Calif state Senate bans purchases of ALL "semiautomatic" rifles with detachable mags

[LoneLaugher]

All one needs to do if they want to own a killing machine is join a well regulated militia. A national guard post will suffice.

The Supreme Court ruled one does not have to belong to a militia to exersize their 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THAT TRUMPS STATE LAWS.

Cool. I am glad that you reaped the Supreme Court's decisions so much. You are a true patriot.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

All one needs to do if they want to own a killing machine is join a well regulated militia. A national guard post will suffice.

The Supreme Court ruled one does not have to belong to a militia to exersize their 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THAT TRUMPS STATE LAWS.

Cool. I am glad that you reaped the Supreme Court's decisions so much. You are a true patriot.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[hortysir]

Sounds unconstitutional to me

"States' Rights", though

As much as it sucks

Wrong the 2nd is incorporated States can not violate the 2nd any more then any other part of the Constitution. States rights only apply to those things not controlled by the Federal Government.

*shrug*
Thanks Sarge....just trying to get my head around how they could get by with it

 

[Obamanation]

Well, let's see if LA can catch Chicago --- the year is still young!!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

"States' Rights", though

As much as it sucks

Wrong the 2nd is incorporated States can not violate the 2nd any more then any other part of the Constitution. States rights only apply to those things not controlled by the Federal Government.

*shrug*
Thanks Sarge....just trying to get my head around how they could get by with it

If it passes and is signed into law it will require a lawsuit to overturn. Someone that does business in California or lives there will have to initiate the suit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sounds unconstitutional to me

"States' Rights", though

As much as it sucks

Wrong the 2nd is incorporated States can not violate the 2nd any more then any other part of the Constitution. States rights only apply to those things not controlled by the Federal Government.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. See: McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The issue has nothing to do with ‘states’ rights’ or what can or cannot be ‘controlled’ by the Federal government.

A given state can no more violate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment then it can violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples with regard to marriage law or privacy rights with regard to abortion.

No right is absolute, including Second Amendment rights.

The question then becomes: how is this pending legislation potentially un-Constitutional?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sounds unconstitutional to me

On what grounds?

Semi Automatic weapons with detachable magazines are protected by the 2nd. Since 39 the criteria has been a weapon in use of use or prior use by the military. Further they can not levee a fee on buying ammo as that violates the Infringement part of the 2nd.

You forgot to cite the case law in support.

In what case did the Supreme Court rule that semi-automatic rifles/AR-type weapons are ‘in common use at the time’ and entitled to Second Amendment Protection?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All one needs to do if they want to own a killing machine is join a well regulated militia. A national guard post will suffice.

The Supreme Court ruled one does not have to belong to a militia to exersize their 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THAT TRUMPS STATE LAWS.

Just as Roe trumps state laws that attempt to ban abortion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

On what grounds?

Semi Automatic weapons with detachable magazines are protected by the 2nd. Since 39 the criteria has been a weapon in use of use or prior use by the military. Further they can not levee a fee on buying ammo as that violates the Infringement part of the 2nd.

You forgot to cite the case law in support.

In what case did the Supreme Court rule that semi-automatic rifles/AR-type weapons are ‘in common use at the time’ and entitled to Second Amendment Protection?

One needs no case law on the use of semi automatics with detachable magazines in the military. All one needs is the 39 ruling and the several more that support it and the fact that the Military currently uses semi automatic rifles with detachable magazines and is researching more of the same.

If this foolish law is passed then it will require a court case to get rid of it, but that WILL happen. It is a clear violation of Supreme Court rulings starting in 39 and continuing to today.

But then you already know that don't you?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All one needs to do if they want to own a killing machine is join a well regulated militia. A national guard post will suffice.

The Supreme Court ruled one does not have to belong to a militia to exersize their 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THAT TRUMPS STATE LAWS.

Just as Roe trumps state laws that attempt to ban abortion.

And yet you argue that this law is Constitutional. Why is it one is illegal and the other is not? The 39 ruling is clear, the ONLY weapons protected are those in use, of use or previously in use by the military. That means semi automatic rifles and pistols with detachable magazines.

Further the "shall not infringe" in the second invalidates any special fee to buy ammunition that is not a general fee for all purchases in that State.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RGS is trying to ignore that the earlier rulings recognize that SCOTUS maintains the right to over rule earlier decisions. Doubt it: check Heller 1(f).

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sounds unconstitutional to me

On what grounds?

The $50 fee to be allowed to purchase ammunition is an infringement on the right to bear arms. There is also the question of the number of guns and rifles effected by this ban.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Sounds unconstitutional to me

"States' Rights", though

As much as it sucks

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. A state cannot infringe on the Second Amendment.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

"States' Rights", though

As much as it sucks

Wrong the 2nd is incorporated States can not violate the 2nd any more then any other part of the Constitution. States rights only apply to those things not controlled by the Federal Government.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. See: McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The issue has nothing to do with ‘states’ rights’ or what can or cannot be ‘controlled’ by the Federal government.

A given state can no more violate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment then it can violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples with regard to marriage law or privacy rights with regard to abortion.

No right is absolute, including Second Amendment rights.

The question then becomes: how is this pending legislation potentially un-Constitutional?

Wrong, the 14h Amendment was heavily influenced by the Dred Scott case.

"it would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty of speech ...; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sounds unconstitutional to me

On what grounds?

The $50 fee to be allowed to purchase ammunition is an infringement on the right to bear arms. There is also the question of the number of guns and rifles effected by this ban.

How is an ammo acquisition fee any different from a permit fee required to possess a firearm, the latter of which was upheld as Constitutional:

A Manhattan federal court judge ruled on Monday that the city's $340 fee for a handgun gun permit is constitutional. The Second Amendment Foundation commenced a lawsuit against Mayor Michael Bloomberg last April, alleging that the fee (requiring renewal every three years, plus a $94.25 charge for a fingerprint check) amounted to an exorbitant sum, and in effect, a violation of the Second Amendment. But Judge John Koeltl disagreed. “There is no evidence that the fee has deterred or is likely to deter any individual from exercising his or her Second Amendment right," he said, adding that courts have approved significantly higher fees.

City?s $340 Gun Permit Fee Passes Constitutional Muster -- Daily Intelligencer

And what’s the question concerning the number of guns and rifles effected by this ban? Are you saying the number of AR-type rifles in possession constitutes a weapon ‘in common use’ and is thus subject to Second Amendment protection?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Wrong the 2nd is incorporated States can not violate the 2nd any more then any other part of the Constitution. States rights only apply to those things not controlled by the Federal Government.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. See: McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The issue has nothing to do with ‘states’ rights’ or what can or cannot be ‘controlled’ by the Federal government.

A given state can no more violate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment then it can violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples with regard to marriage law or privacy rights with regard to abortion.

No right is absolute, including Second Amendment rights.

The question then becomes: how is this pending legislation potentially un-Constitutional?

Wrong, the 14h Amendment was heavily influenced by the Dred Scott case.

"it would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty of speech ...; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

lol

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment. See: McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

The issue has nothing to do with ‘states’ rights’ or what can or cannot be ‘controlled’ by the Federal government.

A given state can no more violate the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment then it can violate the equal protection rights of same-sex couples with regard to marriage law or privacy rights with regard to abortion.

No right is absolute, including Second Amendment rights.

The question then becomes: how is this pending legislation potentially un-Constitutional?

Wrong, the 14h Amendment was heavily influenced by the Dred Scott case.

"it would give to persons of the negro race ... the full liberty of speech ...; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

lol

lol, you just got owned by historical facts
lol, you just exposed your Progressive White Man's Burden racism

 

[MikeK]

One evening in the mid-1950s I went to Goodwear Sporting Goods on Flatbush Avenue, Brooklyn, and purchased a military surplus M-1 Carbine in exceptional condition. It came with one 30 round magazine and I bought a second one, along with two bandoliers of .30 ammo. All I had to show was my draft card to prove I was over 18. The salesman didn't even write my name on the cash receipt. He wrapped my purchases in brown paper and I walked out with them.

That's the way it was back then. The Second Amendment was alive and well. Handguns were restricted but long guns were freely available to anyone over eighteen. If I could have known what it would be like today I would have had good cause to be depressed and worried.

Little by little, one incremental step at a time, our gun rights are being slowly and deliberately whittled at by a rising, patiently cautious but determined anti-gun culture comprised mainly of individuals who know nothing about guns, and are afraid of them, and who would not be inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances. If the trend continues the inevitable outcome will be our right to "keep" arms limited to one single shot .22 rifle which we will be permitted to "bear" back and forth to and from a federally supervised range in a locked container. And the Supreme Court will rule those circumstances comply with the specifications of the Second Amendment.

Where gun rights in America are concerned, comparing the mid-1950s to the present is good cause to be depressed and worried. I believe firearms will be the subject of the next great prohibition in America.

 

[Obamanation]

Great post mike!!!!

 

[OriginalShroom]

On what grounds?

The $50 fee to be allowed to purchase ammunition is an infringement on the right to bear arms. There is also the question of the number of guns and rifles effected by this ban.

How is an ammo acquisition fee any different from a permit fee required to possess a firearm, the latter of which was upheld as Constitutional:

A Manhattan federal court judge ruled on Monday that the city's $340 fee for a handgun gun permit is constitutional. The Second Amendment Foundation commenced a lawsuit against Mayor Michael Bloomberg last April, alleging that the fee (requiring renewal every three years, plus a $94.25 charge for a fingerprint check) amounted to an exorbitant sum, and in effect, a violation of the Second Amendment. But Judge John Koeltl disagreed. “There is no evidence that the fee has deterred or is likely to deter any individual from exercising his or her Second Amendment right," he said, adding that courts have approved significantly higher fees.

City?s $340 Gun Permit Fee Passes Constitutional Muster -- Daily Intelligencer

And what’s the question concerning the number of guns and rifles effected by this ban? Are you saying the number of AR-type rifles in possession constitutes a weapon ‘in common use’ and is thus subject to Second Amendment protection?

I would suggest that the Judge explain why such a fee would not also then not deter anyone from exercising their right to cast a ballot?