Supreme Court Allows Illinois Assault Weapons Ban To Take Effect

a country of people armed to the teeth is the final arbiter

its part of our heretigae and organic design.

 

I have a suggestion.

stop glorifying guns on tv and stop putting so many chemicals in our foods and adding to the problem by feeding our kids fists full of drugs to compensate for the adverse effects of the chemicals

what a novel idea huh?

 

so in its place we created a militia of the people for SELF protection.

Ok so how is this supposed to work?

How do people protect a country without readily available arms?

Its impossible for putin to nuke every house but its pretty easy to nuke wipe out a few military bases

How do we form a militia to conform to part 2 of the constitution after they take those guns away?

Id really like to know the logic behind this?

 

Your own reading of my post, was not very astute. I have, throughout this thread, made only one main point, which was stated in the OP, and which I've repeated more than a half-dozen times, since. One of those re-statements, in fact, you quote, in your reply:

DEFinning said: ↑
...
This all goes to the point of my argument. Even if you choose to call all the decisions that you don't like, "wrong," and say that the only judges who decide "correctly," are those who share your own view, this does not change the demonstrable fact that the Constitution's language is not, of itself, perfectly lucid on the issue... Therefore, until there is a more definitive ruling from the Court, all those claiming that such & such regulation is unconstitutional are really only giving their own, personal opinions, based on other rulings. They are not stating facts. So any argument which tries to rely on a debater's own interpretation of prior rulings, has no authority, to back it up.

<End Quote>

Is that clearer? Because your question to me, about the number of guns in circulation, has absolutely no relevance, to this main point. That is, you have left out the logic which gets you from many in circulation, to equal that it can't be banned. However, for clarity's sake, I had stripped out my justification for saying that the language is not definitive: namely, that different courts have interpreted the words, in differing ways. Can you now see that this is pragmatically demonstrable fact, that the meaning must not be crystal clear?



If, however, you are trying to expand my opining, it would only be proper, IMO, for you to begin with first addressing the points which I had made, which actually do, directly relate to my main "thesis." Here they are, the supporting facts, behind my conclusion that the Constitution is not clear-cut, and hence courts can come up with different interpretations:

DEFinning said: ↑
At present, the facts are against your reading of the rulings. That is, in the cases which have come up before other Circuit and Appeals Courts, even after Bruen, those judges did not see any SCOTUS decision, as invalidating California's assault weapons ban. Initially, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the federal, but not the State governments. This actually makes sense, if you think about it-- recalling that the constitution's actual language, speaks of well regulated (state) militias. So there is a rationale of limiting federal power, by preventing it from stopping states, from having their own "militias." But that would not compel a state, to have one (obviously). IOW, the 9th Circuit chose to do more of an Originalist reading of the constitution, than has the SCOTUS.

Moving on from the 1989 CA ban, which is still in effect, there was a case of a man convicted of possession of an assault weapon (among other things), subsequent to the Bruen decision, by which he contended, in his appeal, that this charge could not apply, since the CA law was now unconstitutional. But the Third District Court of Appeals, in that case, did not accept his argument. See post #77, just a few before this one...
<End Quote>

So, why don't you build from your answers to these points, towards whatever direction you wish to take the conversation?

 

When its all said and done whos interpretation of the definition is going to win, the people with pens that gave us we wont shoot back zones or the people with guns?

 

I don't bother reading most of his posts given he takes 100 words to respond to ten. The gun banners all know that gun bans violate the second amendment and they have a hard time dealing with that

 

Interesting theory, though it is a rather startling claim, which would call for strong evidence, to give it credibility. What you suggest would be, you understand, a betrayal of their oath?

I will offer an alternate theory. Based on the fact that the Court has taken gun cases, and actually expanded gun rights, in recent years, I think that your theory does not hold water.

Also, the fact that other courts, including those just below their own, have read the Constitution in differing ways, on this "well regulated militia" Amendment, makes it self-evident that-- while of course any individual can interpret the words, such as that they seem "cut and dry," to that person-- the fact that different judges and legal scholars have differing views, proves that, in truth, this is not so, in any objective sense.

However, because of external circumstances, it may be true that the Court is currently in no hurry, to make another controversial and highly unpopular ruling-- which their barring the banning of assault weapons, certainly would be. These circumstances would be the bottom completely dropping out of public trust in the Court. Down to only 18%, at last measure.

Though this had been falling for some time, it had begun at quite a high level, and the life- appointed Justices have, till now, not seemed to care much about this, despite their highly unpopular abortion ruling. Since then, though, this has been worsened by both the legislative acts of some states, to which the SCOTUS had kicked this question, as well as judicial decisions, specifically on the abortion pill.

Still, I don't know if that alone would have deterred them from another outrage-stirring decision, except for the scandal that has recently ensued, over undeclared gifts, corrupt influence pedalling, graft, and conflicts of interest. Maybe now, some members of the Court are beginning to identify with the oft depicted, cartoon scenario, of a character who has continued running, beyond the point at which there remains any solid ground, beneath their feet.

 

Interesting, that it is apparently not enough, to only tell yourself this-- since this isn't the first time I've seen you making such preposterous claims about what others believe, as if you could have any basis for that knowledge. Was there once I time, I wonder, when it was sufficiently convincing, for you just to think this, in your own mind, and not need to share the fantasy with a like- minded individual, to make it seem more real to you?

I have a suggestion, if you actually wanted to understand my thinking: actually read it, in my posts.

 

you never can tell us where there is even a shred of evidence that the constitution intended that the federal government have any power over privately owned firearms.

 

That is a straw man argument. What is relevant, is not your or my analysis, of the text, but the analysis of judges, who rule, based on it. That is from where legal precent emerges, not from the opinions of anonymous posters, on an internet forum.

Now, if the evidence I've already offered, WASN'T an objectively true statement, about those judges' opinions, then your alternate method, of layperson analysis, would be valid. But based on the fact that U.S. Circuit Appeals Court Judges have found that the Second Amendment does not apply to states, I can claim that the Constitution, is obviously not crystal clear, that the opposite is true. In fact, since there have been multiple courts which have upheld California's ban on assault weapons, and no court has ruled that states cannot ban these weapons, the more supportable contention is clearly, that states can ban them.

IOW, I have offered proof, in actual legal precedent. You have none. So the onus would be on you, to prove that the existing precedent, is not the only "cut and dried" reading of the Constitution.

 

so many words not to answer an easy question/ who is superior court-the second or the US Supreme court?

another question that you all never answer? why is it that every gun banner on this board is a left-winger?

 

So you predict an armed, citizen uprising? I think the evidence for this is vastly wanting.

 

they dont they usurped it, same with speech and religion, and the press...well if they want to make money they better tow the line!

 

I didnt predict anything.

I said its not a wise idea for people with pens to provoke people with guns by interpreting the meaning of their rights too differently from their interpretation.

Will says the final arbiter is the court, I think that is an error and the final arbiter are those who hold the guns not the pens.

 

And back to your deflections. It is getting comical that you avoid responding to any of my on-point arguments, by accusing me of not responding to your deflections. Of course, the SCOTUS is the highest Court (and you are wrong, BTW, because I have said that, on just the prior page)-- but that is beside my main point. This is now, getting really pathetic. If the SCOTUS has never ruled, SPECIFICALLY,
"(quote) It is unconstitutional to ban assault weapons," then you have no factual basis for that claim. You can argue that opinion; but not credibly state it as a fact. Simple (one would think).

You are trying to make other arguments. But this was the primary argument of the thread. So you have two choices, if you want to argue anything beyond that main thesis:
1) You can concur with my position, and move on, from there.
2) You can argue against my position.

Again, really not rocket science.

 

it is unconstitutional to ban firearms in common use for lawful purposes

is that a point you do not understand?

 

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court, the Illinois Supreme Court, and the California Third District Court of Appeal, all disagree with you. Is that a point that you don't understand? Or do you expect your word, to trump the actual rulings of those courts?




P.S.-- And yes, I understand that the U.S. Supreme Court would supercede those opinions: but the SCOTUS would need to issue the overruling opinion, first-- which they have not done. Which means that your opinion of this "fact," is based on your speculation over what the SCOTUS may do, in the future.

 

uh I don't care. I am citing what the SUPREME COURT HAS HELD. I understand that leftist jurists tend to disregard the Supreme Court till they get taken to the woodshed.
\
\why is it that every gun banner is a left-winger?

 

It is not true. But you think it is, obviously, because you make reality conform to your false narrative. If someone is willing to try banning assault weapons, that fact alone, makes you categorize them as a "left winger," even if they are Republican. That makes them a "RINO," in your book.

LOL-- if you define anyone who favors a ban, to be a left winger, that is the reason that they are, but only in your opinion. IOW, it is a completely bogus "observation," you are making, which is true, only on your inner world of belief, not objectively.


(Take nap here, if post is too long for one, straight reading).



The Supreme Court has NOT held, SPECIFICALLY, that assault weapons cannot be banned. It is only your interpretation of what is implied by their other rulings. Have they yet overturned any state's banning of assault weapons? If not, then they have not "held" this particular thing to be true. The fact that California has banned assault weapons, for the last 34 years, should have also been a tip-off.


You are "citing" nothing: you are giving your own evaluation, of the meaning of their rulings in other cases.

I am actually the only one of us, who is citing case law (one would think that someone with a law background, like yourself, would understand the meaning of that term).

 

can you cite a conservative poster who supports gun bans? DC banned handguns for 25 years before it was struck down. what is an assault weapon ?

and tell me, what sort of firearms was the second amendment intended to protect?

 

arms, anything that can kill
they had cannons and bombs that burst in air all of which are arms!

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Mini nukes are arms

 

More changing of the subject, from you. I have already addressed this, above, in post #115

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-to-take-effect.610661/page-5#post-1074227811

The High Court has never issued a ruling specifically on assault weapons; I love the way that you substitute a ruling on hand guns, as if they are the same thing. I am sorry, Turtledude, if you cannot make a logical argument, on this topic. But just because you consider there to be no valid distinction, does not make it so. Even if, quite possibly, I admit, the SCOTUS may see it the same way: until they actually do so, in fact, it is not in fact, done.

Again, one would think that a lawyer would be able to differentiate a tangible fact-- like the way that courts have ruled SPECIFICALLY ON THE MATTER UNDER CONSIDERATION-- A STATE'S BANNING OF ASSAULT WEAPONS-- from mere conjecture, no matter how soundly based that conjecture may (or may not) be. It is still not a fact.

Best of luck, trying to understand this distinction.

 

The SC has changed.

In his NYC opinion, Thomas points this out. He notes that their remain issues such as NYC to still be adjudicated in line with their political views.

They will rule on each of these issues as those issues work their way through the lower courts.

And, when those precedents are established, the Appellate Courts WILL follow, as that is how our system works. Appellate courts are expected to follow SC precedent in the event that there is no new or different angle.

This court has been uninterested in providing a stable foundation as per the principle of stare decisis. They are set on plotting a whole new course for America, and as Thomas has pointed out on more than one occasion, they have only begun.

 

Well, you didn't do your reading.

We **** canned the idea of having a well regulated militia as a means of defending America - the original premise.

Instead, we have a standing military - the DoD. That is what the founders did not want. Instead, they wanted a well organized militia.



And, what we have today are militias that are oriented to terrorism based on racism, religion and sexual orientation. And, to suggest they are organized is a bit of stupendous idiocy.

 

Because we believe that laws should take precedence over violence