It won’t End with “ARs.”

TurtleDude said:

Goshin pinned a well written post to the top of this forum that is educational. apparently most of the anti gun types didn't read it

Click to expand...

I know and as I said some are willfully Ignorant.
One can lead a Jackass to water time after time, but when they refuse to drink every time at some point you simply have to say enough is enough, they know where the water is so go drink up or shut up. Yes, I know that I can be harsh, but Jackasses can be stubborn animals.

Rucker61 said:

You realize if Obama's AG would have making this request to a full SCOTUS would have meant that Obama's SCOTUS selection would have been on the Court. We all know that didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Trump is President now as I am sure you know.

The Supreme Court is refusing to hear gun rights cases.

From a USA Today dated Feb 20, 2018 ( about a week after the Parkland massive shooting ) article :

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court refused Tuesday to hear a challenge to California's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases, the second longest in the nation.

As the national debate over guns intensified following last week's school shooting in Florida that killed 17 students and teachers, the high court continued to resist inserting itself — a path it has followed for several years.

Justice Clarence Thomas issued an angry, 14-page dissent in which he complained that lower courts have failed to give the Second Amendment "the respect due an enumerated constitutional right." But none of the court's other conservatives joined him.

Since its landmark rulings in 2008 and 2010 upheld the right to keep and bear firearms for self-defense,[/B] the Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges from gun rights or gun control groups. That has left issues such as assault weapons bans, trigger locks and the right to carry guns in public up to the states.

Click to expand...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rnias-waiting-period-gun-purchases/354376002/

minnie616 said:

Trump is President now as I am sure you know.

The Supreme Court is refusing to hear gun rights cases.

From a USA Today dated Feb 20, 2018 ( about a week after the Parkland massive shooting ) article :

Click to expand...

Good the courts need to let the States work this out and then if needed listen to the counter arguments, if they have merit. Looks like it is a win some, lose some scenario right now, and everybody is happy, oh wait.........

minnie616 said:

Trump is President now as I am sure you know.

The Supreme Court is refusing to hear gun rights cases.

From a USA Today dated Feb 20, 2018 ( about a week after the Parkland massive shooting ) article :



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rnias-waiting-period-gun-purchases/354376002/

Click to expand...

"Is refusing" isn't a permanent situation. They're likely waiting on one more replacement.

Can you explain, in your own words, how an "assault weapons" ban or magazine capacity restriction would be Constitutional, given the SCOTUS rulings in Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano?

minnie616 said:

Trump is President now as I am sure you know.

The Supreme Court is refusing to hear gun rights cases.

From a USA Today dated Feb 20, 2018 ( about a week after the Parkland massive shooting ) article :



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...rnias-waiting-period-gun-purchases/354376002/

Click to expand...

Declining to hear a case is meaningless. It carries no precedential or legal import whatsoever, nor does it ever predict some future holding.

Harping on this sort of thing just shows an overall naivete about how courts work, and is pretty much always a mound of wishful thinking.

Harshaw said:

Declining to hear a case is meaningless. It carries no precedential or legal import whatsoever, nor does it ever predict some future holding.

Harping on this sort of thing just shows an overall naivete about how courts work, and is pretty much always a mound of wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

Oh, I know how the courts work.

Since the Supreme Court and Federal courts are denying cases about gun laws it means more states will make laws restricting guns and those laws are perfectly legal.

minnie616 said:

Oh, I know how the courts work.

Since the Supreme Court and Federal courts are denying cases about gun laws it means more states will make laws restricting guns and those laws are perfectly legal.

Click to expand...

In this post, you demonstrate that you actually don't know how it works. Especially when you think a court lower than the Supreme Court can simply decline to hear a case.

That you say "deny" means you're still invested in the idea that there's some meaning to the Supreme Court's declining to grant cert. This just isn't so.

Like I said, wishful thinking.

Harshaw said:

In this post, you demonstrate that you actually don't know how it works. Especially when you think a court lower than the Supreme Court can simply decline to hear a case.

That you say "deny" means you're still invested in the idea that there's some meaning to the Supreme Court's declining to grant cert. This just isn't so.

Like I said, wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

Lower courts have not overruled the state gun laws.

They may have over ruled some local laws but the Supreme Court has denied to hear those cases.

The NRA may try to take the newly signed Florida law which raises the age to buy any gun to 21 to court but I am betting lower courts will not overrule them and that the SC will refuse to hear that case also.

minnie616 said:

Lower courts have not overruled the state gun laws.

They may have over ruled some local laws but the Supreme Court has denied to hear those cases.

The NRA may try to take the newly signed Florida law which raises the age to buy any gun to 21 to court but I am betting lower courts will not overrule them and that the SC will refuse to hear that case also.

Click to expand...

why don't you tell us what YOU think McDonald v Chicago means?

TurtleDude said:

why don't you tell us what YOU think McDonald v Chicago means?

Click to expand...

I did misspeak since I meant to qualify my claim and say ....since 2010 the Supreme Court has declined to hear challenges from gun rights or gun control groups.

minnie616 said:

Lower courts have not overruled the state gun laws.

Click to expand...

Some, in fact, have. You should research that better.

They may have over ruled some local laws but the Supreme Court has denied to hear those cases.

Click to expand...

You keep saying "denied" or "deny." You're still invested in the idea that the Supreme Court declining to grant certiorari is some kind of repudiation of something.

It isn't. It's meaningless. And it absolutely isn't a predictor of how they'll rule when they do take a case.

They declined cert on gun cases for years and years, even when all of the Circuit Courts were finding that the Second Amendment didn't protect an individual right. Many people thought as you do that it was meaningful, and that it meant they agreed with or "upheld" the lower courts.

But when they did take a case, that's not how they ruled.

The NRA may try to take the newly signed Florida law which raises the age to buy any gun to 21 to court but I am betting lower courts will not overrule them and that the SC will refuse to hear that case also.

Click to expand...

This isn't about the NRA, and I'm not interested in the red herrings you often throw out. It may work to confuse people who don't know what they're talking about, and I've watched you distract people that way many times. But doesn't work with me.

Unfortunately, this is very much not your area of expertise.