Anti-gun extremists use lies to justify rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinios....

[Rustic]

[


Heller is only applicable to the District of Columbia that has no States Rights. .

LOL! You are really confused Moon Bat.

To suggest that a resident of DC has the individual right to keep and bear arms but a citizen of Maryland must belong to a government regulated militia is like the epitome of stupidity, even for a Moon Bat.

Anyway the follow up case of McDonald fixed that misconception that any of you stupid Moon Bats might have had.

You know what I like....when these anti gun asshats tell us..."you better give us what we want now, or we will just take all of your gun Rights...." I love it when they try that crap out on us........ They are going to take all of our guns unless we out vote them......and if they take our guns, they will one day actually make the streets run with blood...just like they always tell us will happen if normal people own and carry guns....which shows the exact opposite as gun crime and violent crime goes down as more Americans own and carry guns...

I am hoping for Trump to replace one or two of those stupid Liberals on the Supreme Court so that we can get another case that will settle this anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit once and for all.

We need to put an end to all these gun bans, background checks and magazine bans and all the other infringements that these asshole Liberals have imposed on a state and local level.

Yep....Remember in November, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

We have a chance to have real Justices on the Court if Kennedy retires and ginsburg does whatever she is going to do in the next 6 years.......we may also need to replace Thomas......and to do that we need to hold the Senate, and holding the House would make sure the morons in the Senate aren't intimidated into not approving Trump's nominees...

Where do you come up with this tripe. The current SCOTUS is the most Conservative that has ever sat on the bench. And you still aren't satisfied. If the requirement is for them to always rule in favor for ALL of the Constitution then you will NEVER be happy. You just want them to rule the way YOU want them to rule and only consider the parts that YOU agree with. Sorry, ain't going to happen.

You can’t help being stupid in the head...

 

[Rustic]

I am hoping for Trump to replace one or two of those stupid Liberals on the Supreme Court so that we can get another case that will settle this anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit once and for all.

We need to put an end to all these gun bans, background checks and magazine bans and all the other infringements that these asshole Liberals have imposed on a state and local level.

Yep....Remember in November, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

We have a chance to have real Justices on the Court if Kennedy retires and ginsburg does whatever she is going to do in the next 6 years.......we may also need to replace Thomas......and to do that we need to hold the Senate, and holding the House would make sure the morons in the Senate aren't intimidated into not approving Trump's nominees...

The Republicans will maintain control of the House, pick up seats in the Senate and Trump will still be President. The Moon Bats will be besides themselves. Probably more howling at the sky. Maybe a little more marching around in their pink ***** hats. Lots of those sweet Liberal tears.

Unless the Republicans go wobbly on us our Second Amendment rights hopefully will not be infringed upon anymore for awhile.

We need the Supreme Court to put an end to the states doing it.

There are about 40 Republican Seats up for grabs this year. Due to the way that California does things, they have already lost 4 of those seats since no Republicans will be running in the runnoffs there. There are a few Dems that are very, very popular that could bounce Republicans. In Colorado, if our current Governor decides to run (he term limits) say good by to the Republican Tipton. But I have a feeling they are saving him for the Senate in 2020 to go against Gardner who the Guv would win easily. It's like that in many places across the nation. It's not the shoein that you paint. The second the Republican Voters get complacent then the Dems will win. Dems already picked up 6 of the 24 needed. That means they need 19 more to gain control. It's doable if Republicans aren't real careful and vigil.

+
Don't be delusional. The party in [power usually loses some seats during the midterms. Just look at what happen to that asshole Obama in 2010. Devestating, wasn't it? The same with Slick Willy in 1994. However, there will not be a big shift this year. No Blue wave that you Moon Bats are hoping for. Maybe a few seats lost but not enough to change the majority for the Republicans.

Meanwhile the filthy Democrats have too many Senate seats to defend, That is why the Republicans will pick up some of them, especially in the states that went for Trump in 2016.

On top of that Trump is still President.

It must suck to be a Moon Bat nowadays.

Newsflash: SFBs, I don't want the REps to lose the Senate. I do see them losing the House though and in 2020 there is a good possibility that they could lose the Presidency. You NEVER want all three in the hands of one party. The biggest messes are from when one party or the other controls all three. The next worst mess is when one party controls both the House and the Senate and the President is of the other Party. It's better to have one party hold the House while the other Party hold the Senate. The way to get two mules to pull together who constantly fight each other is to harness them together so they have no choice but to work it out.

But I don't expect your little pea brain to understand that.

You’re a one party rule guy....

 

[Rustic]

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

As long as your bunch keeps with the insults and refuses to enter into meaningful discussion don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You just keep digging the hole deeper. When you are already in a hole, stop digging.

Excuse me here... I have the Constitution on my side NOT you! Again, explain to me how my legally purchased and owned AR can be criminalized if I do not register it with the state... Btw, what insults... regardless, insults aren't germane to this conversation any way... treat them like redundant adj. or adv.'s don't get but hurt by them... the issues are what win arguments and upon which policy is crafted.. hopefully. lol

No you don't have the constitution on your side if the state decides that you shouldn't have your AR. The State has the constitution on IT's side since the constitution gives it the right to determine what is and what is not the acceptable norm for legal firearms. You are taking just one sentence from the constitution and disregarding the rest to suit your own whims. Just because you legally purchased the AR today doesn't mean that it will still be a legal private firearm later on. And the State can use Due Process to determine that. And Due Process is right out of the Constitution. You know, the part where you totally ignore. But the Supreme Court recognizes the 14th Amendment Section 1 pertaining to firearms and has consistently ruled in it's favor.

Claiming that the Constitution is on your side when it clearly isn't doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you keep repeating it. In order to say you are constitutional, you have to follow ALL of the Constitution and not just the parts that trip yer trigger.

With Most states it’s perfectly legal to own an ar... bedwetter

 

[LuckyDuck]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

The ban on semi automatic rifles, and AR-15s in particular is unConstitutional.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

That ruling only applies to the District of Columbia who has no states rights. It's fully under Federal. You keep bringing that up and keep getting shot out of the sky with it. The States have the right to ban any and all firearms outside of what they determine to be normal home defense weapons and what they determine to be normal hunting weapons. If they deem something to be out of the norm they can ban it. DC is the ONLY exception. The only thing a State must do is ensure that it's done in a legal manner under the State laws. They just can't use an Governors Executive Order. It must be done either by the normal Congressional method or by a state wide vote. DC does not have a State Government so this cannot apply. BTW, this falls under the 14th amendment section 1.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about......the States do not have the Right to ban anything, the 2nd was incorporated to include the states...please, do some basic research.

Please....stop talkiing out of your ass, you are going to get a rash...I showed you Scalia and what he stated about D.C. v Heller...and how the Highland Park ban is unConstitutional......please...do some research...

So far, the ban laws and regulatory laws have withstood Supreme Court Scrutiny with the exception of Heller which failed because it cannot be upheld under the 14th amendment being that DC is NOT a state and therefore does not have a state's rights. You can scream unconstitutional all you wish but so far, it's withstood legal scrutiny in all states. Now, find me something other than Heller for a State then we can say it's Unconstitutional.

So far, my recommendation stands....gun owners need to rise up. If gun owners just lay down and comply, firearms ownership will continue to be chipped away, town after town, city after city and state after state until only a handful of gun-friendly states will remain and then the neo-Marxist left will go after those. I believe the only solution will be an eventual Civil War, and the sooner the better, before the neo-Marxist left really gets in charge.

 

[martybegan]

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

As long as your bunch keeps with the insults and refuses to enter into meaningful discussion don't expect anyone to take you seriously. You just keep digging the hole deeper. When you are already in a hole, stop digging.

Excuse me here... I have the Constitution on my side NOT you! Again, explain to me how my legally purchased and owned AR can be criminalized if I do not register it with the state... Btw, what insults... regardless, insults aren't germane to this conversation any way... treat them like redundant adj. or adv.'s don't get but hurt by them... the issues are what win arguments and upon which policy is crafted.. hopefully. lol

No you don't have the constitution on your side if the state decides that you shouldn't have your AR. The State has the constitution on IT's side since the constitution gives it the right to determine what is and what is not the acceptable norm for legal firearms. You are taking just one sentence from the constitution and disregarding the rest to suit your own whims. Just because you legally purchased the AR today doesn't mean that it will still be a legal private firearm later on. And the State can use Due Process to determine that. And Due Process is right out of the Constitution. You know, the part where you totally ignore. But the Supreme Court recognizes the 14th Amendment Section 1 pertaining to firearms and has consistently ruled in it's favor.

Claiming that the Constitution is on your side when it clearly isn't doesn't make it so. No matter how many times you keep repeating it. In order to say you are constitutional, you have to follow ALL of the Constitution and not just the parts that trip yer trigger.

Slow down there mister... Sure, if the State determines that I (as an individual) deserve some scrutiny that is one thing. We are talking about a carte' blanche' Statewide, universal registration which flies in the face (the whole point) of the 2nd.

The state has the right to require all firearms to be registered if it's done using due process of the law. It's the Freds that do not have that right. Some states require it and others don't. You don't like the way your state does things move to one that does itlike you want it to. Simple as that.

Where does it say the States have the right to require registration of firearms?

Not be infringed means not be infringed. and since the 14th incorporates the 2nd to the States, the States that want this can pound sand.

and the just move bullshit is just that, bullshit.

 

[martybegan]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

So you want government to be able to decide who is worthy of 2nd amendment rights?

What a ******* slave you are.

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

If you believe the 2nd is incorporated to the States via the 14th, then the States cannot infringe on the RKBA.

Plain and simple.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

LOL! You are really confused Moon Bat.

To suggest that a resident of DC has the individual right to keep and bear arms but a citizen of Maryland must belong to a government regulated militia is like the epitome of stupidity, even for a Moon Bat.

Anyway the follow up case of McDonald fixed that misconception that any of you stupid Moon Bats might have had.

You know what I like....when these anti gun asshats tell us..."you better give us what we want now, or we will just take all of your gun Rights...." I love it when they try that crap out on us........ They are going to take all of our guns unless we out vote them......and if they take our guns, they will one day actually make the streets run with blood...just like they always tell us will happen if normal people own and carry guns....which shows the exact opposite as gun crime and violent crime goes down as more Americans own and carry guns...

I am hoping for Trump to replace one or two of those stupid Liberals on the Supreme Court so that we can get another case that will settle this anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit once and for all.

We need to put an end to all these gun bans, background checks and magazine bans and all the other infringements that these asshole Liberals have imposed on a state and local level.

Yep....Remember in November, any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment.

We have a chance to have real Justices on the Court if Kennedy retires and ginsburg does whatever she is going to do in the next 6 years.......we may also need to replace Thomas......and to do that we need to hold the Senate, and holding the House would make sure the morons in the Senate aren't intimidated into not approving Trump's nominees...

Where do you come up with this tripe. The current SCOTUS is the most Conservative that has ever sat on the bench. And you still aren't satisfied. If the requirement is for them to always rule in favor for ALL of the Constitution then you will NEVER be happy. You just want them to rule the way YOU want them to rule and only consider the parts that YOU agree with. Sorry, ain't going to happen.

You can’t help being stupid in the head...

Wow, a 7 year old response from you. Sure do wish you would learn to respond as at least an 8 year old. I know I have scored a good point when that is all you have left. Now get back in that corner and put that dunce cap back on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And you pretend to be honest? You might pretend, but you're not.

Present, deflect, insult.

I note that you go for the insult rather than the rebuttal. Tells me that I scored the kill on this one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

And, genius...the AR-15 rifle is specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment....and your argument that we either give up a little bit of our Right to keep guns each time you guys want a new gun banned, or you will take all of them....yeah, that isn't going to fly.....you told the same thing to Black Americans when they wanted to be able to vote and have access to all the Civil Rights they were entitled to......so no, we are drawing the line today.......

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of AR bans, and the lower courts have upheld such bans as Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

As of the 1917 National Guard Act, that part of the 2nd Amendment became worthless.

A law like the 1917 act does not make a Constitutional Amendment worthless. The SCOTUS can at any time hear a challenge to a law thought to be infringing on the Constitution.

The 1917 act changed the status of the state militia's and changed them into quasi federalized troops or no longer legitimate militia's.
If we consider the National Guard to be the militia, why do people who are not in the National Guard have the rights of the 2nd Amendment to have guns? If they are not in the National Guard they are not being regulated.

There are valid and logical arguments about defining the original intent of what the founders considered a "militia".

Heller said this is nota right only for militia purposes, it is an individual right. The 14th guarantees that individual rights not be violated by states and local government.

Think of how a state or local government could regulate the right to vote and you pretty much have the same model for regulation of gun ownership and posesion, according to current Constitutional case law.

Wrong.

Laws that regulate firearms are not subject to the same level of judicial review as laws regulating voting rights.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

I have a honest question Moon Bat.

I have over two dozen AR-15s.

Why should the filthy ass government take away my ARs that I use for lawful purposes just because there is a slight chance somebody else may use one for illegal purposes? Isn't that oppression that the Bill of Rights protects us from?

No one advocates "taking away" anyone's guns; this lie is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

So you want government to be able to decide who is worthy of 2nd amendment rights?

What a ******* slave you are.

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

The ban on semi automatic rifles, and AR-15s in particular is unConstitutional.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

That ruling only applies to the District of Columbia who has no states rights. It's fully under Federal. You keep bringing that up and keep getting shot out of the sky with it. The States have the right to ban any and all firearms outside of what they determine to be normal home defense weapons and what they determine to be normal hunting weapons. If they deem something to be out of the norm they can ban it. DC is the ONLY exception. The only thing a State must do is ensure that it's done in a legal manner under the State laws. They just can't use an Governors Executive Order. It must be done either by the normal Congressional method or by a state wide vote. DC does not have a State Government so this cannot apply. BTW, this falls under the 14th amendment section 1.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about......the States do not have the Right to ban anything, the 2nd was incorporated to include the states...please, do some basic research.

Please....stop talkiing out of your ass, you are going to get a rash...I showed you Scalia and what he stated about D.C. v Heller...and how the Highland Park ban is unConstitutional......please...do some research...

So far, the ban laws and regulatory laws have withstood Supreme Court Scrutiny with the exception of Heller which failed because it cannot be upheld under the 14th amendment being that DC is NOT a state and therefore does not have a state's rights. You can scream unconstitutional all you wish but so far, it's withstood legal scrutiny in all states. Now, find me something other than Heller for a State then we can say it's Unconstitutional.

So far, my recommendation stands....gun owners need to rise up. If gun owners just lay down and comply, firearms ownership will continue to be chipped away, town after town, city after city and state after state until only a handful of gun-friendly states will remain and then the neo-Marxist left will go after those. I believe the only solution will be an eventual Civil War, and the sooner the better, before the neo-Marxist left really gets in charge.

Slippery slope fallacy.

 

[martybegan]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

So you want government to be able to decide who is worthy of 2nd amendment rights?

What a ******* slave you are.

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Weaselly post from a weaselly poster.

When you restrict sales on new users, you are criminalizing possession for anyone not grandfathered in, which smacks of equal protection violations.

 

[hadit]

The ban on semi automatic rifles, and AR-15s in particular is unConstitutional.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

That ruling only applies to the District of Columbia who has no states rights. It's fully under Federal. You keep bringing that up and keep getting shot out of the sky with it. The States have the right to ban any and all firearms outside of what they determine to be normal home defense weapons and what they determine to be normal hunting weapons. If they deem something to be out of the norm they can ban it. DC is the ONLY exception. The only thing a State must do is ensure that it's done in a legal manner under the State laws. They just can't use an Governors Executive Order. It must be done either by the normal Congressional method or by a state wide vote. DC does not have a State Government so this cannot apply. BTW, this falls under the 14th amendment section 1.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about......the States do not have the Right to ban anything, the 2nd was incorporated to include the states...please, do some basic research.

Please....stop talkiing out of your ass, you are going to get a rash...I showed you Scalia and what he stated about D.C. v Heller...and how the Highland Park ban is unConstitutional......please...do some research...

So far, the ban laws and regulatory laws have withstood Supreme Court Scrutiny with the exception of Heller which failed because it cannot be upheld under the 14th amendment being that DC is NOT a state and therefore does not have a state's rights. You can scream unconstitutional all you wish but so far, it's withstood legal scrutiny in all states. Now, find me something other than Heller for a State then we can say it's Unconstitutional.

So far, my recommendation stands....gun owners need to rise up. If gun owners just lay down and comply, firearms ownership will continue to be chipped away, town after town, city after city and state after state until only a handful of gun-friendly states will remain and then the neo-Marxist left will go after those. I believe the only solution will be an eventual Civil War, and the sooner the better, before the neo-Marxist left really gets in charge.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Fallacy? Consider:

The AR15 is used in a very small number of murders. Let's say you get what you want and ban the black scary looking gun. It won't significantly impact the number of people killed by firearms, so what do you do next?

If you do what you're now claiming you want to do, you'll say, "We got rid of the black scary looking gun and we feel good about that, so we're done". I don't, however, believe that for a minute. No, the next step will be to identify another scary looking gun to ban, then another, then another, until we're rooting through tool sheds, looking for tools with pointy ends to confiscate.

 

[2aguy]

They can't even pretend to be honest when they are trying to justify the unConstitutional Rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois...

Brady Campaign Defends Deerfield, IL Gun Ban With Insane Arguments - The Truth About Guns

The defendants’ brief (click for .pdf) in opposition to our motion for injunctive relief argues the village’s ban on rifles is necessity “to protect the public health, safety and welfare.” Then they boldly cite criminal misuse of handguns as justification for their ban on scary-looking rifles.

Hard to believe, right? It’s true. They cite the South Carolina church killings and the attempted assassination of Gabby Giffords — both crimes committed with handguns — as reasons to ban rifles.

They also cited the Washington D.C. Naval Yard spree killing. There, a lunatic used a no-frills Mossberg 500 shotgun purchased at Dick’s Sporting Goods to kill most of his victims. He also used a handgun stolen from a murdered security guard.

Yes, the Village argues that they need to ban rifles because of criminals who used handguns and shotguns to kill people. That’s some sound logic, right? Not so much.

Wait. It gets worse. The defendants’ brief also names two domestic Islamic terror attacks as reasons to ban guns in Deerfield. Yes, they actually cited the Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, CA and at the Orlando Pulse nightclub as justification for taking our guns. So because the U.S. Government can’t protect us from Islamic terror attacks, the Village of Deerfield should disarm law-abiding Americans?

The brief also cites the Sutherland Springs, Texas church massacre. At the same time, it fails to note that a good guy’s AR-15 stopped the killings.

The audacity of these control freaks knows no limits and no shame.

This whole article is mostly BS. The ONLY thing they affected was rifles in the AR-15 Class. Not shotguns or handguns or normal hunting and sporting guns which are NOT the weapons of choice for mass shootings. Look for more and more Cities to do this as well. Until the gun craze of the AR is changed this is going to continue. And the harder you gun nutz fight it, the faster it will happen. Your whole way of fighting it is very militant and insulting. This makes the ones that want it think that they are doing the right thing. Well, cupcakes, you are bringing this onto yourselves.

I have a honest question Moon Bat.

I have over two dozen AR-15s.

Why should the filthy ass government take away my ARs that I use for lawful purposes just because there is a slight chance somebody else may use one for illegal purposes? Isn't that oppression that the Bill of Rights protects us from?

No one advocates "taking away" anyone's guns; this lie is as ignorant as it is ridiculous.

You are a moron.....the new laws are all calling for people to be forced to sell their guns or be fined daily until they do....

You are lying......we heard them scream for banning all semi automatic weapons.....rifles, pistols and shotguns at the CNN Townhall and the various rallies....not to forget the former Justice who said we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment....

You can lie, but you can't get away with it..... your gun grabber buddies gave up the game already...

 

[2aguy]

Many perceived "gun rights" will eventually depend on three words found in the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated militia". A modernized interpretation of those words will change everything. A decision will be made that the old and current interpretation of "everyone" automatically belonging to the militia will be changed and who can belong to the militia and in what capacity will become "well regulated".

So you want government to be able to decide who is worthy of 2nd amendment rights?

What a ******* slave you are.

The government is already doing that by preventing some citizens from legally owning or possessing firearms. They already have a right to "regulate". Convicted felons are regulated. So are people with histories of mental illness or specific histories of particular crimes even if the crimes are not felonies.

My post of speculating how gun regulation may change in the future does not offer an opinion as to my support or non-support of such a change.
If you do not want to see issues realistically or be educated that is your problem.

The only way the government can restrict a right is via due process. Unless a person is a convicted felon or mentally adjudicated as incompetent, they have the same 2nd amendment rights as any other citizen.

That you foresee government being able to pick and choose who can have those rights via manipulating the terms of the militia means you foresee tyranny.

And the militia argument is a non-starter anyway, because it's the STATES that maintain the right to keep a militia,while the PEOPLE keep the right to bear arms.

What about being required to register your AR or criminalizing it within state lines? The whole pivotal point of the 2nd, in my mind & that of the framers, was a check against Gov. overreach / tyranny... How does this get explained away by your ilk...

No one advocates for "criminalizing" the possession of ARs; restrictions apply only to the sale of new rifles, and gun registration has been upheld as perfectly Constitutional.

Deerfield did just that you doofus, as has New York, and Massachusetts.....

 

[2aguy]

That ruling only applies to the District of Columbia who has no states rights. It's fully under Federal. You keep bringing that up and keep getting shot out of the sky with it. The States have the right to ban any and all firearms outside of what they determine to be normal home defense weapons and what they determine to be normal hunting weapons. If they deem something to be out of the norm they can ban it. DC is the ONLY exception. The only thing a State must do is ensure that it's done in a legal manner under the State laws. They just can't use an Governors Executive Order. It must be done either by the normal Congressional method or by a state wide vote. DC does not have a State Government so this cannot apply. BTW, this falls under the 14th amendment section 1.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about......the States do not have the Right to ban anything, the 2nd was incorporated to include the states...please, do some basic research.

Please....stop talkiing out of your ass, you are going to get a rash...I showed you Scalia and what he stated about D.C. v Heller...and how the Highland Park ban is unConstitutional......please...do some research...

So far, the ban laws and regulatory laws have withstood Supreme Court Scrutiny with the exception of Heller which failed because it cannot be upheld under the 14th amendment being that DC is NOT a state and therefore does not have a state's rights. You can scream unconstitutional all you wish but so far, it's withstood legal scrutiny in all states. Now, find me something other than Heller for a State then we can say it's Unconstitutional.

So far, my recommendation stands....gun owners need to rise up. If gun owners just lay down and comply, firearms ownership will continue to be chipped away, town after town, city after city and state after state until only a handful of gun-friendly states will remain and then the neo-Marxist left will go after those. I believe the only solution will be an eventual Civil War, and the sooner the better, before the neo-Marxist left really gets in charge.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Fallacy? Consider:

The AR15 is used in a very small number of murders. Let's say you get what you want and ban the black scary looking gun. It won't significantly impact the number of people killed by firearms, so what do you do next?

If you do what you're now claiming you want to do, you'll say, "We got rid of the black scary looking gun and we feel good about that, so we're done". I don't, however, believe that for a minute. No, the next step will be to identify another scary looking gun to ban, then another, then another, until we're rooting through tool sheds, looking for tools with pointy ends to confiscate.

They want to ban the AR-15 because they now realize that since the AR-15 is a semi automatic rifle, and all other semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns, as well as revolvers are essentially the same.....one bullet per pull of the trigger.......they can then demand they all be banned. Why? Because if the AR-15 is too dangerous and needs to be banned, all the others can be banned too since they fire the same way....that is why they have a hard on for the AR-15...

 

[2aguy]

The ban on semi automatic rifles, and AR-15s in particular is unConstitutional.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing. III

That ruling only applies to the District of Columbia who has no states rights. It's fully under Federal. You keep bringing that up and keep getting shot out of the sky with it. The States have the right to ban any and all firearms outside of what they determine to be normal home defense weapons and what they determine to be normal hunting weapons. If they deem something to be out of the norm they can ban it. DC is the ONLY exception. The only thing a State must do is ensure that it's done in a legal manner under the State laws. They just can't use an Governors Executive Order. It must be done either by the normal Congressional method or by a state wide vote. DC does not have a State Government so this cannot apply. BTW, this falls under the 14th amendment section 1.

Wrong.....you don't know what you are talking about......the States do not have the Right to ban anything, the 2nd was incorporated to include the states...please, do some basic research.

Please....stop talkiing out of your ass, you are going to get a rash...I showed you Scalia and what he stated about D.C. v Heller...and how the Highland Park ban is unConstitutional......please...do some research...

So far, the ban laws and regulatory laws have withstood Supreme Court Scrutiny with the exception of Heller which failed because it cannot be upheld under the 14th amendment being that DC is NOT a state and therefore does not have a state's rights. You can scream unconstitutional all you wish but so far, it's withstood legal scrutiny in all states. Now, find me something other than Heller for a State then we can say it's Unconstitutional.

So far, my recommendation stands....gun owners need to rise up. If gun owners just lay down and comply, firearms ownership will continue to be chipped away, town after town, city after city and state after state until only a handful of gun-friendly states will remain and then the neo-Marxist left will go after those. I believe the only solution will be an eventual Civil War, and the sooner the better, before the neo-Marxist left really gets in charge.

Slippery slope fallacy.

Yes....they used to say "Assault Rifles," now they demand all semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns....so yes....it is a slipper slope....and you are a liar.