Assault weapons and large magazines ban upheld in New York and Conneticut

[chikenwing]

Federal court upholds post-Sandy Hook gun bans in New York and Connecticut

I guess the NRA was asleep?

When you pass legislation,late at night just before a holiday,with a bare min of votes,ya you could say the whole state was asleep,literally! It would have never passed if they hadn't basically back door ed middle of the night shit.
That gas bag was running his mouth how great the law was last night,while standing on top of a dead cop,the law didn't do shit,now did it?

 

[LOki]

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

[...]

Do you believe the banning of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines would eliminate mass killings?

I don't ask this in the way of smart-ass sarcasm but have you ever used a 12-gauge pump shotgun? These are among the most common hunting firearms in use and I suggest that loaded with five (or seven) rounds of #00 buckshot one of these guns is capable of the same level of close-range mass murder and mayhem as a high-capacity, semi-auto rifle or pistol.

If we ban semi-auto, high-capacity rifles and pistols, and then we ban semi-auto and pump shotguns, do you think those are the only means by which a roomful or a crowd of unarmed, unsuspecting people can be mass-murdered?

The point I'm trying to make is where murderous intent is concerned, as the World Trade Center attack and the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston pressure-cooker bombers) have clearly demonstrated, where there's a will there's a way. So keeping in mind the fact that many millions of high-capacity semi-auto weapons are peacefully owned by rational, law-abiding citizens who cause malicious harm to no-one, do you think banning all of these weapons will eliminate the critical factor of murderous intent?

Planes, ANFO, knives, bats, hammers, pressure-cookers, etc... are all OK, because no gun is involved.

If you were reasonable, you'd understand.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

[...]

Do you believe the banning of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines would eliminate mass killings?

I don't ask this in the way of smart-ass sarcasm but have you ever used a 12-gauge pump shotgun? These are among the most common hunting firearms in use and I suggest that loaded with five (or seven) rounds of #00 buckshot one of these guns is capable of the same level of close-range mass murder and mayhem as a high-capacity, semi-auto rifle or pistol.

If we ban semi-auto, high-capacity rifles and pistols, and then we ban semi-auto and pump shotguns, do you think those are the only means by which a roomful or a crowd of unarmed, unsuspecting people can be mass-murdered?

The point I'm trying to make is where murderous intent is concerned, as the World Trade Center attack and the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston pressure-cooker bombers) have clearly demonstrated, where there's a will there's a way. So keeping in mind the fact that many millions of high-capacity semi-auto weapons are peacefully owned by rational, law-abiding citizens who cause malicious harm to no-one, do you think banning all of these weapons will eliminate the critical factor of murderous intent?

I'll repeat my self for the last time. Stupid people (and I'm not suggesting you are one of them) fail to understand that LAWS DO NOT PREVENT CRIMES.

Law violators when arrested and convicted are deprived of their liberty, i.e. jail, prison, fines and if licensed a suspension or revocation of the license (drivers, contractors, doctors/dentists, etc.).

That said, I've suggested that each state have the authority to require a license of anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm (or however each state chooses to so define the structure of the license).

I've posted more detail in past posts, nothing in terms of licensing or registration has not been found to be unconstitutional yet. History is instructive in that gun control was acceptable until Heller and McDonald, and both of those cases were decided 5-4.

Here's a learned article on the laws passed in Conn and NY as food for thought and instructive to those who believe the two new gun decsions are the be all end all of gun control debate:

Don’t Expect the Supreme Court to Overturn Assault Weapon Bans | ACS

"The American Constitution Society brings together many of the country’s best legal minds to articulate a progressive vision of our Constitution and laws. Through its public programs (over 1,100 debates, conferences and press briefings across America each year), publications, and active on-line presence, ACS generates “intellectual capital” for ready use by progressive allies and shapes debates on key legal and public policy issues.

"The American Constitution Society is also debunking conservative buzzwords such as “originalism” and “strict construction” that use neutral-sounding language but all too often lead to conservative policy outcomes. Using both traditional and new media to communicate with policymakers, judges, lawyers and the public at large, ACS presents a compelling vision of core constitutional values such as genuine equality, liberty, justice and the rule of law."

 

[M14 Shooter]

That said, I've suggested that each state have the authority to require a license of anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm (or however each state chooses to so define the structure of the license).

You have also refused to present a sound argument regarding the necessity of such a thing.- mostly because you know you cannot.
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You also refuse to provide a sound argument for the necessity and/or constitutionality of banning 'assault weapons' - mostly because you know you cannot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don’t Expect the Supreme Court to Overturn Assault Weapon Bans | ACS

Mindless nonsense.

Lesse...
The federal assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004, which is why Lanza’s mother could legally buy the AR-15 used in Sandy Hook.
This is, of course a lie.
For those who want to reisntate the 1994 'assault weapon' ban....? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

-
Further:
Heller held that self-defense is “central” to the Second Amendment right and handguns are the “quintessential self-defense weapon.” The same cannot be said of AR-15s, which are much less common and are associated more with target shooting than self-defense.

This is, of course, also a lie, as Heller is nowhere near as exclusionary as the author would like to think.

Heller:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

AR-15 s and other 'assault weapons' are suited for -every- traditionally lawful purpose, including, self-defense, hunting and target shooting; as such, the 2nd protects the right to own and use one.

-
Further:
“[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” and it is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever.”

This is, of course, a lie - of omission.

Heller:
...the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

AR-15 - one of the most common rifles in the country - and other 'assault weapons' are clearly "in common use" and cannot be soundly demonstrated as "dangerous AND unusual".

-
Further:
Moreover, a plethora of guns from all civilian firearm categories (handguns, rifles, etc.) remain for lawful purposes like self-defense after assault weapons are taken off the table, which courts view as minimizing any potential burden on the Second Amendment right

Heller:
... It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed....

The AR-15 in specific, and 'assault weapons' in general are "in common use" for most, if not all, traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.

---
Handguns are used >20x more often to commit murder than rifles of all kinds, and yet banning handguns violates the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; there is no sound argument for the necessity for and/or constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Food for thought, for those who think:

The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does

and,

It is important to take the Bill of Rights seriously, but it is wise to remember that its provisions were not engraved in stone. When we talk about recovering the original intent of the Bill of Rights, we have to remember that the document expresses a complicated amalgam of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of intentions, some of which are probably irreconcilable.

Jefferson was convinced that our rights should not merely “rest on inference,” and the resulting document did much to clarify the principles we have since come to regard as quintessentially American. But the history of the creation of the Bill of Rights leaves us with many questions, uncertainties, and ambiguities. Perhaps it is only fitting for a nation founded on such a combination of idealistic principles and pragmatic compromise.

Link to full article:

Debating the Bill of Rights : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

 

[M14 Shooter]

Food for thought, for those who think:

Nothing here changes the fact that Handguns are used >20x more often to commit murder than rifles of all kinds, and yet banning handguns violates the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; there is no sound argument for the necessity for and/or constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.
None.

 

[2aguy]

Only a fool would believe being characterized as a sociopath was a concession or that the murder of children in a classroom or innocents in a theater is not cause for psychologically sound human beings to want the weapons of choice of mass killers banned.

In both cases and too many more an assault was perpetrated with the use of a semiautomatic gun with a large magazine, that gun can properly be labeled an assault gun by all but those in denial (or a lying POS).

[...]

Do you believe the banning of semi-automatic weapons with high-capacity magazines would eliminate mass killings?

I don't ask this in the way of smart-ass sarcasm but have you ever used a 12-gauge pump shotgun? These are among the most common hunting firearms in use and I suggest that loaded with five (or seven) rounds of #00 buckshot one of these guns is capable of the same level of close-range mass murder and mayhem as a high-capacity, semi-auto rifle or pistol.

If we ban semi-auto, high-capacity rifles and pistols, and then we ban semi-auto and pump shotguns, do you think those are the only means by which a roomful or a crowd of unarmed, unsuspecting people can be mass-murdered?

The point I'm trying to make is where murderous intent is concerned, as the World Trade Center attack and the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston pressure-cooker bombers) have clearly demonstrated, where there's a will there's a way. So keeping in mind the fact that many millions of high-capacity semi-auto weapons are peacefully owned by rational, law-abiding citizens who cause malicious harm to no-one, do you think banning all of these weapons will eliminate the critical factor of murderous intent?

I'll repeat my self for the last time. Stupid people (and I'm not suggesting you are one of them) fail to understand that LAWS DO NOT PREVENT CRIMES.

Law violators when arrested and convicted are deprived of their liberty, i.e. jail, prison, fines and if licensed a suspension or revocation of the license (drivers, contractors, doctors/dentists, etc.).

That said, I've suggested that each state have the authority to require a license of anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm (or however each state chooses to so define the structure of the license).

I've posted more detail in past posts, nothing in terms of licensing or registration has not been found to be unconstitutional yet. History is instructive in that gun control was acceptable until Heller and McDonald, and both of those cases were decided 5-4.

Here's a learned article on the laws passed in Conn and NY as food for thought and instructive to those who believe the two new gun decsions are the be all end all of gun control debate:

Don’t Expect the Supreme Court to Overturn Assault Weapon Bans | ACS

"The American Constitution Society brings together many of the country’s best legal minds to articulate a progressive vision of our Constitution and laws. Through its public programs (over 1,100 debates, conferences and press briefings across America each year), publications, and active on-line presence, ACS generates “intellectual capital” for ready use by progressive allies and shapes debates on key legal and public policy issues.

"The American Constitution Society is also debunking conservative buzzwords such as “originalism” and “strict construction” that use neutral-sounding language but all too often lead to conservative policy outcomes. Using both traditional and new media to communicate with policymakers, judges, lawyers and the public at large, ACS presents a compelling vision of core constitutional values such as genuine equality, liberty, justice and the rule of law."

That said, I've suggested that each state have the authority to require a license of anyone who wants to own, possess or have in his or her custody and control a firearm (or however each state chooses to so define the structure of the license).

Exactly what does a license achieve…other than to generate revenue for the state? It doesn't prevent, or solve gun murders…..and criminals won't get them and mass shooters will get them before they go on their killing spree…

So again…other than generating revenue…why do we need to license a gun owner?

 

[2aguy]

1 million AR-15s in private hands…..

1-2 used each year, maybe….for crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So again…other than generating revenue…why do we need to license a gun owner?

The state needs to know where to look when it comes time to confiscate 'assault weapons'.
Then 'sniper rifles'.
Then 'junk handguns'.
Then 'non-hunting shotguns'
et al...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Food for thought, for those who think:

Nothing here changes the fact that Handguns are used >20x more often to commit murder than rifles of all kinds, and yet banning handguns violates the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; there is no sound argument for the necessity for and/or constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.
None.

I see you're on a diet. I'd suggest you are willfully ignorant but the evidence suggests your ignorance is congenital not willful.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Food for thought, for those who think:

Nothing here changes the fact that Handguns are used >20x more often to commit murder than rifles of all kinds, and yet banning handguns violates the Constitution under any level of scrutiny; there is no sound argument for the necessity for and/or constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.
None.

I see you're on a diet.

Nothing here changes the fact that you fully understand there is no sound argument for the necessity for and/or constitutionality of a ban on 'assault weapons'.
None.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Seriously? Where should a rational person draw the line? Surface to air missiles are okay but nuclear weapons are not? Or, are you okay with both the former "arm" and the latter "arm" in the possession and control of the average Joe or Josephine?

While most military weapons inhabit the semantic category of "arms," not all are firearms. The "arms" referred to in the Second Amendment were firearms, rifles and pistols. Missiles are not firearms, nor are nukes or lesser bombs.

The bottom line argument will reside in weighing the factor of intent on the part of the Framers. Would they want every citizen to possess a SAM, or a WMD? I don't think so and I strongly doubt any Supreme Court Justice would.

True, and I admitted my post was hyperbole. However, did the founders want every citizen to own an automatic weapon of the type used by today's military personnel?

Consider too, that a push button or gravity blade is illegal in most states; yet officers in the 18th Century militia carried swords.

The intent of the framers is not known, other than the few citations by a few of them. We do know that no Nostradamus represented the framers at the Convention, and that most of the framers if not all could not imagine someone slaughtering twenty 5 & 6 years olds and a few citizens shrugging their shoulders and saying, "oh well, my right to own a gun matters more than their right to live".

Now what type of firearm did the average citizen or minuteman carry/possess in the late 17th and early 18th Century?

A smoothbore musket, a rifled musket, and/or a (or several) cavalry pistols. (A cavlryman carrying as many as six was not unusual.)

 

[danielpalos]

Food for thought, for those who think:

The Second Amendment doesn't say what you think it does

and,

It is important to take the Bill of Rights seriously, but it is wise to remember that its provisions were not engraved in stone. When we talk about recovering the original intent of the Bill of Rights, we have to remember that the document expresses a complicated amalgam of dozens, perhaps hundreds, of intentions, some of which are probably irreconcilable.

Jefferson was convinced that our rights should not merely “rest on inference,” and the resulting document did much to clarify the principles we have since come to regard as quintessentially American. But the history of the creation of the Bill of Rights leaves us with many questions, uncertainties, and ambiguities. Perhaps it is only fitting for a nation founded on such a combination of idealistic principles and pragmatic compromise.

Link to full article:

Debating the Bill of Rights : The Colonial Williamsburg Official History & Citizenship Site

That opinion was not worthy of equal pay for equal work, in my opinion. I hope the Judicature never lets me catch them complaining in the affirmative action threads in the public domain.

There are no, Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment, should we need to quibble that point in legal venues. Both, Militia and the People are collective in nature, nurture, and in context.

In their interpretation, the amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms—a reading that was upheld by the Supreme Court in its 2008 ruling in District of Columbia. v. Heller.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many times do I have to tell you idiots that there is absofuckinglutely no difference between a so called assault rifle and any other semi automatic rifle

 

[danielpalos]

How many times do I have to tell you idiots that there is absofuckinglutely no difference between a so called assault rifle and any other semi automatic rifle

how many times do i have to tell gun lovers, they need to convince their own local representatives to government, they are not just going to flake, with their Arms in public venues.

 

[TNHarley]

NY and CT are filled with pussies anyways. Most lefty places are.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How many times do I have to tell you idiots that there is absofuckinglutely no difference between a so called assault rifle and any other semi automatic rifle

how many times do i have to tell gun lovers, they need to convince their own local representatives to government, they are not just going to flake, with their Arms in public venues.

It's up to you to prove I am a threat to the public before you deny me any of my constitutional rights

 

[danielpalos]

How many times do I have to tell you idiots that there is absofuckinglutely no difference between a so called assault rifle and any other semi automatic rifle

how many times do i have to tell gun lovers, they need to convince their own local representatives to government, they are not just going to flake, with their Arms in public venues.

It's up to you to prove I am a threat to the public before you deny me any of my constitutional rights

you local representatives to government claim to have enough evidence to enact the laws they do. it is up to gun lovers to convince them, y'all are not just flakes.

 

[charwin95]

Studies show fewer gun deaths in states with strict gun laws