-
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.
CA Court of Appeal Holds Second Amendment Doesn’t Protect Semi-Autos
- Thread starter mikeyp
- Start date
Just read it. Dbags, it won't hold up at SCOTUS...assuming it ever makes it there.
Amazing that they will read the Constitution and find all sorts of make believe rights but can't find the ones spelled out in black and white.
These people deserve to be tried for treason
Can't agree more.
We, the people, need to start to tar and feather all members of government who have done this country harm. We can choose to start at the top with Obama or from the bottom with judges like these CA ones.
To the legal experts here, they seem to be staking a lot of their claim on the AWCA being valid because it bans "unusually dangerous" weapons. Doesn't this open up a can of worms for an appeal as it is a FACT that the AWCA bans are arbitrary and capricious, which could be proven before a court that has even a little respect for the law?
The obvious perversion of the legal system in that decision was somewhat astounding.
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
The obvious perversion of the legal system in that decision was somewhat astounding.
Mike
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,057
- Likes
- 6,562
Hey just so the other amendments don't feel discriminated against, California should rule that 1A no longer covers conversations in public. Pass a law doing such and the libtardians would burn Sacramento to the ground. And they better not do it with high-capacity assault matches !!!!! They banned those too !!!!!!
- Joined
- May 12, 2013
- Messages
- 4,057
- Likes
- 6,562
""it may be true that no amount of smallarms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks ut [that] fact . . . cannotchange our interpretation of the right [conferred by the Second Amendment]" How silly of us all... w forgot they have tanks. I concede. Burn the constitution... they win.... By that retarded logic 300 million people should turn in 150 million guns because the military has what a few thousand tanks? That and it would set a precedent that 2A does not cover any given class of gun such that they could whittle it down to single-shot break-action shot guns with bird shot only and that would satisfy the 2A because--- uh... I just vomited on the ceiling....
Quiet
Banned
That line is so ridiculous. Do they not realize that the entire military of the US would need to be deployed to protect those tanks and other assets? That you can't win a fight with tanks or high tech weapons unless you are willing to murder a gazillion non-combatant civilians? Even our "surgical strike" drones have killed hundred of innocents, probably more than the number of insurgents?
If small arms are no good at fighting against tanks and planes, then why are we giving small arms to Syrian rebels? Why did we give small arms to the Libyan rebels?
Idiots.
Got to love the "logic" of the CA courts:
The semi-auto rifles can lawfully be banned because they are too dangerous to be used by law abiding citizens for self defense... but not good enough for use in a militia
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? However many a biased judge needs to make his/her case for banning whatever implements hurt his/her feelings.
The semi-auto rifles can lawfully be banned because they are too dangerous to be used by law abiding citizens for self defense... but not good enough for use in a militia
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? However many a biased judge needs to make his/her case for banning whatever implements hurt his/her feelings.
xtry51
NES Member
They don't realize tanks need gas, ammo and the tank operators need water and food.
They think you can win a war with nothing but one tank. Like guns, they don't have a ****ing clue what they are talking about.
It does open up the bans in other states being kicked if it goes to the federal courts. The downside is it is a CA case. So it would be in the fed court for that district, probably liberal, the go to the 9th circuit court of appeals, the most liberal circuit. There is no way those loons decide for us. So we would need it to go to the supreme court. SF 49er Alton Smith was just charged with essentially the same thing. He has money and a name, he might push on this garbage.
a tank or apc will get mighty toasty after you light it up with a homemade flamethrower. bombers and helos aren't immune to lasers at night, shit look at the Russians and US in Afghanistan, has anyone won yet?
Yeah, I love when some nitwit says you cannot fight a tyrant who has jets, tanks, etc with small arms. Who needs to fight a tank or jet, you use the small arms to take the jets, tanks, etc. But these are always the same gun grabbers who think an AWB and mag limits stop crime.
This is exactly the tack taken by MA - that large capacity semi-automatic firearms are unusually dangerous, practically the same as machine guns and are not covered by the second amendment. To understand how MA is already defending their laws in court you should think of guns in terms of five types: Handguns (call firearms in the statutes), shot guns, rifles, large capacity weapons, and machine guns.
Last edited:
Scarecrow
Army Veteran
You guys are reading it all backwards! I'm reading it as "The California legal system announces today that it is completely ****ed, and there is plenty of prime real estate for anyone willing to fight to bring it back to reality while maintaining gorgeous beachfront property" I LOVED growing up in California, the state is beautiful... it's the PEOPLE that suck. Start off with large pockets of freedom and expand then into territories of freedom until you can run the socialists into the ocean where they belong. Let them try to stand on each others shoulders to save themselves, we'll see how well their "everyone else will take care of me" mentality works in reality when they don't know how to swim.
You're a little off on your numbers.
Last time I checked I'm pretty sure the number of guns in this country was in the 250+ million range and might be approaching 300 mil by now.
There's damn close to one gun for every person in the country. That's not the problem. The problem is that those guns are not held by every person in the country. Some portion of the country has multiple guns.
Last time I checked, a tank unsupported by infantry is in a bad way. But of course, far be it for the CA courts to follow the rule of law whne they can pontificate on matters that they don't understand. However, there is that rule of law thingie to contend with. If I recall Miller, I think the holding was that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long no relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and cannot be protected by the Second Amendment.
Scarecrow
Army Veteran
That is a misunderstanding; they read it as "uphold COITUS", so they **** us at every turn, if possible.
I've got 11 guns, with ammo and mags for each. That means I can arm 10 other people.
It doesn't matter that not everyone owns a gun. Enough of us do such that we can ensure those that want to fight will not do so unarmed.
I thought that was NY?
CA, MA, NJ, NY - take your pick.
