Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You can pretend the definition of "assault weapon" isn't merely cosmetic features if you want. It changes nothing.Liberals only want to ban "assault weapons" because they're black and scary.
Oh, please. This sad old argument. You won an award.
View attachment 346288
I was always under the impression that an "assault weapon" was one which could be toggled from sem-automatic mode into automatic mode and back...
Ok I will bite. Can you tell me why without jumping into the pool of madness?Oh, you don't want to discuss the real reason leftists want Americans disarmed.Sounds like conservative white cops.Liberals only want to ban "assault weapons" because they're black and scary.
“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.
Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.www.tampabay.com
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.
Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.
Actually, it was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution via referendum – a 60 percent vote in favor would be needed for the amendment to pass.“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.
Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.
The challenge is to word amendment proposals so they’d fit on a ballot and be understood by the average voter.
Otherwise, yes – AWBs have been upheld in the lower courts, the Supreme Court refusing to hear such a case.
Of course, that an amendment or measure is bad law doesn’t make it un-Constitutional – although Constitutional, AWBs are bad law.
It’s possible the conservative Florida supreme court rejected the proposed amendment because they feared it might pass, hiding their opposition behind the façade of ‘misleading language.’
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).
That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.
If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.
But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.
Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
I was always under the impression that an "assault weapon" was one which could be toggled from sem-automatic mode into automatic mode and back...
At one time but it's meaning has changed. Now, it's any weapon that has a detachable mag and is semi auto or auto. The courts have ruled that the term "Assault Rifle" is too general of a term. The gunnutters keep trying to drag that into everything but the courts have ruled that a community can and has come up with rules for the "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones". And yes, the AR-15 does fall under the old Assault Rifle definition. It's not whether it can toggle from semi to auto it's the fact is a purpose built weapon of war made to kill as many people as fast and as easy as possible by a scared 18 year old with little training in a firefight. Even the M-4 and the M-16's usual setting for battle is semi auto, not auto or 3 shot burst lest you break the 11th commandment of battle, thou shalt not run out of ammo.
Yeah, if that amendment would of passed, there would of been millions of law abiding citizens instantly accused of being a criminal. This while Demoncrap Governors release felons back into Society before they do their time. Yet when you have your head up your ass, you can ignore all current events.Actually, it was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution via referendum – a 60 percent vote in favor would be needed for the amendment to pass.“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.
Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.
The challenge is to word amendment proposals so they’d fit on a ballot and be understood by the average voter.
Otherwise, yes – AWBs have been upheld in the lower courts, the Supreme Court refusing to hear such a case.
Of course, that an amendment or measure is bad law doesn’t make it un-Constitutional – although Constitutional, AWBs are bad law.
It’s possible the conservative Florida supreme court rejected the proposed amendment because they feared it might pass, hiding their opposition behind the façade of ‘misleading language.’
Yeah, if that amendment would of passed, there would of been millions of law abiding citizens instantly accused of being a criminal. This while Demoncrap Governors release felons back into Society before they do their time. Yet when you have your head up your ass, you can ignore all current events.Actually, it was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution via referendum – a 60 percent vote in favor would be needed for the amendment to pass.“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.
Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.
The challenge is to word amendment proposals so they’d fit on a ballot and be understood by the average voter.
Otherwise, yes – AWBs have been upheld in the lower courts, the Supreme Court refusing to hear such a case.
Of course, that an amendment or measure is bad law doesn’t make it un-Constitutional – although Constitutional, AWBs are bad law.
It’s possible the conservative Florida supreme court rejected the proposed amendment because they feared it might pass, hiding their opposition behind the façade of ‘misleading language.’
View attachment 346560
It was never written to become legal. It was written to fail. Had they used the term "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" instead of "Assault Rifle" it would have stood. But they never intended it to stand. That's the law, cupcake.
Seems like no one read the article. Apparently the Court rejected the measure only because the summary did not accurately describe what was in the measure. The measure allowed "people" to own the guns they already own but not to transfer them - meaning there was an effective ban on all ownership of "assault" weapons with an effective date of the death of the last current owner.
The published summary, though, implied that currently owned weapons, not people, were exempt. This would allow any guns currently owned in Florida to be transferred at will and in perpetuity.
It's an interesting question, whether a State Supreme Court can declare the State Constitution unconstitutional. If the measure is resubmitted, with new signatures and all, and if it passes, does it become an effective part of the Florida Constitution or could the State Supreme Court toss it? It is certainly unconstitutional from the United States Constitution and, hopefully, would eventually be tossed by the US Supreme Court. The current court has rejected any gun control cases and even before Scalia's death, they have refused every assault weapons ban case, leaving them all intact. Hopefully that changes but with the court being so political, any protections of the 2nd Amendment only last until the next death of a justice and a Democratic president and Senate.
It was never written to become legal. It was written to fail. Had they used the term "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" instead of "Assault Rifle" it would have stood. But they never intended it to stand. That's the law, cupcake.
No; you're wrong. IT wasn't the assault weapons term that got it tossed. The Florida Supreme Court is happy to accept infringements on the right to keep and bear arms in violation of the Second Amendment; this one was just misleading. They were worried not that it would stick but that it wouldn't stick over the flaw. They'll happily accept a ban that is properly written.
Lawmaking bodies determine what constitutes an assault weapon – not the military, not firearm manufactures, and not message board commandos.Actually, it was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution via referendum – a 60 percent vote in favor would be needed for the amendment to pass.“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.
Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.
The challenge is to word amendment proposals so they’d fit on a ballot and be understood by the average voter.
Otherwise, yes – AWBs have been upheld in the lower courts, the Supreme Court refusing to hear such a case.
Of course, that an amendment or measure is bad law doesn’t make it un-Constitutional – although Constitutional, AWBs are bad law.
It’s possible the conservative Florida supreme court rejected the proposed amendment because they feared it might pass, hiding their opposition behind the façade of ‘misleading language.’
It gets rejected in other places because of the Wording. Exactly what IS an Assault Rifle? It's too broad a statement. It can be interpreted to mean almost any clip fed (don't you gunnutters love that word) rifle made that is a semi auto. The ones that stick are the ones that are very specific with the wording "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones". Not once has a bill or any kind been left standing that uses the word "Assault Rifle" in it's wording. I still hold that whomever wrote it never intended it to be accepted and was catering to the anti gun crowd for votes.
Wrong as usual.That pesky Second Amendment keeps the left flummoxed
Wrong as usual.That pesky Second Amendment keeps the left flummoxed
The courts have consistently held that AWBs are perfectly Constitutional – they in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment.
And the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of AWBs.
Indeed, it’s conservatives who’ve become frustrated with Second Amendment case law; most on the right have come to loathe Heller.
Lawmaking bodies determine what constitutes an assault weapon – not the military, not firearm manufactures, and not message board commandos.Actually, it was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution via referendum – a 60 percent vote in favor would be needed for the amendment to pass.“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.
Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.
The challenge is to word amendment proposals so they’d fit on a ballot and be understood by the average voter.
Otherwise, yes – AWBs have been upheld in the lower courts, the Supreme Court refusing to hear such a case.
Of course, that an amendment or measure is bad law doesn’t make it un-Constitutional – although Constitutional, AWBs are bad law.
It’s possible the conservative Florida supreme court rejected the proposed amendment because they feared it might pass, hiding their opposition behind the façade of ‘misleading language.’
It gets rejected in other places because of the Wording. Exactly what IS an Assault Rifle? It's too broad a statement. It can be interpreted to mean almost any clip fed (don't you gunnutters love that word) rifle made that is a semi auto. The ones that stick are the ones that are very specific with the wording "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones". Not once has a bill or any kind been left standing that uses the word "Assault Rifle" in it's wording. I still hold that whomever wrote it never intended it to be accepted and was catering to the anti gun crowd for votes.
New York’s SAFE Act, for example, contains the phrase ‘assault weapon’ along with a definition and itemized list of regulated firearms.
The courts have upheld the SAFE Act as Constitutional.
Otherwise, there’s no reason to question the intent of the organization behind the proposed Florida amendment, Ban Assault Weapons Now, regardless how naïve and misguided that intent.
And that an organization might seek to enact an AWB doesn’t necessarily mean it is ‘anti-gun.’
The fundamental failing of an assault weapon ‘ban’ is that it won’t work; indeed, it’s not a ‘ban’ at all, the consequence of the grandfather clause – thousands of weapons will remain in the possession of individual gunowners.
Interestingly, the courts have essentially acknowledged this, holding that AWBs are valid because they afford citizens a ‘sense of public safety.’
I suggest you put me on Ignore. I don't change the way I post, I don't change my opinions, I don't change facts to suit you.You can pretend the definition of "assault weapon" isn't merely cosmetic features if you want. It changes nothing.Liberals only want to ban "assault weapons" because they're black and scary.
Oh, please. This sad old argument. You won an award.
View attachment 346288
I don't pretend a damned thing. The accepted law is that the term "Assault Rifle" is too general. You argue that I think an assault rifle is cosmetic? I don't. And the harder you try and tell me what I think the more you look like a friggin idjit. Here is a custom made tattoo you can place on your forehead so everyone can know from a distance. That way we can all save time.
View attachment 346533
I just told Hunt. You should realize your acknowledgement is not required, either.Ok I will bite. Can you tell me why without jumping into the pool of madness?Oh, you don't want to discuss the real reason leftists want Americans disarmed.Sounds like conservative white cops.Liberals only want to ban "assault weapons" because they're black and scary.
Of course, we’re not talking about a law – rather, we’re talking about a proposed amendment to the Florida constitution where the language of that proposal must fit on the ballot in a space half the size a post card, where further details and specifics would be impossible to enumerate.Lawmaking bodies determine what constitutes an assault weapon – not the military, not firearm manufactures, and not message board commandos.Actually, it was a proposal to amend the Florida constitution via referendum – a 60 percent vote in favor would be needed for the amendment to pass.“TALLAHASSEE — A proposal to ban assault weapons in Florida was rejected by the state Supreme Court on Thursday, with a majority of justices ruling that the proposal was misleading.”
This would have been a ballot measure to amend the Florida constitution, not a legislative measure.Assault weapons ban in Florida quashed by state Supreme Court
Justices found the proposal misleading, but one of the justices disagreed.
Regardless, AWBs are devoid of merit because they don’t work.
Whomever wrote that law knew it would never stand in court. Every Federal and State Court has ruled against banning "Assault Rifles". You word it that way it won't pass the muster. It was meant to fail from the very beginning. Someone is just trying to get votes.
Now, word it like this. "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones" has been upheld in every upper Federal Court. There a few States and Cities that have that law in place. I will not say whether I agree nor disagree but that's the way the law works.
The challenge is to word amendment proposals so they’d fit on a ballot and be understood by the average voter.
Otherwise, yes – AWBs have been upheld in the lower courts, the Supreme Court refusing to hear such a case.
Of course, that an amendment or measure is bad law doesn’t make it un-Constitutional – although Constitutional, AWBs are bad law.
It’s possible the conservative Florida supreme court rejected the proposed amendment because they feared it might pass, hiding their opposition behind the façade of ‘misleading language.’
It gets rejected in other places because of the Wording. Exactly what IS an Assault Rifle? It's too broad a statement. It can be interpreted to mean almost any clip fed (don't you gunnutters love that word) rifle made that is a semi auto. The ones that stick are the ones that are very specific with the wording "AR-15/AK-47 and their various clones". Not once has a bill or any kind been left standing that uses the word "Assault Rifle" in it's wording. I still hold that whomever wrote it never intended it to be accepted and was catering to the anti gun crowd for votes.
New York’s SAFE Act, for example, contains the phrase ‘assault weapon’ along with a definition and itemized list of regulated firearms.
The courts have upheld the SAFE Act as Constitutional.
Otherwise, there’s no reason to question the intent of the organization behind the proposed Florida amendment, Ban Assault Weapons Now, regardless how naïve and misguided that intent.
And that an organization might seek to enact an AWB doesn’t necessarily mean it is ‘anti-gun.’
The fundamental failing of an assault weapon ‘ban’ is that it won’t work; indeed, it’s not a ‘ban’ at all, the consequence of the grandfather clause – thousands of weapons will remain in the possession of individual gunowners.
Interestingly, the courts have essentially acknowledged this, holding that AWBs are valid because they afford citizens a ‘sense of public safety.’
Yes, you can have the phrase "Assault Weapon" in your law but you need to clarify what you mean by it by stating clearly what you mean. Just by saying "Assault Weapon" is meaningless. And you are wrong, it's a Military Term that has been hijacked by many civilians.
