Article: Clarence Thomas Dissents from SCOTUS Skipping ‘Assault Weapons’ Case

[Admin]

You can view the page at https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/content/804-Clarence-Thomas-Dissents-from-SCOTUS-Skipping-‘Assault-Weapons’-Case

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

ALL weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment, that was the intent of the amendment.

If the militia were called out, supplying and bringing with them their own arms(as required), and a new improved weapon had been developed to improve their efficiency on the battle field, it would stand to reason that it would NOT have been left in a closet somewhere, it would be in the hands of militiamen.....the citizens of the country. Commonality has nothing to do with it.
If they had invented machine guns back then, you can be assured that all those who could have afforded one or built one would be carrying it onto the battle field.

 

[Glockster30]

ALL weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment, that was the intent of the amendment.

If the militia were called out, supplying and bringing with them their own arms(as required), and a new improved weapon had been developed to improve their efficiency on the battle field, it would stand to reason that it would NOT have been left in a closet somewhere, it would be in the hands of militiamen.....the citizens of the country. Commonality has nothing to do with it.
If they had invented machine guns back then, you can be assured that all those who could have afforded one or built one would be carrying it onto the battle field.

You are correct in a sense, but for some reason even going as far back as the 1939 Miller Decision, Scotus based its decision on commonality of the sawed-off shotgun as not being in common use of the militia or contributing to the common defense, which is why both sides of the gun control debate claimed victory. Unfortunately, neither the Defendants nor their attorneys showed up to argue otherwise.

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...3tv42cs-qn26hYUUQ&sig2=u7_SQVYrbN7kAt5mwpqICg

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

You are correct in a sense, but for some reason even going as far back as the 1939 Miller Decision, Scotus based its decision on commonality of the sawed-off shotgun as not being in common use of the militia or contributing to the common defense, which is why both sides of the gun control debate claimed victory. Unfortunately, neither the Defendants nor their attorneys showed up to argue otherwise.






https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...3tv42cs-qn26hYUUQ&sig2=u7_SQVYrbN7kAt5mwpqICg

SCOTUS was WRONG THEN, AND THEY ARE WRONG NOW using the "commonality" issue. end of story.

 

[StevieP]

Well, if they're banned, they can hardly be "in common use."

They're creating their own Catch-22.

How do these *******s sleep at night, knowing that what they're doing (attempting) is to infringe on others' Constitutional rights?

 

[bigblue]

Well, if they're banned, they can hardly be "in common use."

They're creating their own Catch-22.

How do these *******s sleep at night, knowing that what they're doing (attempting) is to infringe on others' Constitutional rights?

Two words: Ivory. Tower.

 

[Glockster30]

SCOTUS was WRONG THEN, AND THEY ARE WRONG NOW using the "commonality" issue. end of story.

Well, again you are right, but the debate on commonality usage will most likely continue after we are gone.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

The issue isn't "the type of gun", the issue is whether or not one group of people has the right to infringe on the protected rights of an individual or another group of people.

SCOTUS was wrong then in Miller by introducing the premise of "common use" false logic into the case. The Miller case should NEVER have had to be heard at all and those who proscecuted Miller should have been tried and convicted for denying Miller of his protected rights.

SCOTUS is WRONG NOW, for continuing that line of false logic.

 

[jasons]

The other justices are afraid to take the case because they know that the ruling would conflict with their politics. Need to keep pushing cases up there until they can't ignore them any more.

 

[Glockster30]

The issue isn't "the type of gun", the issue is whether or not one group of people has the right to infringe on the protected rights of an individual or another group of people.

SCOTUS was wrong then in Miller by introducing the premise of "common use" false logic into the case. The Miller case should NEVER have had to be heard at all and those who proscecuted Miller should have been tried and convicted for denying Miller of his protected rights.

SCOTUS is WRONG NOW, for continuing that line of false logic.

Well, again, the Defendants and their attorneys never showed up in front of SCOTUS to make their argument. If they did, perhaps it would have resulted in a different decision that could have been better or worse. We'll never know.

 

[Glockster30]

The other justices are afraid to take the case because they know that the ruling would conflict with their politics. Need to keep pushing cases up there until they can't ignore them any more.

I'm confused too, but I'm not sure that politics are involved that much because what Thomas and Scalia are saying is that the use of an AR-15 and I assume other types of weapons were "approved" under the Heller Decision; thus there is no reason to revisit it again.

 

[jasons]

I'm confused too, but I'm not sure that politics are involved that much because what Thomas and Scalia are saying is that the use of an AR-15 and I assume other types of weapons were "approved" under the Heller Decision; thus there is no reason to revisit it again.

Yet many types of weapons in common use are still being banned, thus the need for SCOTUS to revisit.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

Well, again, the Defendants and their attorneys never showed up in front of SCOTUS to make their argument. If they did, perhaps it would have resulted in a different decision that could have been better or worse. We'll never know.

I understand about Miller's attys. The SCOTUS was still wrong for doing what they did and introducing the "common use" bullshit into the case.