Practical discussion: gun storage

Clearly that is not the case given the number of state that have banned “assault” weapons.

 

Has SCOTUS taken up one of these cases? When it can be assured of a conservative majority, do you think it will?

Do you support the reasoning behind the "assault weapons" decisions?

 

No but at least two have been challenged in lower courts and lost.
No idea.
No.

 

One of them actually won until the liberals on the Court refused to allow that and the precedent it established with regards to scrutiny to stand.

One challenge lose based on this finding:

"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."

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

Not safety. Feelings.

 

I’m a bottom line kind of guy....in the end both appeals lost. If these bans are unconstitutional I would think they wouldn’t have been able to be implemented to begin with. How is this happening? How have the 8 states been able to get away with banning “assault” weapons and limiting mags to 10 rounds?

 

Allowing 7 and below would be allowing lower capacity magazines. So please, stop with the specious arguments.

 

The makeup of the Court. Given the uncertainty of which way a couple of members might vote, neither side could have felt confident about winning.

Given that Miller protects firearms "having a reasonable relationship to the preservation and efficiency of a well-regulated militia" and Heller protects firearms "in common use for common purposes", why aren't semiautomatic rifles and 30 round magazines protected?

If a semi-automatic rifle can be banned, if a shotgun can be banned simply because it has a pistol grip, if a pistol can be banned simply because it has a threaded barrel, and a magazine can be banned simply because it holds more than a arbitrary upper limit set without any actual reasoning behind it, what indeed does the Second Amendment protect?

 

Practical discussion: gun storage

Secure your firearms

 

I think a good idea would be to issue a warrant authorizing the search of the dwelling where the weapon will be stored for anyone buying a firearm, to make sure it's secure of course.

 

Simple answer: the entire court system has been corrupted until the courts care nothing about the Constitution or the intent of the Founders and instead have chosen to simply rubberstamp blatant violations of the Constitution by the government to protect government overreach and power.

As for how they were enacted originally it was because amoral authoritarian politicians ignored the Constitution when they pushed the bans onto the people, and the people were too weak and too self-absorbed to care it was happening.

I actually watched the 1994 ban's final vote in Congress. I watched time run out on the vote, and the ban had been defeated by two votes. But House Speaker Tom Foley refused to bang the gavel even as Representatives shouted at him to do what was right. Instead, he stood there knowing that there were two Representatives who were wavering... until they switched their vote. The instant the ban had the single vote majority it needed to pass, Foley immediately banged the gavel. From the very beginning that law was illegitimate. So, the courts refusal to overturn such laws only proves their culpability in that attack upon our Republic and our Constitutional rights.

 

States and lower courts have been ignoring binding precedent by the united state supreme court for a significant period of time. Such does not mean the actions committed are either legal or constitutional.

 

an irrelevant questioned designed to divert

 

So you hate the fourth and fifth amendments as much as of the second?

 

you just don't get it do you? and your reference to specious arguments is funny.

 

Sure violate the 4th to violate the 2nd. And by what criteria is a gun judged to be safe?

 

Well, hanging by a loop under a coat doesn't qualify.

 

Ha ha, so you admit I'm right. Allowing 7 and below would be allowing lower capacity magazines. That's what I thought. No apology necessary. I've been wrong on occasion too.

 

Your reply qualifies as horse manure. What legal criteria are you proposing for the government waltzing in someone’s home to conduct a gun safety check?
While they are there would you have them do the same for prescription drugs, cleaning agents and tools as well?

 

Under the auspices of the CDC. The health of the nation is at risk with all these unsecured firearms lying around.

Protect your local police department. Make sure your guns are in a Gun Safe place.

 

Funny how when you don’t want to answer a question you deem them irrelevant...how convenient and gutless.

 

The district of columbia attempted a similar argument when trying to justify their total handgun prohibition. The united state supreme court rejected their argument outright.

 

What argument am I making?

 

The CDC does not trump the Constitution, and has very little credibility on the issue either way.

Have you ever spoken to your local police officers about how THEY feel about it? You might find yourself shocked by their answers.

 

A) So the health of a nation would never trump its founding document?

B) Are you suggesting that my local police department would be against me securing my weapons?

 

If the "health" of this nation was truly at risk, then it wouldn't be hard to press for the necessary amendments to the founding documents, now would it?

I'm not suggesting. I'm flatly telling you. There's a reason why law enforcement groups representing rank-and-file officers oppose so-called "safe storage" laws. North of 90% of serving law enforcement officers oppose gun control as a public policy.