- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 84,798
- Reaction score
- 71,517
- Location
- Third Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Fair enough.Some of those are still working through the court system.
Fair enough.Some of those are still working through the court system.
No problem. Thanks for the clarification.my mistake, I misread your post
AFAIK, the Cali assault weapons ban, at least on sales, is still in place, along with a plethora of other regulations.
I believe ownership of grandfathered weapons is allowed.
Well I find this pretty interesting, and was not aware.They've never been examined by SCOTUS. Those laws definitely violate US v Miller, Heller, and McDonald.
Well, the 7th Circuit Court upheld a previous ban merely to make people not be scared.
I'm not a lawyer. I go by the SC rulings. If a ruling occurs, I may personally disagree, but if it stands I uphold it as constitutional - the same as the court.No, if they have bullet buttons, or are regular AR-15s, they are banned from ownership. They tried to ban "high capacity magazines" but that law was blocked.
Given that the Second Amendment protects "bearable arms" "in common use for lawful purposes" or "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well regulated militia", and extends those protections to the states via McDonald, why would you think that an "assault weapons" ban is Constitutional?
Well I find this pretty interesting, and was not aware.
So how is it possible no one appealed to the SC? I find it hard to believe no one produced a test case.
I'm not a lawyer. I go by the SC rulings. If a ruling occurs, I may personally disagree, but if it stands I uphold it as constitutional - the same as the court.
Well, I don't claim to be a legal scholar. But even more-so, I greatly respect this country, the founding fathers, and the Constitution itself. So even when I disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I suck it up because the buck has to stop somewhere. There has to be a final arbiter in a civilized & just society, or we have nothing And for me, the Court is that arbiter.I have no problem disagreeing with SCOTUS or lower court decisions. I certainly feel that Minoru Yasui v. the United States, Hirabayashi v. the United States and Korematsu v. the United States were horribly unconstitutional.
Well, I don't claim to be a legal scholar. But even more-so, I greatly respect this country, the founding fathers, and the Constitution itself. So even when I disagree with a SCOTUS ruling, I suck it up because the buck has to stop somewhere. There has to be a final arbiter in a civilized & just society, or we have nothing And for me, the Court is that arbiter.
Not by today's standards, but they are what they were at the time. No different than Plessy or a host of others from the past.Were the three decisions I listed just and civilized?
I'd call it a loss. A big loss potentially.
I once owned an AR-15. The .223 round was designed to do one thing: kill & maim human beings in battle. But the NRA & its members seemingly can't live without them.
I think the last time we had a battle in this country was at Appomattox Court House in 1865. And I don't expect another any time soon.
I live in a built up neighborhood where the houses are pretty close together Traded my S&W 9mm for a 12-gauge tactical pump action & later bought a S&W hammerless revolver in .22 Magnum, both for home defense. A .223 or a 9mm could go through a window or wall & wound or kill someone in another house. Home defense or not, I wouldn't want to face a possible manslaughter trial.
I'd call it a loss. A big loss potentially.
I once owned an AR-15. The .223 round was designed to do one thing: kill & maim human beings in battle. But the NRA & its members seemingly can't live without them.
I think the last time we had a battle in this country was at Appomattox Court House in 1865. And I don't expect another any time soon.
I live in a built up neighborhood where the houses are pretty close together Traded my S&W 9mm for a 12-gauge tactical pump action & later bought a S&W hammerless revolver in .22 Magnum, both for home defense. A .223 or a 9mm could go through a window or wall & wound or kill someone in another house. Home defense or not, I wouldn't want to face a possible manslaughter trial.
how can you possibly support a law that allows people to be punished for continuing to own an item they bought legally, and never misused?
Yeah, but the assault weapons ban of the '90's was found Constitutional at the federal level. So there's been at least some constitutionality found in these types of bans. But you may have a point that a municipality may not have the freedom to deviate from state or federal regulation. But we definitely do see additional regulation at the state level, for instance in California.
Thanks. That's why I'd like to read the ruling.Chomsky,
The ban was not a domestic ban.
It only banned the IMPORT of foreign guns.
If someone still had an AK, AR, or FAL they could still keep it and shoot it.
Deerfield told people that already had them, they had to turn them in for be fined/arrested.
Big difference from the 90's.
Nothing in the 90's said anyone still possessing one had to turn it in.
Deerfield did say they had to turn them in.
SHOT DOWN and rightly so.
Thanks. That's why I'd like to read the ruling.