Colorado judge strikes down AR-15 ban, and over 10 round magazine ban....good.

[westwall]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun has ALWAYS been the weapon of choice for criminals.

Stop trying to talk about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

That's funny. There are more AR owners now, over 10 million of us, than before you idiots started wanting to ban them.

You call us cultists, yet you are the one who is part of a very small, though very loud, group of fools trying to ban them.

That makes YOU the cult member, sweetie.

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

Scalia...who wrote the majority opinion in Heller writing in Friedman when the rest of the Justices decided not to hear the Friedman case.....his dissent here matters because, again, he actually wrote the opinion in Heller and in his writings in Friedman, goes more in depth into what he meant in Heller........

He cites Heller and Macdonald when he states that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment...........

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.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.

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

Again, you are presenting the dissention not the resolution of the ruling. And Scalia did NOT address the mass shootings going for the "Record" that became more the rule than the exception for a number of years. I still hold that we needed to lessen the body counts because we can never lessen the actual shootings. And the laws that place limitations on the amount of ammo that a gun can hold certainly does just that. This reduces the AR down to the level of the Handgun in capacity. But most of all, it breaks the cult status no matter how hard you try and keep the cult going.

No....I'm not........the disent was only because the Supreme Court justices refused to hear the case......again, Scalia wrote the Majority opinion in the Heller decision and then went on to further explain it in his writings in Friedman....he isn't just a random judge commenting on Friedman he is stating why the court needed to hear Freeman and tell the lower court to obey the Heller ruling, and he went on to further explain the 2nd Amendment as it is applied to actual firearms......

Mass shootings are not an issue........you keep bringing them up and they are simply a way to frighten uninformed Americans into giving left wing, anti-gun extremists the power to ban guns...

Mass public shooting deaths in 2020? 5

2019... 73

In a country of over 320 million people.......

You want to pretend that mass public shootings are a major threat to people and that isn't true in any sense of truth, facts or reality....

By comparison, car accidents killed 37,595 people in 2019......

73 mass public shooting deaths in 2019....

37,595 car accident deaths....

Bicycle accidents....? 712 people.....

Motorcycles? 4,576

These rifles aren't even the most commonly used gun for mass public shootings.

You are using mass public shootings as an excuse to ban rifles that are protected by our Constitution.....mass public shootings that kill fewer people than even knives, clubs and bare hands

Your use of mass public shootings as an excuse to ban these rifles is not rational.

In fact, there is only one mass public shooting where the AR-15 rifle is relevant and that was the Las Vegas shooting where the shooter was shooting out to hundreds or yards....every single other mass public shooting in this country that used a rifle of any kind could easily have matched the number of victims murdered if they used pistols or shotguns......

So you have no rational argument...

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

Scalia...who wrote the majority opinion in Heller writing in Friedman when the rest of the Justices decided not to hear the Friedman case.....his dissent here matters because, again, he actually wrote the opinion in Heller and in his writings in Friedman, goes more in depth into what he meant in Heller........

He cites Heller and Macdonald when he states that the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment...........

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.


The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411–412. The court conceded that handguns—not “assault weapons”—“are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.” Id., at 409.

Still, the court concluded, the ordinance “may increase the public’s sense of safety,” which alone is “a substantial benefit.” Id., at 412.


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
The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.

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

Again, you are presenting the dissention not the resolution of the ruling. And Scalia did NOT address the mass shootings going for the "Record" that became more the rule than the exception for a number of years. I still hold that we needed to lessen the body counts because we can never lessen the actual shootings. And the laws that place limitations on the amount of ammo that a gun can hold certainly does just that. This reduces the AR down to the level of the Handgun in capacity. But most of all, it breaks the cult status no matter how hard you try and keep the cult going.

Magazine capacity as a factor in mass public shootings is simply another lie used by left wing anti-gun extremists to ban rifles and pistols without passing actual laws to ban rifles and pistols...by banning magazines that hold more than 10 rounds you automatically ban millions and millions of pistols that use 15-19 bullets as standard......that is the only reason anti-gun extremists hype magazine bans.........they are lying when they say they care about mass public shootings.

Do you understand that magazine capacity has no bearing on the number of people killed in mass public shootings? Do you understand that?

There isn't one mass public shooting where a regular magazine was used that would have had reduced casualties if we had a magazine ban....do you understand that?

There are 3 factors that impact the number of people killed

1) target choice......number of people plus the legally mandated gun free zone status of the target.

2) how fast someone with a gun shoots back at the mass public shooter

Here....actual research that shows your concern about magazines has no basis in objective reality..

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class research journals

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.
==========

The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----



-----

The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun was always the weapon of choice until anti-gun extremists began promoting the regular semi-automatic rifle, the AR-15 as a killing machine.......

They did this for a very specific reason, and you are that reason.

They know that they can lie to uninformed Americans and say that the AR-15 rifle is exceptionally dangerous....and this is a lie...it is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...

They understand that if they can get uninformed, and gullible Americans to sign on to allowing them to ban the AR-15, they can later come back and tell those same people that all the other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns operate the same way, are actually used by the military (versus the AR-15 that is not a military weapon) and therfore they must be allowed to ban those other guns too....

Magazine capacity is a trojan horse......and you are buying into the lie.

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

I showed you numerous mass public shootings with shotguns and pistols that had just as high a body count as shootings done with the AR-15......I also pointed out that the other mass public shootings with rifles could have simply substituted shotguns and pistols and had the same body count. The only exception was the Vegas shooting that took place from hundreds of yards, and even that only had the high body count because the shooter picked a target that allowed the high body count, 22,000 people jammed into a tightly packed, enclosed concert arena with limited exits.....

Magazine capacity is a fake argument to get a back door ban against millions of pistols....

 

[Vrenn]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun has ALWAYS been the weapon of choice for criminals.

Stop trying to talk about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

That's funny. There are more AR owners now, over 10 million of us, than before you idiots started wanting to ban them.

You call us cultists, yet you are the one who is part of a very small, though very loud, group of fools trying to ban them.

That makes YOU the cult member, sweetie.

10 million? With just over 7 mil made total including the clones, that's a bit hard to come up with unless you are sharing your AR with your buddy for the count purposes. Let's take a look at the manufacturers of decent ARs. Colt stopped producing their Model 750 and only offers their mode 6920 to LE which is made on the same assembly line as their Model 604. Remington almost went broke because they put all the eggs in the AR basket. So you have your AR. And I can buy one from almost any pawn shop (clones not worth a damned) for around 399 in price. But most people that felt the undying need to buy an AR already has purchased them. Hence the problems with the 2 major AR manufactures with producing the ARs. If you own one of those two, enjoy them. While you may be able to purchase a Remington you can't buy another Colt which is the gold standard for stock units.

 

[2aguy]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

and we have gun crime because we do not enforce the federal gun laws we have on the books

Yes, the NRA has done a great job of making the ATF a toothless tiger...

Of course, if the ATF started doing it's job, you'd ***** about that, too. You guys are still trying to make Randy Weaver and David Koresh into heroes.

This is a well known lie you ignorant clod. It was PROVEN a lie decades ago.

If it were, then you guys would support a more complete study of the subject, not ban all studies on gun violence.

The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence. Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.

And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.

 

[2aguy]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

and we have gun crime because we do not enforce the federal gun laws we have on the books

Yes, the NRA has done a great job of making the ATF a toothless tiger...

Of course, if the ATF started doing it's job, you'd ***** about that, too. You guys are still trying to make Randy Weaver and David Koresh into heroes.

This is a well known lie you ignorant clod. It was PROVEN a lie decades ago.

If it were, then you guys would support a more complete study of the subject, not ban all studies on gun violence.

The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence. Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.

Suicides are not a gun issue....you have been shown this over and over again......

Domestic violence is not a gun issue, it is a drug, and alcohol addiction issue and a criminal control issue....

Fact Check, Gun Control and Suicide

There is no relation between suicide rate and gun ownership rates around the world.

According to the 2016 World Health Statistics report, (2) suicide rates in the four countries cited as having restrictive gun control laws have suicide rates that are comparable to that in the U. S.: Australia, 11.6, Canada, 11.4, France, 15.8, UK, 7.0, and USA 13.7 suicides/100,000. By comparison, Japan has among the highest suicide rates in the world, 23.1/100,000, but gun ownership is extremely rare, 0.6 guns/100 people.
Suicide is a mental health issue. If guns are not available other means are used. Poisoning, in fact, is the most common method of suicide for U. S. females according to the Washington Post (34 % of suicides), and suffocation the second most common method for males (27%).
Secondly, gun ownership rates in France and Canada are not low, as is implied in the Post article. The rate of gun ownership in the U. S. is indeed high at 88.8 guns/100 residents, but gun ownership rates are also among the world’s highest in the other countries cited. Gun ownership rates in these countries are are as follows: Australia, 15, Canada, 30.8, France, 31.2, and UK 6.2 per 100 residents. (3,4) Gun ownership rates in Saudia Arabia are comparable to that in Canada and France, with 37.8 guns per 100 Saudi residents, yet the lowest suicide rate in the world is in Saudia Arabia (0.3 suicides per 100,000).
Third, recent statistics in the state of Florida show that nearly one third of the guns used in suicides are obtained illegally, putting these firearm deaths beyond control through gun laws.(5)
Fourth, the primary factors affecting suicide rates are personal stresses, cultural, economic, religious factors and demographics. According to the WHO statistics, the highest rates of suicide in the world are in the Republic of Korea, with 36.8 suicides per 100,000, but India, Japan, Russia, and Hungary all have rates above 20 per 100,000; roughly twice as high as the U.S. and the four countries that are the basis for the Post’s calculation that gun control would reduce U.S. suicide rates by 20 to 38 percent. Lebanon, Oman, and Iraq all have suicide rates below 1.1 per 100,000 people--less than 1/10 the suicide rate in the U. S., and Afghanistan, Algeria, Jamaica, Haiti, and Egypt have low suicide rates that are below 4 per 100,000 in contrast to 13.7 suicides/100,000 in the U. S.
========

 

[Vrenn]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun was always the weapon of choice until anti-gun extremists began promoting the regular semi-automatic rifle, the AR-15 as a killing machine.......

They did this for a very specific reason, and you are that reason.

They know that they can lie to uninformed Americans and say that the AR-15 rifle is exceptionally dangerous....and this is a lie...it is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...

They understand that if they can get uninformed, and gullible Americans to sign on to allowing them to ban the AR-15, they can later come back and tell those same people that all the other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns operate the same way, are actually used by the military (versus the AR-15 that is not a military weapon) and therfore they must be allowed to ban those other guns too....

Magazine capacity is a trojan horse......and you are buying into the lie.

The Egg came before the Chicken, if you didn't already know. When the record holders all used one specific weapon then maybe we all need to do a rethink. Well, most did and the Cult got broken and the new record will stand for a very long time if we have our way. And it's not done by Banning the weapon itself. It's done by regulating the weapon. I don't hold much with the banners and the total get rid of regulations of both sides. I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun has ALWAYS been the weapon of choice for criminals.

Stop trying to talk about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

That's funny. There are more AR owners now, over 10 million of us, than before you idiots started wanting to ban them.

You call us cultists, yet you are the one who is part of a very small, though very loud, group of fools trying to ban them.

That makes YOU the cult member, sweetie.

10 million? With just over 7 mil made total including the clones, that's a bit hard to come up with unless you are sharing your AR with your buddy for the count purposes. Let's take a look at the manufacturers of decent ARs. Colt stopped producing their Model 750 and only offers their mode 6920 to LE which is made on the same assembly line as their Model 604. Remington almost went broke because they put all the eggs in the AR basket. So you have your AR. And I can buy one from almost any pawn shop (clones not worth a damned) for around 399 in price. But most people that felt the undying need to buy an AR already has purchased them. Hence the problems with the 2 major AR manufactures with producing the ARs. If you own one of those two, enjoy them. While you may be able to purchase a Remington you can't buy another Colt which is the gold standard for stock units.

There are over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone, not to forget the millions and millions of other styles of semi-automatic rifles that operate the exact same way as AR-15s operate....which is why the AR-15 is simply the gateway drug to banning all those other rifles.....

 

[Vrenn]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

and we have gun crime because we do not enforce the federal gun laws we have on the books

Yes, the NRA has done a great job of making the ATF a toothless tiger...

Of course, if the ATF started doing it's job, you'd ***** about that, too. You guys are still trying to make Randy Weaver and David Koresh into heroes.

This is a well known lie you ignorant clod. It was PROVEN a lie decades ago.

If it were, then you guys would support a more complete study of the subject, not ban all studies on gun violence.

The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence. Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.

And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.

The problem you have is that you keep using Klek as your source. Or his partner in crime whom both pretty much used ALL shooting incidents (including wars and military) to come up with their figures. And then the fudged that as well. To be truthful, I doubt if anyone really knows the truth here. How many are reported. How many are not reported. How many are improperly reported.

 

[Vrenn]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun has ALWAYS been the weapon of choice for criminals.

Stop trying to talk about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

That's funny. There are more AR owners now, over 10 million of us, than before you idiots started wanting to ban them.

You call us cultists, yet you are the one who is part of a very small, though very loud, group of fools trying to ban them.

That makes YOU the cult member, sweetie.

10 million? With just over 7 mil made total including the clones, that's a bit hard to come up with unless you are sharing your AR with your buddy for the count purposes. Let's take a look at the manufacturers of decent ARs. Colt stopped producing their Model 750 and only offers their mode 6920 to LE which is made on the same assembly line as their Model 604. Remington almost went broke because they put all the eggs in the AR basket. So you have your AR. And I can buy one from almost any pawn shop (clones not worth a damned) for around 399 in price. But most people that felt the undying need to buy an AR already has purchased them. Hence the problems with the 2 major AR manufactures with producing the ARs. If you own one of those two, enjoy them. While you may be able to purchase a Remington you can't buy another Colt which is the gold standard for stock units.

There are over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone, not to forget the millions and millions of other styles of semi-automatic rifles that operate the exact same way as AR-15s operate....which is why the AR-15 is simply the gateway drug to banning all those other rifles.....

Wow, I know the number is just over 7 mil. But in two posts, it jumped from 10 mil to 20 mil. Can't wait until it reaches 400 trillion. Shouldn't take longer than a day.

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun was always the weapon of choice until anti-gun extremists began promoting the regular semi-automatic rifle, the AR-15 as a killing machine.......

They did this for a very specific reason, and you are that reason.

They know that they can lie to uninformed Americans and say that the AR-15 rifle is exceptionally dangerous....and this is a lie...it is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...

They understand that if they can get uninformed, and gullible Americans to sign on to allowing them to ban the AR-15, they can later come back and tell those same people that all the other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns operate the same way, are actually used by the military (versus the AR-15 that is not a military weapon) and therfore they must be allowed to ban those other guns too....

Magazine capacity is a trojan horse......and you are buying into the lie.

The Egg came before the Chicken, if you didn't already know. When the record holders all used one specific weapon then maybe we all need to do a rethink. Well, most did and the Cult got broken and the new record will stand for a very long time if we have our way. And it's not done by Banning the weapon itself. It's done by regulating the weapon. I don't hold much with the banners and the total get rid of regulations of both sides. I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about...........even if you had your wish and a stupid magazine ban was in place, where 10 rounds was the max.....not one mass public shooting that has happened would have been made less severe from that action........and the anti-gunners know this which is why they will be back later to call for a ban on 10 round magazines and semi-automatic rifles as well.....

I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.

And since you keep insulting normal gun owners, you have crossed the line....I have been polite, and approached this as I always do until you anti-gun assholes start throwing out insults....

So, shithead.......you are nothing more than a useful idiot for the anti-gun extremists....you are allowing them to lie to your face, and you are pushing the lie...

 

[2aguy]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

and we have gun crime because we do not enforce the federal gun laws we have on the books

Yes, the NRA has done a great job of making the ATF a toothless tiger...

Of course, if the ATF started doing it's job, you'd ***** about that, too. You guys are still trying to make Randy Weaver and David Koresh into heroes.

This is a well known lie you ignorant clod. It was PROVEN a lie decades ago.

If it were, then you guys would support a more complete study of the subject, not ban all studies on gun violence.

The reality- Most gun deaths are suicides, accidents and domestic violence. Cases of criminals shooting people are the exception, and cases of civilians killing bad guys are so rare they barely register.

And you lie again...you have been shown over and over that the CDC has done all sorts of gun research since the 1990s....I have listed that research over and over again.....they were banned from taking the political stance of calling for banning guns, you lying asshole.

The problem you have is that you keep using Klek as your source. Or his partner in crime whom both pretty much used ALL shooting incidents (including wars and military) to come up with their figures. And then the fudged that as well. To be truthful, I doubt if anyone really knows the truth here. How many are reported. How many are not reported. How many are improperly reported.

I just used kleck now for his actual research into magazine use and mass public shootings...actual research.....


And here you are........revealing yourself at last. Kleck is the gold standard, which is why you attack him....but of course....he isn't the only one.....and I use the CDC as well...



In fact, the CDC did research in the 1990s and found that Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year for self defense.....the Department of Justice did separate research and found that Americans use their legal guns 1.5 million times a year for self defense......

 

[Concerned American]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

These bastards never quit--there are places in CA that limit how much ammo you can buy. If you don't have ammunition that is effectively banning guns. Time to by dies and lead. But then they'll probably ban powder.

 

[Vrenn]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun was always the weapon of choice until anti-gun extremists began promoting the regular semi-automatic rifle, the AR-15 as a killing machine.......

They did this for a very specific reason, and you are that reason.

They know that they can lie to uninformed Americans and say that the AR-15 rifle is exceptionally dangerous....and this is a lie...it is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...

They understand that if they can get uninformed, and gullible Americans to sign on to allowing them to ban the AR-15, they can later come back and tell those same people that all the other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns operate the same way, are actually used by the military (versus the AR-15 that is not a military weapon) and therfore they must be allowed to ban those other guns too....

Magazine capacity is a trojan horse......and you are buying into the lie.

The Egg came before the Chicken, if you didn't already know. When the record holders all used one specific weapon then maybe we all need to do a rethink. Well, most did and the Cult got broken and the new record will stand for a very long time if we have our way. And it's not done by Banning the weapon itself. It's done by regulating the weapon. I don't hold much with the banners and the total get rid of regulations of both sides. I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about...........even if you had your wish and a stupid magazine ban was in place, where 10 rounds was the max.....not one mass public shooting that has happened would have been made less severe from that action........and the anti-gunners know this which is why they will be back later to call for a ban on 10 round magazines and semi-automatic rifles as well.....

I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.

And since you keep insulting normal gun owners, you have crossed the line....I have been polite, and approached this as I always do until you anti-gun assholes start throwing out insults....

So, shithead.......you are nothing more than a useful idiot for the anti-gun extremists....you are allowing them to lie to your face, and you are pushing the lie...

Thank you for verifying what I said about both sides being Nutz. I'll list you as batshit crazy and let it go with that. And the rest of us will continue addressing the problems by regulations.

 

[Flash]

Again with the 43 lie......

You know that Kellerman, who came up with that number lied.......

he did nothing of the sort. The problem is, you guys want to pretend that number isn't valid because suicides don't count in your bizarre world.

You stupid uneducated Libtards hate to face reality, especially when you get caught with your lies.

How are my firearms a threat to your ***** ass?

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun has ALWAYS been the weapon of choice for criminals.

Stop trying to talk about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

That's funny. There are more AR owners now, over 10 million of us, than before you idiots started wanting to ban them.

You call us cultists, yet you are the one who is part of a very small, though very loud, group of fools trying to ban them.

That makes YOU the cult member, sweetie.

10 million? With just over 7 mil made total including the clones, that's a bit hard to come up with unless you are sharing your AR with your buddy for the count purposes. Let's take a look at the manufacturers of decent ARs. Colt stopped producing their Model 750 and only offers their mode 6920 to LE which is made on the same assembly line as their Model 604. Remington almost went broke because they put all the eggs in the AR basket. So you have your AR. And I can buy one from almost any pawn shop (clones not worth a damned) for around 399 in price. But most people that felt the undying need to buy an AR already has purchased them. Hence the problems with the 2 major AR manufactures with producing the ARs. If you own one of those two, enjoy them. While you may be able to purchase a Remington you can't buy another Colt which is the gold standard for stock units.

There are over 20 million AR-15 rifles alone, not to forget the millions and millions of other styles of semi-automatic rifles that operate the exact same way as AR-15s operate....which is why the AR-15 is simply the gateway drug to banning all those other rifles.....

Wow, I know the number is just over 7 mil. But in two posts, it jumped from 10 mil to 20 mil. Can't wait until it reaches 400 trillion. Shouldn't take longer than a day.

I never used the 7 million number you asshat..........

This article is from 2018........we have gone well over the 16 million mark since then...

'Assault Weapons,' Explained

After the law expired, sales of previously banned rifles exploded. Based on production and import data from 1990 through 2016, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, estimates that Americans own more than 16 million guns that politicians would deem "assault weapons," which the industry prefers to call "modern sporting rifles."
------
The faulty logic of such legislation actually works to the benefit of those who support "broader gun control." Once people realize that banning these firearms has no measurable effect on violence, they may be primed to accept more ambitious measures. At the same time, if the flimsy arguments in favor of "assault weapon" bans are enough for them to survive judicial review, the Second Amendment barriers to gun control will be eroded.

15 million in 2017.......

Today, one of out of every five firearms purchased in this country is an AR-style rifle, according to a NSSF estimate. Americans now own an estimated 15 million AR-15s, gun groups say. New AR-15 style guns range widely in price, from about $500 to more than $2,000.

How the AR-15 became America's most popular rifle

The Instagram tag #ar15 has over 1.7 million posts, with updates by the minute

www.nbcnews.com

 

[westwall]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun has ALWAYS been the weapon of choice for criminals.

Stop trying to talk about a topic you clearly know nothing about.

Thank you for verifying that I am correct about the AR Cult being real. But the Sane have all but removed the cult. We don't have to ban the weapon, just regulate it enough that the Cult dies off. What a shock to your system.

That's funny. There are more AR owners now, over 10 million of us, than before you idiots started wanting to ban them.

You call us cultists, yet you are the one who is part of a very small, though very loud, group of fools trying to ban them.

That makes YOU the cult member, sweetie.

10 million? With just over 7 mil made total including the clones, that's a bit hard to come up with unless you are sharing your AR with your buddy for the count purposes. Let's take a look at the manufacturers of decent ARs. Colt stopped producing their Model 750 and only offers their mode 6920 to LE which is made on the same assembly line as their Model 604. Remington almost went broke because they put all the eggs in the AR basket. So you have your AR. And I can buy one from almost any pawn shop (clones not worth a damned) for around 399 in price. But most people that felt the undying need to buy an AR already has purchased them. Hence the problems with the 2 major AR manufactures with producing the ARs. If you own one of those two, enjoy them. While you may be able to purchase a Remington you can't buy another Colt which is the gold standard for stock units.

Your number is years out of date. There are five different makers whose quality is orders of magnitude better than Colt ever managed.

Yet again you display a colossal ignorance about the subject.

You are way the hell out of your league, dude. You are a little league player up against the majors.

 

[2aguy]

Hey...Daryl hunt........you were saying about the colorado AR-15 ban?

Now, a Colorado judge has tossed the AR-15 ban in the trash bin, along with the provision prohibiting ownership of magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. That’s the backdoor gun ban right there. It’s not just about the rifle. It’s about curbing constitutional gun rights by these magazine laws.

A host of firearms that aren’t AR-15 rifles have magazines with more than 10 rounds. This law would effectively ban them too.


We all see what you’re doing here, liberal America (via Free Beacon):

A judge struck down Boulder, Colorado's ban on the possession of AR-15s and magazines holding more than 10 rounds on Monday.
Colorado state judge Andrew Hartman ruled the city's gun ban violated the state's preemption law, which prevents localities from imposing gun regulations above and beyond state law. Judge Hartman's ruling declares the ordinance invalid and immediately bars the city from enforcing the ban.
"The Court has determined that only Colorado state (or federal) law can prohibit the possession, sale, and transfer of assault weapons and large capacity magazines," Hartman wrote in the ruling.
The ruling is the latest in a string of victories for gun advocates who have used state preemption laws to overturn strict local gun regulations. A Washington court struck down a local ordinance on gun storage in February 2021, and a Pennsylvania court struck down Pittsburgh's attempt to regulate the use of AR-15s inside city limits in October 2019.
Jon Caldara, a longtime Boulder resident who openly flouted the AR-15 ban, said he was "thrilled" by the ruling. The former Denver Post columnist and Independence Institute president publicly announced he would not comply with the order to turn over his AR-15 or ammunition magazines when the ban was instituted in 2019. He filed a separate federal suit against the ordinance and said his family has received backlash from supporters ever since.
"I was probably the most publicly known criminal in Boulder," he told the Washington Free Beacon. "That made us social outcasts. And it was really bad. My daughter got bullied at school for our position."

Colorado Judge Takes a Katana to Boulder's AR-15 Ban

We touched on this back in 2018. Boulder, Colorado was pushing to ban owning AR-15 rifles. They’re c

townhall.com

I agree with the ruling since that was already established by the 9th Circuit Federal Court. But the State Law reads 15 as being the max. And that has been upheld in various courts.

And that is just dumb. Limiting bullets was simply a way to back door ban various types of pistols that take 15-19 rounds in their magazine. It was stupid and pointless.......

It's the law and has been upheld in Federal Courts.

No.....left wing judges on the federal courts have ignored the Supreme Court rullings on Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman....

Reread Heller V. It doesn't say what you claim it does and,so far, it's been the basis for all Gun Court rulings.

I have read heller and I know the left wing judges ignore it.....and then make up their own rulings.......

And in Scalia's Dissent in Friedman he specifically states that the AR-15 is protected under the 2nd Amendment......by name. And since he wrote the decision in Heller, his statement in Friedman explains the AR-15 is protected............

I did a search for Friedman V and came up with quite a bit but it's about economics. How about giving us the rest of the Friedman V title so we can research it.

Here.....

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


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.

Do you know what Dissenting means for the Courts? It means you lost your argument and it was ruled the other way.

Now for the real Ruling.
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/14-3091/14-3091-2015-04-27.html
That is ARIE S. FRIEDMAN, ET AL. v. CITY OFHIGHLAND PARK, ILLINOIS in it's entirety. Banning the AR style (and the ruling specifically uses "AR" in it's ruling along with high capacity mags has been upheld in many Court Rulings from the East Coast to the West Coast. Those that just say "Assault Rifles" never passes muster in the courts because that includes a lot of fine hunting rifles. But by putting in a phrase of "AR and it's clones" makes it dead legal. This ruling supported the other court rulings. And does NOT go against Heller or McDonald at all.

Yes......they court did not hear that case...but....Scalia wrote the opinion in Heller......the opinion that rules how the court should have ruled on hearing that case.....and he stated, as the Majority opinion writer in Heller, that AR-15 rifles are protected rifles, by name...this is not a minority opinion writer commenting, this is the man who wrote the opinion in Heller so whatever he writes after goes directly to the meaning of Heller...

It is completely against Heller and ignores what the Supreme Court has stated not only in Heller but Miller, Caetano, and Scalia in Friedman.....

There was no ruling in Heller about any long guns. Again, you quote the losing side. The Winning side in Heller just dealt with handguns and licensing for DC.

No...it didn't.....it stated...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Also.....Caetano v Massachusetts....Which came after Heller.....

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

------





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.

The Stun Gun was a bad decision and was overturned. As for Heller, here is the overview direct from Heller and NOT from the dissent which dissent is from the losing side. Here it is from the winning side.

64 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER Opinion of the Court In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgunownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating thatproblem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policychoices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what isnot debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is so ordered.

All the other crap you bring up is from the dissent which means nothing legally.

The Dissent from Scalia is in Friedman.......not Heller......

Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller, when the court refused to slap down the lower court by not taking the case, Scalia went on to explain Heller further.....stating that the AR-15 is protected....he wrote the opinion in Heller so it isn't a just a dissent.....the dissent was against them not doing their job and taking the case....his explanation in the Dissent is completely relevant to what he stated in Heller....

And Heller isn't just about handguns........

Scalia stated in Heller....

the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You don't know what you are talking about.....that, right there, states that all bearable arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment under the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.....It also confirms the ruling in Miller....and just after Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that "Dangerous and Unusual" can't be used to ban guns.......using the case of stun guns as a way to define dangerous and unusual and those terms effect on Second Amendment law...

Show me the quote where Scalia specifically said that the AR was protected. I mean the whole paragraph. Your Red statement doesn't make sense until they overturn the 1934 NFA law.

an AR15 is a basic commonplace small caliber semiautomatic rifle and small caliber semiautomatic rifles have been on the civilian market for over 100 years.

The question is why do you think it needs to be banned?

And exactly where did I EVER say that they should be banned? What I stated is, they need to be regulated. Such as mag capacity. I agree with the courts in that 10 is too few and 15 is just enough. This breaks the cult status. And when that happened, the handgun once again became the weapon of choice. It also limited the body count. We may not be able to stop or even slow down the number of gun crimes but we can limit the body counts of those crimes.

The handgun was always the weapon of choice until anti-gun extremists began promoting the regular semi-automatic rifle, the AR-15 as a killing machine.......

They did this for a very specific reason, and you are that reason.

They know that they can lie to uninformed Americans and say that the AR-15 rifle is exceptionally dangerous....and this is a lie...it is no different from any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun...

They understand that if they can get uninformed, and gullible Americans to sign on to allowing them to ban the AR-15, they can later come back and tell those same people that all the other semi-auto rifles, pistols and shotguns operate the same way, are actually used by the military (versus the AR-15 that is not a military weapon) and therfore they must be allowed to ban those other guns too....

Magazine capacity is a trojan horse......and you are buying into the lie.

The Egg came before the Chicken, if you didn't already know. When the record holders all used one specific weapon then maybe we all need to do a rethink. Well, most did and the Cult got broken and the new record will stand for a very long time if we have our way. And it's not done by Banning the weapon itself. It's done by regulating the weapon. I don't hold much with the banners and the total get rid of regulations of both sides. I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.

Sorry, you do not know what you are talking about...........even if you had your wish and a stupid magazine ban was in place, where 10 rounds was the max.....not one mass public shooting that has happened would have been made less severe from that action........and the anti-gunners know this which is why they will be back later to call for a ban on 10 round magazines and semi-automatic rifles as well.....

I think you are both a bunch of complete nutz.

And since you keep insulting normal gun owners, you have crossed the line....I have been polite, and approached this as I always do until you anti-gun assholes start throwing out insults....

So, shithead.......you are nothing more than a useful idiot for the anti-gun extremists....you are allowing them to lie to your face, and you are pushing the lie...

Thank you for verifying what I said about both sides being Nutz. I'll list you as batshit crazy and let it go with that. And the rest of us will continue addressing the problems by regulations.

And there you are....I post pages and pages of facts, truth and reality, and you can't debate those facts...so you start name calling...

so right back at you, you dumb asshat....