supporting a distinction between weapons and accessories designed for military or law-enforcement use, and weapons designed for personal use. The legislation now before us respects and relies on that distinction.
Sure, counsel. Let's say you're right. Remind us, what did Miller say about military small arms?Decision here: The court bought into the argument that AR-15's are military weapons:
Caleb Barnett v. Kwame Raoul, No. 23-1825 (7th Cir. 2023)
Caleb Barnett v. Kwame Raoul, No. 23-1825 (7th Cir. 2023) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Quoting:
In short, there is a long tradition, unchanged from the time when the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, supporting a distinction between weapons and accessories designed for military or law-enforcement use, and weapons designed for personal use. The legislation now before us respects and relies on that distinction.
'wow' was when local judges used some kirka 1600x british laws to justify the anti-gun shit they wrote.
NFA isn’t getting overturned completely, and Hughes would probably only be overturned on commerce clause grounds, not 2A. Best we can hope for to dismantle the NFA is to pull SBRs from the NFA via litigation, pull silencers/suppressors via legislation (use your brain for once, republicans), and overturn Hughes and get machine guns as NFA items.
Wut?Decision here: The court bought into the argument that AR-15's are military weapons:
Caleb Barnett v. Kwame Raoul, No. 23-1825 (7th Cir. 2023)
Caleb Barnett v. Kwame Raoul, No. 23-1825 (7th Cir. 2023) case opinion from the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Quoting:
In short, there is a long tradition, unchanged from the time when the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, supporting a distinction between weapons and accessories designed for military or law-enforcement use, and weapons designed for personal use. The legislation now before us respects and relies on that distinction.
Instead of the tired argument that they aren’t, we should embrace it.
What did they say?
Full auto is in common use. Change my mind.Heller established the constitutional test to determine what arms are protected by the Second Amendment. After examining the text of the Second Amendment, as illuminated by history, Heller determined that bearable arms that are “in common use” today are constitutionally protected and cannot be banned
The Heller Court applied the methodology later explicitly spelled out in Bruen to decide the appropriate constitutional test. That methodology starts with evaluating the plain text of the Second Amendment. The plain text of the Second Amendment is clear—it protects the right to “keep and bear arms.” Because it is the right to keep and bear arms, that implies one limitation of the right—the arms it protects must be “bearable.” And what are arms? “Weapons of offence, or armour of defence”; in other words, “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” The plain text of the Second Amendment thus has an expansive scope: “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Moreover, the term “arms” includes “modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.”
What Part of “In Common Use” Don’t You Understand?: How Courts Have Defied Heller in Arms-Ban Cases—Again – Mark W. Smith
What Part of “In Common Use” Don’t You Understand?: How Courts Have Defied Heller in Arms-Ban Cases—Again Mark W. Smith[*] Introduction In the year since New York State Rifle & Pistol Associati…journals.law.harvard.edu
supreme.justia.com
I.E., machine guns are protected; "sporting rifles" aren't.PRIMARY HOLDING said:
