If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[westwall]

No, it is accurate. That is the county by county break down of the election results.

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

 

[westwall]

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

US V MILLER, 1934 NFA. How on Earth am I being abusive to you?

This dealt with one specific shotgun only. It wasn't for all firearms. It had to do with only a sawed off shotgun. No mention of any other type of firearm at all.

Now it's my turn.

Your buddies keep bringing up Heller V DC. That's a fun one. I've posted the real ruling so this should not be in question of what I am going to say. The ruling was that Heller was denied his rights because he was denied his right to have a fully functional handgun in his home. He was denied his right to register his firearm for his home. He was denied his right (if he didn't have any issues) with his obtaining a license to own said firearm. In essence, that was the entire scope of the bill. It dealt strictly with handguns. It did not deal with long guns, shotguns or anything else. It was extremely specific. You have a right to have what the community believes is a reasonable firearm to protect your home, family and property in your home.

Then we have Voisine v. United States. This was done in 2016. The Supreme Court ruled that a person with a misdemeanor for violence can be denied his right to bear arms.

McDonald V Chicago. Struck down the Chicago ban for handguns. Handguns are the protected firearm. It meets all requirements of the firearm most likely to be accepted for home defense and self protection of the home. What came out of it was the Chicago Assault Rifle Ban that still stands.

Presser V Illinios. Presser was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for possessing a firearm illegally. It was upheld. He claimed to be part of a Militia. What came out of this was that it's illegal for the Federal Government to restrict firearms rights but it's okay for the states to do so.

United States V Cruikshank. In 1875 a mob of whites attacked and disarmed (among other things) a group of black protesters. The Feds arrested them for various violations. In the end, it was ruled that there were no federal firearms violations since the Federals cannot impose firearms restrictions. Those are left to the Stated. Since Civil Rights were not an issue in those days, all of the white men were free to walk away.

Do you see where this is leading? In the United States we have a long history of the States and lower governments regulating or outright banning firearms. The only class of firearm that has been protected has been the handgun for the home. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns have been regulated somewhat only by the number of rounds they may contain while hunting. But that is also done by the state. Here is the one that really sticks in you and your buddies craw.

NRA V Massachusetts The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League is a political component of the NRA. It's a way that they try to hide their actions. Judge Young was appointed to the federal Court in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Here ruling is as follows.


Federal Judge Sides With AG Healey, Rules Second Amendment Does Not Cover AR-15s & High-Capacity Mags
By Evan Lips | April 6, 2018, 16:12 EDT
http://newbostonpost.com/2018/04/06...ent-does-not-cover-ar-15s-high-capacity-mags/
BOSTON — Attorney General Maura Healey is hailing a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s 1998 assault weapons ban, a ruling she said “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and our efforts to enforce the law.”

Young later summarized his decision by hinting that if residents living in Democrat-dominated states like Massachusetts are fed up with strict gun laws, they should move elsewhere.

“Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives,” he wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

Young added the following, and included a nod to the deceased conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy. Justice Scalia would be proud.”

Healey, meanwhile, called it a “victory.”

“Strong gun laws save lives,” she wrote in a Twitter post Friday morning. “We will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.

“Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

The order was handed down by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge William Young, who concluded firearms such as “AR-15s and its analogs, along with large-capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to bear arms.”

Young also sided with the so-called “copycat” ban on weapons designed to look like AR-15s, initiated by Healey in July 2016. Young pointed out that Healey’s 2016 directive did not seek to prosecute individuals who had purchased firearms ahead of the release of her enforcement notice.

“That fact, together with the plaintiffs’ failure to provide this court with any other reason to believe they face imminent prosecution for these past transactions, weighs heavily against concluding that there is a credible threat of prosecution,” Young wrote.

Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

The lawsuit, filed in part by the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, was brought against Healey and Governor Charlie Baker’s administration in January 2017. The complaint claimed that the state’s ban “is a non-technical, entirely fabricated, and political term of uncertain definition and scope.”

Federal court records show that in December both sides motioned for summary judgement, and presented their arguments in February.

Young ultimately ruled that “assault weapons and LCMs [large-capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal ‘right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

His ruling plainly determined that AR-15 rifles, while lacking the automatic-firing of the similarly-looking M16s used in military combat, “fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

Young’s decision arguably proves he agrees with the plaintiff’s claim that the ban is political — but not in the manner in which the Gun Owners’ Action League had hoped — as he ultimately ruled that the ban constitutes a policy matter “left to the people directly through their elected representatives.”

Healey held a press conference Friday afternoon to celebrate Young’s ruling. Flanked by several Boston Public Schools students she said helped organize last month’s pro-gun control march on Boston Common, Healey called the ruling backing the ban a victory to those who are “tired of the gun lobby trying to re-write the rules.”

“I want to remind people about how we got here today,” Healey said before delving into describing how she arrived at her decision to issue the 2016 copycat directive — which landed following a deadly Orlando massacre and just prior to the Democratic National Convention. “Twenty years ago we decided as a state that these military-style weapons had no place in Massachusetts.

“But it turned out the gun manufacturers were selling them here anyway,” she added.

Healey said the “gun lobby” took to the courts to “overturn our law.”

“Today, they got their answer,” she said. “Today the court declared that our constitution provides no right to own an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine, and Massachusetts has a right to keep our people safe.”

She added that it will be “up to the gun lobby” as to whether the case is appealed, and added that her office is “ready to confront whatever challenges the gun lobby puts in our way.”

A little less than two hours after Healey finished holding her press conference, the Gun Owners’ Action League released a statement criticizing the ruling and Healey, but not saying whether an appeal is forthcoming:

This is well within the historic rulings from day one from the Supreme Court. It's not the Federal Government's job to regulate firearms. It's strictly up to the States and lower Governments. If the Supreme Court rules any other way, it pretty well throws away at least 300 years of American History.

Now, Westwall, give me specifics where the Supreme Court has EVER over ruled any of this. And, no, the ruling for Religious Pamphlets don't count.

Yes, but what was the reason for their belief that the shotgun could be regulated? The answer is simple "NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE". That is the standard by which all other gun bans will be judged.

That only pertains to the Federal Government. Not the States. The NFA of 1934 is a Federal Law that covered more than just Sawed Off Shotguns. It also covered weapons like automatic weapons, explosives and more. While most of the NFA 1934 law is necessary, I do question why they stuck in the sawed off shotgun and someone hasn't challenged it closer to today. That was done one emotion on a Federal Level and clearly against the 2nd and 10th amendment laws. While I agree that a sawed off shotgun is a bad idea, it should be left up to the states. That ruling has since been over ruled by other rulings when pertaining to the states ability to regulate civilian firearms. In fact, before and after, that part about sawed off shotguns was a rare duck of a ruling by the Federal Court and has never been duplicated.

Go take a Civics class.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

US V MILLER, 1934 NFA. How on Earth am I being abusive to you?

This dealt with one specific shotgun only. It wasn't for all firearms. It had to do with only a sawed off shotgun. No mention of any other type of firearm at all.

Now it's my turn.

Your buddies keep bringing up Heller V DC. That's a fun one. I've posted the real ruling so this should not be in question of what I am going to say. The ruling was that Heller was denied his rights because he was denied his right to have a fully functional handgun in his home. He was denied his right to register his firearm for his home. He was denied his right (if he didn't have any issues) with his obtaining a license to own said firearm. In essence, that was the entire scope of the bill. It dealt strictly with handguns. It did not deal with long guns, shotguns or anything else. It was extremely specific. You have a right to have what the community believes is a reasonable firearm to protect your home, family and property in your home.

Then we have Voisine v. United States. This was done in 2016. The Supreme Court ruled that a person with a misdemeanor for violence can be denied his right to bear arms.

McDonald V Chicago. Struck down the Chicago ban for handguns. Handguns are the protected firearm. It meets all requirements of the firearm most likely to be accepted for home defense and self protection of the home. What came out of it was the Chicago Assault Rifle Ban that still stands.

Presser V Illinios. Presser was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for possessing a firearm illegally. It was upheld. He claimed to be part of a Militia. What came out of this was that it's illegal for the Federal Government to restrict firearms rights but it's okay for the states to do so.

United States V Cruikshank. In 1875 a mob of whites attacked and disarmed (among other things) a group of black protesters. The Feds arrested them for various violations. In the end, it was ruled that there were no federal firearms violations since the Federals cannot impose firearms restrictions. Those are left to the Stated. Since Civil Rights were not an issue in those days, all of the white men were free to walk away.

Do you see where this is leading? In the United States we have a long history of the States and lower governments regulating or outright banning firearms. The only class of firearm that has been protected has been the handgun for the home. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns have been regulated somewhat only by the number of rounds they may contain while hunting. But that is also done by the state. Here is the one that really sticks in you and your buddies craw.

NRA V Massachusetts The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League is a political component of the NRA. It's a way that they try to hide their actions. Judge Young was appointed to the federal Court in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Here ruling is as follows.


Federal Judge Sides With AG Healey, Rules Second Amendment Does Not Cover AR-15s & High-Capacity Mags
By Evan Lips | April 6, 2018, 16:12 EDT
http://newbostonpost.com/2018/04/06...ent-does-not-cover-ar-15s-high-capacity-mags/
BOSTON — Attorney General Maura Healey is hailing a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s 1998 assault weapons ban, a ruling she said “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and our efforts to enforce the law.”

Young later summarized his decision by hinting that if residents living in Democrat-dominated states like Massachusetts are fed up with strict gun laws, they should move elsewhere.

“Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives,” he wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

Young added the following, and included a nod to the deceased conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy. Justice Scalia would be proud.”

Healey, meanwhile, called it a “victory.”

“Strong gun laws save lives,” she wrote in a Twitter post Friday morning. “We will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.

“Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

The order was handed down by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge William Young, who concluded firearms such as “AR-15s and its analogs, along with large-capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to bear arms.”

Young also sided with the so-called “copycat” ban on weapons designed to look like AR-15s, initiated by Healey in July 2016. Young pointed out that Healey’s 2016 directive did not seek to prosecute individuals who had purchased firearms ahead of the release of her enforcement notice.

“That fact, together with the plaintiffs’ failure to provide this court with any other reason to believe they face imminent prosecution for these past transactions, weighs heavily against concluding that there is a credible threat of prosecution,” Young wrote.

Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

The lawsuit, filed in part by the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, was brought against Healey and Governor Charlie Baker’s administration in January 2017. The complaint claimed that the state’s ban “is a non-technical, entirely fabricated, and political term of uncertain definition and scope.”

Federal court records show that in December both sides motioned for summary judgement, and presented their arguments in February.

Young ultimately ruled that “assault weapons and LCMs [large-capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal ‘right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

His ruling plainly determined that AR-15 rifles, while lacking the automatic-firing of the similarly-looking M16s used in military combat, “fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

Young’s decision arguably proves he agrees with the plaintiff’s claim that the ban is political — but not in the manner in which the Gun Owners’ Action League had hoped — as he ultimately ruled that the ban constitutes a policy matter “left to the people directly through their elected representatives.”

Healey held a press conference Friday afternoon to celebrate Young’s ruling. Flanked by several Boston Public Schools students she said helped organize last month’s pro-gun control march on Boston Common, Healey called the ruling backing the ban a victory to those who are “tired of the gun lobby trying to re-write the rules.”

“I want to remind people about how we got here today,” Healey said before delving into describing how she arrived at her decision to issue the 2016 copycat directive — which landed following a deadly Orlando massacre and just prior to the Democratic National Convention. “Twenty years ago we decided as a state that these military-style weapons had no place in Massachusetts.

“But it turned out the gun manufacturers were selling them here anyway,” she added.

Healey said the “gun lobby” took to the courts to “overturn our law.”

“Today, they got their answer,” she said. “Today the court declared that our constitution provides no right to own an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine, and Massachusetts has a right to keep our people safe.”

She added that it will be “up to the gun lobby” as to whether the case is appealed, and added that her office is “ready to confront whatever challenges the gun lobby puts in our way.”

A little less than two hours after Healey finished holding her press conference, the Gun Owners’ Action League released a statement criticizing the ruling and Healey, but not saying whether an appeal is forthcoming:

This is well within the historic rulings from day one from the Supreme Court. It's not the Federal Government's job to regulate firearms. It's strictly up to the States and lower Governments. If the Supreme Court rules any other way, it pretty well throws away at least 300 years of American History.

Now, Westwall, give me specifics where the Supreme Court has EVER over ruled any of this. And, no, the ruling for Religious Pamphlets don't count.

Yes, but what was the reason for their belief that the shotgun could be regulated? The answer is simple "NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE". That is the standard by which all other gun bans will be judged.

That only pertains to the Federal Government. Not the States. The NFA of 1934 is a Federal Law that covered more than just Sawed Off Shotguns. It also covered weapons like automatic weapons, explosives and more. While most of the NFA 1934 law is necessary, I do question why they stuck in the sawed off shotgun and someone hasn't challenged it closer to today. That was done one emotion on a Federal Level and clearly against the 2nd and 10th amendment laws. While I agree that a sawed off shotgun is a bad idea, it should be left up to the states. That ruling has since been over ruled by other rulings when pertaining to the states ability to regulate civilian firearms. In fact, before and after, that part about sawed off shotguns was a rare duck of a ruling by the Federal Court and has never been duplicated.

Go take a Civics class.

Your translation is loud and clear. You ain't got nuttin. You can't address even one single point without looking like a raving lunatic. Works for me and it works for more and more people every day.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

 

[westwall]

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No, they don't. How can you be so ridiculously blind to reality? SCOTUS has OVER RULED the lower Courts. That is a fact. Go ahead and claim you won the internets. No one cares what you claim.

 

[2aguy]

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No, they don't. How can you be so ridiculously blind to reality? SCOTUS has OVER RULED the lower Courts. That is a fact. Go ahead and claim you won the internets. No one cares what you claim.

On gun regulation, give the times they have. You make blanket statements right out of the boilerplate. Back them up. Otherwise, we are right back to me saying, stop making shit up.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

 

[2aguy]

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

You didn't read Caetano v Massachusetts, did you? Stun Guns are also protected by the 2nd Amendment....

The lower courts are breaking the law.....

 

[westwall]

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

 

[Rustic]

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

...and AR15s still are just sporting rifles

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

You didn't read Caetano v Massachusetts, did you? Stun Guns are also protected by the 2nd Amendment....

The lower courts are breaking the law.....

I am going to do something you would never do. I am going to to admit you are right on this one item. Hey, even a broken clock is right 2 times a day. I did something I rarely do and didn't actually read the PDF version. I took a short cut. After reading the real thing, it does, indeed, state that the stun gun is treated as a firearm although it's not technically a firearm. But it falls under the same protections.

You have your first win. And the lower court did not break the law. This was really out there and extra ordinary. But the way it was ruled did make sense after the fact. No laws were broken. The law was clarified as it should have been. And that is the job of the Supreme Court.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

First of all, the law as it's written is poorly written is should be struck down. I originally read it and didn't think it would last this long. A 10 round max and it's definition of what an assault rifle is just doesn't cut it. It's a bad law. The Judges have all but hit Maryland over the head without actually ruling. They are giving Maryland a chance to fix the damned thing. If they don't fix it pretty soon, it's never going to make it to the supreme court. A lower court is going to strike it down first. This is why the Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. It's not run the gambit of the lower courts.

In 2013, after the Theater shooting and the school shooting in Colorado, there were some pretty drastic gun regs passed. They didn't go after the AR specifically. They went after the features of a full blown AR like the pistol grip, the forward pistol grip, more than 15 rounds (I found that a bit odd and would have gone for 20 myself since at the time, there were no 15 round clips offered so they came with 10 and that looked real odd), the various rails to mount things like the M203, the threaded barrel ends for silencers, collapsible stocks, and a few more little tidbits. Plus, all gun sales and transfers had to go through gun checks including private ones. And the age to purchase or obtain firearms was raised to 21. Strawman sales were deem illegal. There were more but, like I said, not enough to lose any sleep over. They also tried to sneak in the Assault wording. The NRA took it to court. The wording for the Assault was agreed to be removed during the proceedings so the Court agreed to let the rest stand. Poor wording on what an assault rifle is. We do have ARs on the shelves but they are pretty well stripped. The Accessories to make them full blown can be had but you have to go through the internet to get them. Many online stores won't ship to colorado. These were Grand Fathered in.

Here comes the sad part and the very expensive tissy fit by the NRA. They dumped millions of dollars into a recall of 3 state Senators and Representatives. 2 survived the recall, both Democrats. One Democrat was replaced by a Republican due to the recall. On the 2014 election, the Republican was replaced by a Democrat. Nothing changed except the NRA spent millions of dollars and the state of Colorado spent millions on the recall as well. For much of this State, the NRA is not well thought of.

What you are claiming as a victory is something that is pending. You describe it as the lower courts breaking the law when in fact, they are trying to give the state the chance to change their law without any ruling. I see this all the time not just in firearms but in many other things as well. The fact remains, our Judicial System is much better off than our congressional or executive system. And I mean all levels. I see no place where there is a battle going on like you claim there is. You seem to be making the fool out of yourself and you don't need my help.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

...and AR15s still are just sporting rifles

When used as a sporting rifle. Your opinion. And you are on record. I won't keep repeating my opinion. let's just say differs from yours but, like yours, it's my opinion.

 

[westwall]

Uh, no, you have to have a point that is accurate, and that refutes something I have stated for me to ever get butthurt. And, that would require that I even care what you say about me, which I don't. So, in getting back to the OP, the law of the land is what the SCOTUS says it is. NOT THE LOWER COURTS. The lower Courts are just that...LOWER. Their opinions don't matter one bit once SCOTUS has ruled on a subject.

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

First of all, the law as it's written is poorly written is should be struck down. I originally read it and didn't think it would last this long. A 10 round max and it's definition of what an assault rifle is just doesn't cut it. It's a bad law. The Judges have all but hit Maryland over the head without actually ruling. They are giving Maryland a chance to fix the damned thing. If they don't fix it pretty soon, it's never going to make it to the supreme court. A lower court is going to strike it down first. This is why the Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. It's not run the gambit of the lower courts.

In 2013, after the Theater shooting and the school shooting in Colorado, there were some pretty drastic gun regs passed. They didn't go after the AR specifically. They went after the features of a full blown AR like the pistol grip, the forward pistol grip, more than 15 rounds (I found that a bit odd and would have gone for 20 myself since at the time, there were no 15 round clips offered so they came with 10 and that looked real odd), the various rails to mount things like the M203, the threaded barrel ends for silencers, collapsible stocks, and a few more little tidbits. Plus, all gun sales and transfers had to go through gun checks including private ones. And the age to purchase or obtain firearms was raised to 21. Strawman sales were deem illegal. There were more but, like I said, not enough to lose any sleep over. They also tried to sneak in the Assault wording. The NRA took it to court. The wording for the Assault was agreed to be removed during the proceedings so the Court agreed to let the rest stand. Poor wording on what an assault rifle is. We do have ARs on the shelves but they are pretty well stripped. The Accessories to make them full blown can be had but you have to go through the internet to get them. Many online stores won't ship to colorado. These were Grand Fathered in.

Here comes the sad part and the very expensive tissy fit by the NRA. They dumped millions of dollars into a recall of 3 state Senators and Representatives. 2 survived the recall, both Democrats. One Democrat was replaced by a Republican due to the recall. On the 2014 election, the Republican was replaced by a Democrat. Nothing changed except the NRA spent millions of dollars and the state of Colorado spent millions on the recall as well. For much of this State, the NRA is not well thought of.

What you are claiming as a victory is something that is pending. You describe it as the lower courts breaking the law when in fact, they are trying to give the state the chance to change their law without any ruling. I see this all the time not just in firearms but in many other things as well. The fact remains, our Judicial System is much better off than our congressional or executive system. And I mean all levels. I see no place where there is a battle going on like you claim there is. You seem to be making the fool out of yourself and you don't need my help.

I never claimed anything as a victory. That was you. I have said, rightly so, that SCOTUS has already ruled on what weapons are protected, and which are not, and the criteria they used for their determination. That's all I have done. The lower Courts have made some terrible rulings due to judicial malfeasance, and the hope that we don't know the laws that have already been ruled on. They think that they can pull a fast one like obummer was fond of doing.

They are wrong.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

SCOTUS has already ruled on this and they agree with the lower courts. Otherwise, the lower courts would not be making those rulings. Just because you misinterpret the rulings of the Supreme Court going back all the way to the late 18th century doesn't make them incorrect. I don't find even one single disparity between the lower courts that has not been corrected by the higher courts. Not one. Now, find me one that doesn't hold true to that. So far, you just use the old NRA boiler plate statements that only the poorly educated are supposed to buy into. We both have a higher education. I don't know what yours is in and, frankly, don't care. And mine is so old it's not applicable anymore. So playing the Education card just means that mine is probably better than yours. Try again, cupcake. And, like your buds, stop making shit up.

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

First of all, the law as it's written is poorly written is should be struck down. I originally read it and didn't think it would last this long. A 10 round max and it's definition of what an assault rifle is just doesn't cut it. It's a bad law. The Judges have all but hit Maryland over the head without actually ruling. They are giving Maryland a chance to fix the damned thing. If they don't fix it pretty soon, it's never going to make it to the supreme court. A lower court is going to strike it down first. This is why the Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. It's not run the gambit of the lower courts.

In 2013, after the Theater shooting and the school shooting in Colorado, there were some pretty drastic gun regs passed. They didn't go after the AR specifically. They went after the features of a full blown AR like the pistol grip, the forward pistol grip, more than 15 rounds (I found that a bit odd and would have gone for 20 myself since at the time, there were no 15 round clips offered so they came with 10 and that looked real odd), the various rails to mount things like the M203, the threaded barrel ends for silencers, collapsible stocks, and a few more little tidbits. Plus, all gun sales and transfers had to go through gun checks including private ones. And the age to purchase or obtain firearms was raised to 21. Strawman sales were deem illegal. There were more but, like I said, not enough to lose any sleep over. They also tried to sneak in the Assault wording. The NRA took it to court. The wording for the Assault was agreed to be removed during the proceedings so the Court agreed to let the rest stand. Poor wording on what an assault rifle is. We do have ARs on the shelves but they are pretty well stripped. The Accessories to make them full blown can be had but you have to go through the internet to get them. Many online stores won't ship to colorado. These were Grand Fathered in.

Here comes the sad part and the very expensive tissy fit by the NRA. They dumped millions of dollars into a recall of 3 state Senators and Representatives. 2 survived the recall, both Democrats. One Democrat was replaced by a Republican due to the recall. On the 2014 election, the Republican was replaced by a Democrat. Nothing changed except the NRA spent millions of dollars and the state of Colorado spent millions on the recall as well. For much of this State, the NRA is not well thought of.

What you are claiming as a victory is something that is pending. You describe it as the lower courts breaking the law when in fact, they are trying to give the state the chance to change their law without any ruling. I see this all the time not just in firearms but in many other things as well. The fact remains, our Judicial System is much better off than our congressional or executive system. And I mean all levels. I see no place where there is a battle going on like you claim there is. You seem to be making the fool out of yourself and you don't need my help.

I never claimed anything as a victory. That was you. I have said, rightly so, that SCOTUS has already ruled on what weapons are protected, and which are not, and the criteria they used for their determination. That's all I have done. The lower Courts have made some terrible rulings due to judicial malfeasance, and the hope that we don't know the laws that have already been ruled on. They think that they can pull a fast one like obummer was fond of doing.

They are wrong.

And yet you can't find even one place where the supreme court has overturned the lower court on any gun reg ruling. You can find where the lower courts have kicked it up and not ruled themselves but that's it. The one that I admit was different actually wasn't done by the supreme court but was done by a lower court about the stun gun. The Supreme court has only made rulings with DC which has no lower court since they are not a state and rely on the supreme court itself for rulings.

The last one you brought up, the lower court did not rule but kicked it back to the government. They made suggestions. They are trying to shame them into making a good law for a change. I have seen this happening in the last 2 years way too many times. You seem to have a fixation of Obama when the real culprits is the various levels of congressionals that keep trying to sneak some real partisan crap through. So far, the court system has stopped most of that. IT appears you need to spend less time dwelling on Obama sucks and the Courts Suck and more time on the Congressionals Suck and do something about it.

 

[Kosh]

Does not matter now, the far left can try and ban all they want.

Now that you can 3D print your own gun, the far left calls for "Gun Control" are now out the window!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Does not matter now, the far left can try and ban all they want.

Now that you can 3D print your own gun, the far left calls for "Gun Control" are now out the window!

I just love the hype on this one. Here are some hard realities.

What is available that us mortals can afford is 3d printing in plastic. When you print your gun, you may or may not get about one shot out of it. If it doesn't blow up on you, don't fire it again. It will blow up on you since the first shot probably cracked it all to hell and gone. Having the blueprint or file to print it doesn't get you the material to print it. This gun isn't any real threat to anyone anymore than the shooter himself.

Now, if you can afford a few hundred thousand or so, you can buy a 3d metal printer. And the metal compound it uses is very expensive. There was a company that was selling 3d Metal printed handguns for 11K a copy but they went out of business. It seems their guns were a far cry from as good as quality as even the lowest of the lowest regular gun manufacturer.

Maybe someday it might be a factor but not today or tomorrow or even in 10 years. Only in the movies do you see an all plastic 3D printed gun being used for assassinations.

 

[westwall]

No.... the Supreme Court doesn't agree with the lower courts that is why you have Caetano v Massachusetts and Friedman v Highland Park.

Not taking a case in their limited case schedule does not create law, you dope. Those lower courts are filled with left wing social justice warriors hoping they can break the law and the social justice warriors on the Supreme Court will get control of the court, allowing their law breaking to stand..... Trump just screwed that up for them with the appointment of Kavanaugh...

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

First of all, the law as it's written is poorly written is should be struck down. I originally read it and didn't think it would last this long. A 10 round max and it's definition of what an assault rifle is just doesn't cut it. It's a bad law. The Judges have all but hit Maryland over the head without actually ruling. They are giving Maryland a chance to fix the damned thing. If they don't fix it pretty soon, it's never going to make it to the supreme court. A lower court is going to strike it down first. This is why the Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. It's not run the gambit of the lower courts.

In 2013, after the Theater shooting and the school shooting in Colorado, there were some pretty drastic gun regs passed. They didn't go after the AR specifically. They went after the features of a full blown AR like the pistol grip, the forward pistol grip, more than 15 rounds (I found that a bit odd and would have gone for 20 myself since at the time, there were no 15 round clips offered so they came with 10 and that looked real odd), the various rails to mount things like the M203, the threaded barrel ends for silencers, collapsible stocks, and a few more little tidbits. Plus, all gun sales and transfers had to go through gun checks including private ones. And the age to purchase or obtain firearms was raised to 21. Strawman sales were deem illegal. There were more but, like I said, not enough to lose any sleep over. They also tried to sneak in the Assault wording. The NRA took it to court. The wording for the Assault was agreed to be removed during the proceedings so the Court agreed to let the rest stand. Poor wording on what an assault rifle is. We do have ARs on the shelves but they are pretty well stripped. The Accessories to make them full blown can be had but you have to go through the internet to get them. Many online stores won't ship to colorado. These were Grand Fathered in.

Here comes the sad part and the very expensive tissy fit by the NRA. They dumped millions of dollars into a recall of 3 state Senators and Representatives. 2 survived the recall, both Democrats. One Democrat was replaced by a Republican due to the recall. On the 2014 election, the Republican was replaced by a Democrat. Nothing changed except the NRA spent millions of dollars and the state of Colorado spent millions on the recall as well. For much of this State, the NRA is not well thought of.

What you are claiming as a victory is something that is pending. You describe it as the lower courts breaking the law when in fact, they are trying to give the state the chance to change their law without any ruling. I see this all the time not just in firearms but in many other things as well. The fact remains, our Judicial System is much better off than our congressional or executive system. And I mean all levels. I see no place where there is a battle going on like you claim there is. You seem to be making the fool out of yourself and you don't need my help.

I never claimed anything as a victory. That was you. I have said, rightly so, that SCOTUS has already ruled on what weapons are protected, and which are not, and the criteria they used for their determination. That's all I have done. The lower Courts have made some terrible rulings due to judicial malfeasance, and the hope that we don't know the laws that have already been ruled on. They think that they can pull a fast one like obummer was fond of doing.

They are wrong.

And yet you can't find even one place where the supreme court has overturned the lower court on any gun reg ruling. You can find where the lower courts have kicked it up and not ruled themselves but that's it. The one that I admit was different actually wasn't done by the supreme court but was done by a lower court about the stun gun. The Supreme court has only made rulings with DC which has no lower court since they are not a state and rely on the supreme court itself for rulings.

The last one you brought up, the lower court did not rule but kicked it back to the government. They made suggestions. They are trying to shame them into making a good law for a change. I have seen this happening in the last 2 years way too many times. You seem to have a fixation of Obama when the real culprits is the various levels of congressionals that keep trying to sneak some real partisan crap through. So far, the court system has stopped most of that. IT appears you need to spend less time dwelling on Obama sucks and the Courts Suck and more time on the Congressionals Suck and do something about it.

Try McDonald Vs Chicago. 2010.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

STun Guns are NOT Firearms of any kind and do not come under the firearms laws. This has absolutely nothing to do with firearm regulations. And that is really all the higher court was saying Try again.

Friedman v Highland Park writ was denied. Meaning, they refused to hear it and the lower court ruling held and so did the ordinance. Like your buds, you are reading just the dissenting views as if it has really anything to do with anything. The Dissenting view is that of the losing side, nothing more. It has no legal weight what so ever. It's there just to make some people feel good. The ruling stood that the AR-15 and it's various clones had to be removed from all of Highland Park within 60 days or be faced with legal consequences.

You do know you are getting your ass kicked, don't you, cupcake.

When you claim such ridiculous "victories" you only make yourself look foolish. Yes, the SCOTUS refused the hear the Friedman case, but that ain't the end of the story. All of this crap takes time. The Supremes try like hell to not have to hear hard cases like this on.


"On Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a case called Kolbe v. Hogan, sent the state of Maryland’s ban on assault weapons back to a federal trial court for a second, more scrupulous review. In a 2–1 decision, the majority of the appellate panel found that the semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned under a new Maryland law “are in common use by law-abiding citizens” and cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?"

The Supreme Court May Finally Have to Take a New Gun Case

First of all, the law as it's written is poorly written is should be struck down. I originally read it and didn't think it would last this long. A 10 round max and it's definition of what an assault rifle is just doesn't cut it. It's a bad law. The Judges have all but hit Maryland over the head without actually ruling. They are giving Maryland a chance to fix the damned thing. If they don't fix it pretty soon, it's never going to make it to the supreme court. A lower court is going to strike it down first. This is why the Supreme Court has decided not to hear it. It's not run the gambit of the lower courts.

In 2013, after the Theater shooting and the school shooting in Colorado, there were some pretty drastic gun regs passed. They didn't go after the AR specifically. They went after the features of a full blown AR like the pistol grip, the forward pistol grip, more than 15 rounds (I found that a bit odd and would have gone for 20 myself since at the time, there were no 15 round clips offered so they came with 10 and that looked real odd), the various rails to mount things like the M203, the threaded barrel ends for silencers, collapsible stocks, and a few more little tidbits. Plus, all gun sales and transfers had to go through gun checks including private ones. And the age to purchase or obtain firearms was raised to 21. Strawman sales were deem illegal. There were more but, like I said, not enough to lose any sleep over. They also tried to sneak in the Assault wording. The NRA took it to court. The wording for the Assault was agreed to be removed during the proceedings so the Court agreed to let the rest stand. Poor wording on what an assault rifle is. We do have ARs on the shelves but they are pretty well stripped. The Accessories to make them full blown can be had but you have to go through the internet to get them. Many online stores won't ship to colorado. These were Grand Fathered in.

Here comes the sad part and the very expensive tissy fit by the NRA. They dumped millions of dollars into a recall of 3 state Senators and Representatives. 2 survived the recall, both Democrats. One Democrat was replaced by a Republican due to the recall. On the 2014 election, the Republican was replaced by a Democrat. Nothing changed except the NRA spent millions of dollars and the state of Colorado spent millions on the recall as well. For much of this State, the NRA is not well thought of.

What you are claiming as a victory is something that is pending. You describe it as the lower courts breaking the law when in fact, they are trying to give the state the chance to change their law without any ruling. I see this all the time not just in firearms but in many other things as well. The fact remains, our Judicial System is much better off than our congressional or executive system. And I mean all levels. I see no place where there is a battle going on like you claim there is. You seem to be making the fool out of yourself and you don't need my help.

I never claimed anything as a victory. That was you. I have said, rightly so, that SCOTUS has already ruled on what weapons are protected, and which are not, and the criteria they used for their determination. That's all I have done. The lower Courts have made some terrible rulings due to judicial malfeasance, and the hope that we don't know the laws that have already been ruled on. They think that they can pull a fast one like obummer was fond of doing.

They are wrong.

And yet you can't find even one place where the supreme court has overturned the lower court on any gun reg ruling. You can find where the lower courts have kicked it up and not ruled themselves but that's it. The one that I admit was different actually wasn't done by the supreme court but was done by a lower court about the stun gun. The Supreme court has only made rulings with DC which has no lower court since they are not a state and rely on the supreme court itself for rulings.

The last one you brought up, the lower court did not rule but kicked it back to the government. They made suggestions. They are trying to shame them into making a good law for a change. I have seen this happening in the last 2 years way too many times. You seem to have a fixation of Obama when the real culprits is the various levels of congressionals that keep trying to sneak some real partisan crap through. So far, the court system has stopped most of that. IT appears you need to spend less time dwelling on Obama sucks and the Courts Suck and more time on the Congressionals Suck and do something about it.

Try McDonald Vs Chicago. 2010.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
I just got finished reading the whole bill. It is a fascinating history lesson. I won't print it in here. It's way too long and way to much pontification is involved. Guess the Judges liked to hear themselves talk way too much but the point is in there anyway. Mostly about scared free white men protecting their own against any and all evils both real and imagined. Those laws that were struck down were from a time where it was a seesaw of which side would disarm which side. If the Feds weren't disarming the States, the States were disarming the Feds. Each one in fear of each other. Or one group disarming another group. Each side passed laws that justified their actions. And due to the times, the courts generally upheld those laws. It was from a time when Judges might be called Joe Bob. But sometime after 1869, those laws started to be struck down. Using those old laws to justify laws today is just doing the old "Hey, look over there" routine. You would have to go all the way back to the Jim Crowe Laws which were struck down by all levels of Federal Courts.

In my mind, I removed all that since it really meant nothing and reread it. What came out of it was that Chicago was trying to ban all firearms. It wasn't the court system, it was their legislators. The lower federal court ruled that they could not do this. It was appealed. It went in front of the Supreme Court and they ruled that it was unconstitutional. After taking out all the crap out of the ruling, what is left is the Heller ruling. Chicago cannot ban handguns in the homes for law abiding citizens that qualify for legal ownership. There was no over ruling of the lower court since the lower court agreed each step of the way for exactly the same reason.

Heller had a profound affect on all States Laws. In affect, DC is equivalent to a State and Heller applies to all states. Some States or Cities deny that like Chicago tried to do. What you keep bringing up isn't a discord in the Federal Court System. It's a discord in the Legislative State and Local Governments. And without that, there would be less need for the Federal Courts including the Supreme Court.

I wonder, are you doing this because you are trying to get your first win or are you just using me to educate people in here? I am not looking for a win. I am just informing of the law. Simple as that. There are no winners. But there are certainly losers. But if you want to keep bringing up these things, I'm game. I find it fascinating.