Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

When the time comes, I (and many others) will do exactly that.

 

No you won't, you'll post on anonymous sites from the comfort of home.

 

Except that I am quite literato.

 

You go ahead and tell yourself that if it helps you sleep better at night.

We'll just have to see, won't we?

 

More clever and wit, He posts from Merry Olde England.

 

He posts from England but accuses us of having aristos as masters?


Classic

 

Except for the simple fact that he is not, and there is no evidence available on the part of yourself to demonstrate otherwise.

 

Donald Trump is guaranteed to be president of the united states for the next three years, meaning that he will be the one to select nominations for the united state supreme court. There are several judges on the liberal side of the court who are closer to leaving the bench than anyone else. If one of them should suddenly die or retire, even if they are not replaced, the balance will be firmly on the side of the conservative spectrum. And going by the dissents in cases that the court has not heard on matters pertaining to firearms, they will be quick to take up future cases, and clarify that the second amendment is not a second class right. They will further affirm, and even expand, the protections implemented in Heller and furthered in both McDonald and Caetano.

If the united state supreme court decides the matter in the near future, those who support greater firearm-related restrictions likely stand to lose everything they have supported, as there will be no swing justice to take into account who can do anything to undermine the matter.

 

There's a reason DC didn't appeal the Circuit ruling that forced it to move to a shall-issue CCW permit system.

 

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeew, you'll tweet as well?

 

My take let people have any reasonable weapon if the government considers your home weapon en mass a threat invoke domestic terrorism laws and then remove that threat, just see if they make any kind of threat on social media and membership in questionable groups etc.

 

A home is a weapon ?

Since when ?

 

Once more, with clarity. Exactly what is being stated by yourself?

 

I would like to know too.
Home weapon ???

 

We need to examine the courts.
We have at least two rogue federal appeals courts. We here in CA have one and Maryland has the other. Maybe there is one more.

 

At least two more, the 2nd and the 7th. The 2nd for Shew v Malloy, and the 7th for Friedman v Highland Park for that decision, and especially this part:

"If it has no other effect, Highland Park's ordinance may increase the public's sense of safety. Mass shootings are rare, but they are highly salient, and people tend to overestimate the likelihood of salient events. See George F. Loewenstein, Christopher K. Hsee, Elke U. Weber & Ned Welch, Risk as Feelings, 127 Psychological Bulletin 267, 275–76 (2001); Eric J. Johnson, John Hershey, Jacqueline Meszaros & Howard Kunreuther, Framing, Probability Distortions, and Insurance Decisions, 7 J. Risk & Uncertainty 35 (1993). If a ban on semiautomatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit."

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1698803.html

 

Nope. Your snide little ostrich act bothers me not at all.

 

There is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon". That term was made up by the anti-gun wackos back in the late 80's.

So, since there is no such thing as an "Assault Weapon", this ruling is meaningless.

 

No where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that people can be restricted from keeping and bearing a certain weapon.

So, ALL laws restricting people from keeping and bearing a certain weapon are unconstitutional.

 

MolonLabe2009 is conjecturing his own opinion without evidence.

He is not authorized in law to interpret what the Constitution means: only the federal judiciary in Art III is empowered to do that.

 

One of these day you will add something meaningful to the conversation.
Today is not that day.

 

So laws against civilian ownership of frag grenades, RPG's and Nukes are unconstitutional?

 

No weapon without modification can 'become' a military weapon. No amount of accessories can achieve that. Said modifications require either permits or are illegal to begin with, and you don't hear people complaining about that. The sheer ignorance of the gun grabbers is appalling...

 

Privateers were allowed to own weapons of war, at the time the Founders were still around. History would back that citizens were allowed weapons war under the Constitution. There was no militia requirement, so you folks can save your breath on that. We are talking about cannons and the like, far more deadly than any small arms that gun grabbers whine about...

 

Yes.