BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules AR-15′s Are “Dangerous and Unusual,” Not Protected by 2

Is this the correct tl;dr version?

milktree's perhaps wrong understanding said:
The appellate court told the lower court to try again, giving the 2A rights their proper due (strict scrutiny), which they and the plaintiffs can now do. The result of the second go 'round could be a ruling that AWBs and magazine limits are unconstitutional.
 
Is this the correct tl;dr version?

That's what happened in the original circuit court 3 judge panel decision. Soon after that, the circuit court said, hey wait, we're gonna have all the judges look at this again. That's the hearing that's happening May 11.
 
That's what happened in the original circuit court 3 judge panel decision. Soon after that, the circuit court said, hey wait, we're gonna have all the judges look at this again. That's the hearing that's happening May 11.
Actually, the circuit court said "we don't like this decision so we are going to try to reverse it".
 
Crap, now I'm confused again.

The Circuit court didn't like the lower court's decision to allow assault weapon bans?
Slightly different. A portion of the circuit court (a three judge panel that split) didn't like the district court's decision to allow the AWB. Now the entire Circuit - all active judges - has voted to rehear the case so that they can decide if the district court's decision was 'correct'.

The possible silver lining here is that Caetano gave the panel decision a little more gravitas.
 
Last edited:
The Federalist: How Fourth Circuit’s Support For ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans May End Them


The Ruling Was So Bad It Could Prompt Redress
The Supreme Court has refused to hear “assault weapon” cases in the past. However, previous cases were lower profile and the result of narrow readings, not the backwards interpretation exhibited in Kolbe. In its bravado, the Fourth Circuit may have crossed a bridge too far, sparking national debate and possibly forcing the issue to finally make it to the Supreme Court.
 
I said it before and I'll say it again, we need Gorsuch in asap.

Stevens was replaced by Elena Kagan, a feverish proponent of gun control as former deputy domestic policy adviser for Hillary Clinton. Souter was replaced by Sonia Sotomayor, who opposed applying Heller to state laws in 2009. On this, there hasn’t been much ideological shift. So the real issue here, no surprise, is Supreme Court justice candidate Neil Gorsuch.

Without Gorsuch, it is unlikely certiorari would be granted. Even if it were, and all four of the remaining justices from the Heller majority stuck to their guns, so to speak, it would result in an automatic affirmation of the Fourth Circuit’s decision. There is no question as to where Gorsuch would side, since the National Rifle Association has dubbed him “a bulwark for our Second Amendment rights.”

It is uncertain which justices were missing from the four votes required to hear previous “assault weapon” ban cases before Scalia’s death. It is entirely possible that the same judges were voting for some and against others, for a variety of reasons. It is a distinct possibility that justices who may soon hammer the coffin nail into assault weapon bans for good were merely waiting for the right case in which to do it.
 
Ugh. It seems like things are starting to come to a head around modern sporting rifles. It would be great to get a solid decision in our favor on this, but somehow I have the feeling that whatever happens it will sidestep providing relief for us in MA.

If you believe in the 2A at all, whatsoever, I think MSRs are really the core of it as a check on government power in 2017. Really there needs to be at least some rollback on NFA as well, at least the 86 ban, but if we can't protect semi auto MSRs, that would be a very big blow to the core purpose of the 2a.
 
"I said it before and I'll say it again, we need Gorsuch in asap." ***
And one more conservative nomination before I would feel comfortable. Time for Ruthie to go to the retired judge's home.
 
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch

Great.

I'll give it a 20% chance that he would rule against any state's AWB were it to come to that. Even if Gorsuch viewed a ban on MSRs as an infringement, he might justify the decision as not having been made "lightly."
 
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch

Great.

I'll give it a 20% chance that he would rule against any state's AWB were it to come to that. Even if Gorsuch viewed a ban on MSRs as an infringement, he might justify the decision as not having been made "lightly."

This is why I was hoping that Trump was going to nominate Hardiman. Alas, we are stuck with Gorsuch. Best thing to do is get him on the court asap and hope that the next nominee is more pro-2A.
 
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”--Neil Gorsuch

Great.

I'll give it a 20% chance that he would rule against any state's AWB were it to come to that. Even if Gorsuch viewed a ban on MSRs as an infringement, he might justify the decision as not having been made "lightly."

IMHO you're reading too far into that statement. I think he's simply being intellectually honest about the fact that, at ground level, there are limited legal reasons for infringement- for example, someone is convicted of a crime and imprisoned. That is still an infringement; although there's also a bunch of fun legal constructs around that; in the respect that someone who is imprisoned is a lesser form of citizen and only partially retains rights.

None of it ultimately matters because if another RKBA case ever makes it to the supreme court in our lifetime, it's not going to be something that is that weak and nuanced that one conservative justice is going to flip on it or cause a shit fest over it. It's going to be something more along the
lines of like "oh, the AG in state X banned a bunch of guns but did not follow protocol for (insert truckload of broken legal principles here) for things
like takings issues, etc. Some of these actions (like Healey's BS) might even get destroyed while dodging the 2nd amendment in the
process.

Also, Gorsuch doesn't strike me as being retarded, either, in terms of actually looking at the law. In order to justify the infringement he would have to ignore things like the whole "guns in common use" bit, and I don't think he's that dense. Contrast that with other jurists when they get questioned about RKBA and they start mumbling ragtime about "public safety interests" and other bullshit, Gorsuch goes straight to a basic reference instead.

Basically, if you think he's going to be less reliable than say, even Anthony Kennedy, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Not to mention Gorsuch is a nice segue into cajoling other justices (like Kennedy) into retiring so a mostly conservative majority can be maintained.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
Ugh. It seems like things are starting to come to a head around modern sporting rifles. It would be great to get a solid decision in our favor on this, but somehow I have the feeling that whatever happens it will sidestep providing relief for us in MA.

I am actually pretty optimistic about the direction that things are heading. I think all it would take is for one of these cases that addresses "killy-features" to go get in front of the supreme court and the party is over for over-stepping libtard-states.
There is a tidalwave of statistical data, research and public support that would support ditching feature bans and the concept of the NFA once and for all. Each time these states impose a restriction it is another nail in the anti's coffin. When you look at the inconsistency and inequities from state to state it doesn't take legal scholar to see that constitutional liberties are not being shared equally.
No change will every start at the state level, MA is always going to be stuck on full-retard because guns. But is the supreme court comes down with "because-constitution" a lot of things will change in a hurry. States will still cling to their consumer safety bullcrap but the bans, say buh-bye smell ya later.
 
IMHO you're reading too far into that statement. I think he's simply being intellectually honest about the fact that, at ground level, there are limited legal reasons for infringement- for example, someone is convicted of a crime and imprisoned. That is still an infringement; although there's also a bunch of fun legal constructs around that; in the respect that someone who is imprisoned is a lesser form of citizen and only partially retains rights.

None of it ultimately matters because if another RKBA case ever makes it to the supreme court in our lifetime, it's not going to be something that is that weak and nuanced that one conservative justice is going to flip on it or cause a shit fest over it. It's going to be something more along the
lines of like "oh, the AG in state X banned a bunch of guns but did not follow protocol for (insert truckload of broken legal principles here) for things
like takings issues, etc. Some of these actions (like Healey's BS) might even get destroyed while dodging the 2nd amendment in the
process.

Also, Gorsuch doesn't strike me as being retarded, either, in terms of actually looking at the law. In order to justify the infringement he would have to ignore things like the whole "guns in common use" bit, and I don't think he's that dense. Contrast that with other jurists when they get questioned about RKBA and they start mumbling ragtime about "public safety interests" and other bullshit, Gorsuch goes straight to a basic reference instead.

Basically, if you think he's going to be less reliable than say, even Anthony Kennedy, I have a nice bridge to sell you. Not to mention Gorsuch is a nice segue into cajoling other justices (like Kennedy) into retiring so a mostly conservative majority can be maintained.

-Mike
Gorsuch is a taut jurist, but we'll see what nuanced decision-making comes into play when the court is faced with the possibility of striking down a state's AWB with the prospect of that effectively striking down the AWBs of other states, given the power structure in this country hates the very idea the serfs can be armed at all. I don't contend Gorsuch is a bad choice for the RKBA but rather he is about as good as it gets in that regard--which isn't great. Setting extremely low expectations is advisable.
 
Gorsuch is a taut jurist, but we'll see what nuanced decision-making comes into play when the court is faced with the possibility of striking down a state's AWB with the prospect of that effectively striking down the AWBs of other states, given the power structure in this country hates the very idea the serfs can be armed at all. I don't contend Gorsuch is a bad choice for the RKBA but rather he is about as good as it gets in that regard--which isn't great. Setting extremely low expectations is advisable.

Given the guns in common use thing I think ultimately if it makes it to the supremes (and thats a big IF, as the courts are loathe to visit the 2nd) I don't think AW bans are long for this world.

That said, I doubt that the courts will stop the shithole states from being douchebags about it; as they basically can get away with murder on anything that falls short of a full out ban. So we should perhaps expect a victory, to be followed up by a dump truck full of state level garbage laws that would become "reasonable restrictions" or get passed off as such similar BS. For example I can see mass getting away with douchebaggery like passing a law that says you have to have a green card (or some similar special license) to buy or possess an "AW" if you didn't already have it at a certain date, or other garbage like that. It is likely that they can legally get away with making AR/AK/etc legally annoying to own and obtain without getting it cast as a full on infringement.


-Mike
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom