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

[Vrenn]

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.

No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. 25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start. All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another. 10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.

This is what we need to do. But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.

There is oonly a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun. And that is what "Regulation" is all about.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.

I see you haven't yet come to terms with your inability to dictate what people need and what they don't.

I wonder if he thinks people shouldn't be allowed to buy cars that go above sixty five mph or have a range of one hundred miles. After all no one need fast or long ranged cars, they can take mass transport for long distances and airplanes for high speeds trips.

 

[freyasman]

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.

No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. 25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start. All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another. 10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.

This is what we need to do. But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.

There is oonly a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun. And that is what "Regulation" is all about.

Nah..... you're just full of shit.



**** off.

 

[westwall]

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.

No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. 25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start. All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another. 10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.

This is what we need to do. But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.

There is oonly a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun. And that is what "Regulation" is all about.

Good gosh you are full of shit. There is an enormous gulf between a good guy with a gun, and a criminal. If there weren't all of you idiots would have been killed long ago, along with all the other Americans out there.

There are more guns than people, you moronic twit. Guns aren't the problem. Never have been. It's evil people who are constantly allowed out of prison to prey on defenseless people.

Do you not find it weird that gangbangers regularly do less than 5 years in prison for murdering people?

If you really wanted to reduce crime you would address that fact.

But you don't because you don't give a shit about reducing crime. It's all about power with you fascists.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

Actually, the 5.56mm round wasn't designed to kill people, it was designed to INJURE them. If you kill a soldier on the battlefield, you take one person out of the force equation, if you wound one person, you take at least three people (the injured person plus at least two people caring for him) out of the force equation. If you want a round designed to kill people, look no further than the .45 ACP shot by the M1911 pistol. It was specifically designed for one shot stopping power by the US Army when the then standard .38 round took multiple hits to stop charging Morro guerillas.

 

[2aguy]

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.

No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. 25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start. All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another. 10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.

This is what we need to do. But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.

Yep.....targeting actual criminals and keeping them off of the street instead of releasing the most violent gun criminals over and over again so they can keep stealing guns and shooting people.

 

[2aguy]

Randy weaver was a mountain top yahoo, who was no threat to anyone. The fbi tried to get him to spy on someone they wanted to build a case on, and when he refused they went after him.

They framed him for a petty crime and used that as an excuse to spy on him, and when they got caught, the agent shot weavers kid, and dog.

Then, good old lon horiuchi, of sicherheistdienst fame, murdered weavers wife while she was holding a baby.

You left out the part where his Nazi ass shot a Federal Marshall executing a valid arrest warrant.

Or that Weaver's Nazi buddies were shooting at the FBI when Lon shot his Nazi old lady.

Koresh was a loon who previously had turned himself in when charged with a crime. The ATF though needed to justify the existence of their SWAT team so decided to raid the community.

There were 25+children incinerated in that fire. Completely innocent children. You bleat about the DACA kids but turn your blind eye to those kids because you are a sociopath.

There were THREE investigations of the Waco fire, one of them led by John Danforth, a respected Republican Senator, and ALL THREE of them concluded the Davidians set themselves on fire and committed mass suicide.

Koresh had 53 days to turn himself in. He picked mass suicide and took all those kids with him.

Yes, I feel bad those kids weren't rescued when it was determined Koresh was ******* them.

Shit head....it was well known that koresh walked into town every week to get icecream and could have been picked up at anytime, alone and unarmed.....the ATF wanted a big operation to justify their budget and to get an increase....they caused the deaths of those children.

 

[daveman]

I've got a lot of feedback, but no explanation of why anyone needs high-powered weaponry.

You have yet to explain why you need to know.

Because of the threat posed to me and the whole rest of society. The people who are behind this gun-love movement seem to be mentally ill. We don't know when one of them will open fire. I don't want them in my community. We have always permitted guns. I grew up with them in the house. If someone unwelcome comes in, a .22 pistol will take care of the problem. These insaniacs want to spray bullets. We have had too many mass shootings. Why continue?

99.9999%+ of legal gun owners didn't shoot anyone yesterday. They didn't last week. They won't next week.

It's not legal gun owners you need to worry about, although I know that's what your programming says.

 

[2aguy]

Bullshit, as usual. Civilians kill bad guys at twice the rate that cops do.

Actually, they don't. According to the FBI's own figures, only 200 gun homicides by civilians are ruled as "Justified" self defense.

US Cops shoot 1000 people every year. Most of those are ruled Justified, for what that is worth.

Dumb ass......I know you want to hide the truth and the fact that the majority criminals are not idiots and when faced with a normal American who has a gun and points it at them, they run away.....rather than get shot. About 235 of the dumbest criminals press the attack and get killed....the rest run away, surrender or just get wounded not killed.

As you know, the Centers for Disease Control researched defensive gun use and found that normal Americans use their legal guns 1.1 million times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murder....the Department of Justice research showed 1.5 million times a year.......

 

[daveman]

You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.

You just want an all-powerful government wielding guns against people you don't like.

And that's why you oppose civilian ownership of firearms. You want people helpless against your government.

Uh, no, guy. I don't live in a delusion that owning a gun protects me from an "evil" government. The government has tanks, drones, bombers, missiles, nukes, warships, etc. There's just not a whole lot I'm going to do with a gun if the government breaks bad.

If the government comes after you, a gun isn't going to make that much of a difference, and most of your neighbors will be cheering for the government, not you.

Yes, we know you slavishly support an all-powerful government.

My neighbors don't. Americans don't.

You wannabe Soviet subjects do, though.

 

[2aguy]

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 CDC Could Totally Study Gun Violence—It Just Needs Money

Congress clarified last year that the CDC can use its budget for gun research, after decades of effectively banning it. But Democrats are still fighting to get actual funding approved.

www.wired.com

For all the obsession that Americans have with guns, the country has awful little scientific data to show for it. In 1996, Congress passed a law with a provision known as the Dickey Amendment that effectively prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using its life-saving budget to study gun violence. As a result, for decades the US has not thrown its full resources at the problem the way it has with, say, tobacco or car crashes.

After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, last year, and the wave of activism that followed, Congress clarified that the CDC could, in fact, use funds to study gun violence. It just didn’t earmark any additional money for that purpose. Months later, Democrats regained the majority in the House. They’ve been using that status to fight to get $50 million explicitly earmarked for studying the underpinnings of America’s gun violence

And you lie....again...the Dickie Amendment did not prevent gun research by the CDC, it prevented them from pushing gun control......you have been shown this over and over again, and I have listed actual gun research by the CDC that happened after the Amendment...you lying shitbag.

This is some gun research from the CEC in 2006....

Violence-Related Firearm Deaths Among Residents of Metropolitan Areas and Cities --- United States, 2006--2007

And this one....2003

Source of Firearms Used by Students in School-Associated Violent Deaths --- United States, 1992--1999

And this one....

http://www.thecommunityguide.org/violence/viol-AJPM-evrev-firearms-law.pdf

And this one....2001

Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries --- United States, 1993--1998

And this one....2013

Firearm Homicides and Suicides in Major Metropolitan Areas — United States, 2006–2007 and 2009–2010

And this one...2014

Indoor Firing Ranges and Elevated Blood Lead Levels — United States, 2002–2013

And this one....

Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries


==================

The Deleware study of 2015...

When Gun Violence Felt Like a Disease, a City in Delaware Turned to the C.D.C. (Published 2015)

When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.

They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------

The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
“The majority of individuals involved in urban firearm violence are young men with substantial violence involvement preceding the more serious offense of a firearm crime,” the report said. “Our findings suggest that integrating data systems could help these individuals better receive the early, comprehensive help that they need to prevent violence involvement.”
Researchers analyzed data on 569 people charged with firearm crimes from 2009 to May 21, 2014, and looked for certain risk factors in their lives, such as whether they had been unemployed, had received help from assistance programs, had been possible victims of child abuse, or had been shot or stabbed. The idea was to show that linking such data could create a better understanding of who might need help before becoming involved in violence.


------------------
Why Congress stopped gun control activism at the CDC

I was one of three medical doctors who testified before the House’s Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee on March 6, 1996 about the CDC’s misdeeds. (Note: This testimony and related events are described in my three-part documented historical series). Here is what we showed the committee:

• Dr. Arthur Kellermann’s1993 New England Journal of Medicine article that launched his career as a rock star gun control advocate and gave rise to the much-repeated “three times” fallacy. His research was supported by two CDC grants.

Kellermann and his colleagues used the case control method, traditionally an epidemiology research tool, to claim that having a gun in the home triples the risk of becoming a homicide victim. In the article Kellermann admitted that “a majority of the homicides (50.9 percent) occurred in the context of a quarrel or a romantic triangle.” Still another 30 percent “were related to drug dealing” or “occurred during the commission of another felony, such as a robbery, rape, or burglary.”

In summary, the CDC funded a flawed study of crime-prone inner city residents who had been murdered in their homes. The authors then tried to equate this wildly unrepresentative group with typical American gun owners. The committee members were not amused.

• The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, coauthored by CDC official Dr. Mark Rosenberg. This taxpayer-funded gun control polemic offered two strategies for preventing firearm injuries—“restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.”
• The brazen public comments of top CDC officials, made at a time when gun prohibitionists were much more candid about their political goals.

“We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.

But his successor Dr. Mark Rosenberg was quoted in the Washington Post as wanting his agency to create a public perception of firearms as “dirty, deadly—and banned.” (William Raspberry, “Sick People With Guns,” Washington Post, October 19, 1994.
=========

Did ‘Gun Violence’ Researcher Just Expose Gun Control ‘Myth?’ - Liberty Park Press

The article recalls how then-Congressman Jay Dickey sponsored the “Dickey Amendment” in 1996. This was an amendment that cut funding for gun research; at least, that’s what anti-gunners have intimated. But the article notes the amendment actually instructed, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.” (Emphasis added.)
------
But Wintemute is quoted in the Discover article explaining, “The language did not ban research; it banned advocacy or promotion for gun control.”

Translation: Public funding could not be used to promote gun control legislation. You cannot use the public’s money to advocate for restrictions on a constitutionally-protected fundamental right exercised by more than 100 million taxpayers whose taxes provided the funds.

 

[2aguy]

On Biden's own website he stated part of his gun plan was to lift the liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers. That would effectively allow commie cities and individuals to sue them all out of business.

Or they can do something as breathtakingly rational as actually check out the people they sell guns to.

Also in his plans were a law that prohibits gun, gun parts or ammo sales over the internet.

Again, great idea! We should make sure who we are selling guns to.

Moron........the Pulse Nightclub shooter had a complete background check for his job as a security agent. He had background checks for each and every gun that he bought. He was also called into the FBI as a possible terrorist by a co-worker.....the FBI did a complete background check and history on him, they interviewed him 3 separate times and also did an undercover approach against him...

He passed all of it because mass public shooters only become actual criminals when they do the mass public shooting......you idiot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

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 CDC Could Totally Study Gun Violence—It Just Needs Money

Congress clarified last year that the CDC can use its budget for gun research, after decades of effectively banning it. But Democrats are still fighting to get actual funding approved.

www.wired.com

For all the obsession that Americans have with guns, the country has awful little scientific data to show for it. In 1996, Congress passed a law with a provision known as the Dickey Amendment that effectively prohibited the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from using its life-saving budget to study gun violence. As a result, for decades the US has not thrown its full resources at the problem the way it has with, say, tobacco or car crashes.

After the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, last year, and the wave of activism that followed, Congress clarified that the CDC could, in fact, use funds to study gun violence. It just didn’t earmark any additional money for that purpose. Months later, Democrats regained the majority in the House. They’ve been using that status to fight to get $50 million explicitly earmarked for studying the underpinnings of America’s gun violence

What part of Centers for DISEASE CONTROL don't you understand? Gun violence, let alone gun ownership isn't a DISEASE, so the CDC shouldn't be using it's limited budget to study it. If any Federal agency should study it , that agency should the THE BATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and FIREARMS.

 

[daveman]

Please explain why this is so important to you to have an AR-15. We had guns in the house in leather locked bags and we shot them. I even pulled the trigger when my father sighted. He taught me to never pull a gun on any living being. I violated this teaching once, in Castroville, Texas, when I was 12 and practicing with my aunt's pistol. I shot at a spider on the back of the garage.

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The AR-15 is not an "Assault" weapon, it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.....so your premise is a lie from the start.

The AR-15 is a great civilian and police rifle, easy to clean and maintain, it can be equipped with accessories that help people shoot it, from lasers to lights, it is customizable for different sized people, including the ability for different sized people in the same home to use it easily with adjustable stocks. It is easy to shoot for smaller people, unlike 12 gauge shot guns, it is lightweight which makes it good for home defense where you might have to hold it one handed while calling the police on your phone.............

The AR-15 is a really good rifle for civilians...for all of those reasons....and it is nothing more than a regular rifle....

The only reason you shitheads are demonizing the outside look of this rifle is that you figure if you can ban the AR-15, which is just a semi-automatic rifle no different from any other semi-automatic rifle.....that then gives you the ability to go to uninformed people and say......"See....you let us ban this rifle because we made you think it was different and more dangerous.......all the other semi-automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns work the exact same way, so now we are going to ban those too...and you can't say anything since you let us ban the AR-15 which is the same as those other weapons."

We know who you are, we know what you want.........and we are going to fight you every step of the way.

Fine. Fight it through legislation the way it should be done in the first place. But the problem with the AR was that it reached cult status and no mass shooter, today, leaves home dressed any other way. It just wouldn't be proper.

And the AR is still a Model 6XX no matter how you spell it. You can call it the Colt Model 6920 or the Colt Model 750 (out of production) or you can piece on together from after market parts. In the end, it's still part of the Colt Model 6XX Family. It's not designed with hunting for food. It's was designed from the ground up to kill other humans. Not one part has any other use. And there is no way you can give it the drop dead looks of a fine Hunting Rifle.

So your opposition is IT LOOKS SCARY.

Run along, Fudd.

No. You are just using the same tired rhetoric that you have used over and over and have failed with. The fact still remains that not one ounce of the AR was designed for anything other than to kill people as quickly and efficiently as possible in inexperienced hands.

You can kill people with a .22 Derringer. You can kill people with a Barrett .50 sniper rifle.

News flash: You can kill people with any firearm, including the hunting rifles you seem to not realize are firearms.

Homework: Tell me the differences between an AR-15 and the popular Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle.

 

[2aguy]

On Biden's own website he stated part of his gun plan was to lift the liability protection for gun manufacturers and sellers. That would effectively allow commie cities and individuals to sue them all out of business.

Or they can do something as breathtakingly rational as actually check out the people they sell guns to.

Also in his plans were a law that prohibits gun, gun parts or ammo sales over the internet.

Again, great idea! We should make sure who we are selling guns to.

They have been doing that for years. The Parkland shooter was well known to law enforcement. Had they bothered to arrest him for just one of the many felonies we know he had committed prior to his rampage, he would have not been able to do his terrible deed.

And assholes, like you, support not arresting assholes like him.

It was obama's "Promise Policy," that kept law enforcement and the schools from arresting the Parkland shooter even though he committed several felonies on school grounds and had over 30 interactions with the local police........

 

[daveman]

That’s because no one ‘needs’ an AR 15; anyone who claims to ‘need’ one is a liar.

I see you haven't yet come to terms with your inability to dictate what people need and what they don't.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so, such as the Second Amendment right.

There is no ‘need’ to possess an AR 15, there is no ‘need’ to ‘justify’ possessing one; that there is a right to possess one is alone sufficient.

This is where conservatives get it wrong: they sound extreme, desperate, and ridiculous trying to ‘justify’ possessing an AR 15.

The possession of certain types of firearms isn’t jeopardized by ‘liberals’ or ‘gun-grabbers,’ it’s jeopardized by ham-fisted rightwing dullards who lack the rhetorical acumen to respond intelligently when asked why one ‘needs’ an AR 15.

Despite getting your first two points right, you go ahead and **** up the last half of your post.

So, in your world, if one can't justify ownership to a liberal's satisfaction, there is no legitimate need.

**** off with that dumbassery. You don't get a say in other people's lives.

 

[daveman]

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.

How is that going to happen when your proposed regulations will affect ONLY law-abiding gun owners?

What is the magic number of gun laws that will make criminals start obeying them?

 

[2aguy]

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.

The presence of an armed civilian certainly changes the plans of a bad guy, doesn't it? It's one of the reasons people like you who don't carry a firearm are safe. The criminal has no idea if you are armed or not.

And I promote CCW. With only a couple or three times, the CCW people have NOT been part of the problem. Meanwhile, the list of the unlicensed open carry problems goes on and on. It's called Regulation.

There is no problem with unlicensed open carry......there is a problem with criminals who use illegal guns, and those criminals are constantly caught by the police, then released by the democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians.......

You are again making fake arguments as either a useful idiot of anti-gun extremists or as a troll...

 

[daveman]

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 ister.

Randy weaver was a mountain top yahoo, who was no threat to anyone. The fbi tried to get him to spy on someone they wanted to build a case on, and when he refused they went after him.

They framed him for a petty crime and used that as an excuse to spy on him, and when they got caught, the agent shot weavers kid, and dog.

Then, good old lon horiuchi, of sicherheistdienst fame, murdered weavers wife while she was holding a baby.


Koresh was a loon who previously had turned himself in when charged with a crime. The ATF though needed to justify the existence of their SWAT team so decided to raid the community.

There were 25+children incinerated in that fire. Completely innocent children. You bleat about the DACA kids but turn your blind eye to those kids because you are a sociopath.

You should aquaint yourself of the facts before you shoot your mouth off.

Joe's a Soviet man. He supports government executing Thoughtcriminals.

 

[2aguy]

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.

No, what we really need to do is way up the penalties for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. 25 years minimum for armed robbery using a gun is a nice place to start. All premeditated murders using a gun an instant death penalty is another. 10 years minimum for felon carrying a concealed weapon.

This is what we need to do. But the Democrats are not going after the bad guys with a gun, they are going after the good guys with a gun instead.

There is oonly a fraction of a second between a law abiding citizen with a gun and a criminal with a gun. And that is what "Regulation" is all about.

again...troll.....you don't know what you are talking about.

There is not a fraction of a second between being law abiding and being a criminal simply because you have a gun.......that is another lie from the anti-gun extremists.....

The truth....

The Criminology of Firearms

In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications and some empirical research of its own about guns. The Academy could not identify any gun restriction that had reduced violent crime, suicide or gun accidents.

Why don't gun bans work? Because they rely on voluntary compliance by gun-using criminals. Prohibitionists never see this absurdity because they deceive themselves into thinking that, as Katherine Christoffel has said: "[M]ost shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for home protection."

Christoffel, et al., are utterly wrong. The whole corpus of criminological research dating back to the 1890'sshows murderers "almost uniformly have a long history of involvement in criminal behavior," and that "[v]irtually all" murderers and other gun criminals have prior felony records — generally long ones.

While only 15 percent of Americans have criminal records, roughly 90 percent of adult murderers have prior adult records — exclusive of their often extensive juvenile records — with crime careers of six or more adult years including four major felonies.

Gerald D. Robin, writing for the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences,notes that, unlike ordinary gun owners, "the average murderer turns out to be no less hardened a criminal than the average robber or burglar."
------
In the late 1970's the US Department of Justice (DOJ) funded and tasked the University of Massachusetts' Social and Demographic Research Institute to review and evaluate the entire extant literature on gun control in the US and elsewhere. The Institute's resulting report observed: "It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence, especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand, and, thus, that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally less available. There is no persuasive evidence that supports this view." (emphasis added)


That evaluation's authors — Professors James Wright, Peter Rossi and Kathleen Daly — subsequently published a commercial version of their report to which they added their personal recantation:

The progressive's indictment of American firearms policy is well known and is one that both the senior authors of this study once shared. This indictment includes the following particulars: (1) Guns are involved in an astonishing number of crimes in this country. (2) In other countries with stricter firearms laws and fewer guns in private hands, gun crime is rare ... (4) Many families acquire a gun because they feel the need to protect themselves; eventually, they end up shooting one another. (5) If there were fewer guns around, there would obviously be less crime ... The more deeply we explored the empirical implications of this indictment, the less plausible it has become. (emphasis, parentheses added)

========

http://www.haciendapublishing.com/m...art-ii-gun-violence-and-constitutional-issues

Another favorite view of the gun control, public health establishment is the myth propounded by Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former head of the NCIPC of the CDC, who has written: "Most of the perpetrators of violence are not criminals by trade or profession. Indeed, in the area of domestic violence, most of the perpetrators are never accused of any crime. The victims and perpetrators are ourselves --- ordinary citizens, students, professionals, and even public health workers."(6)

That statement is contradicted by available data, government data. The fact is that the typical murderer has had a prior criminal history of at least six years with four felony arrests in his record before he finally commits murder.



(17) The FBI statistics reveal that 75 percent of all violent crimes for any locality are committed by six percent of hardened criminals and repeat offenders.(18)



Less than 2 percent of crimes committed with firearms are carried out by licensed (e.g., concealed carry permit holders) law-abiding citizens.(11)

Violent crimes continue to be a problem in the inner cities with gangs involved in the drug trade. Crimes in rural areas for both blacks and whites, despite the preponderance of guns in this setting, remain low.(11,19)



Gun availability does not cause crime. Prohibitionist government policies and gun control (rather than crime control) exacerbates the problem by making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, their families, and their property. In fact, there was a modest increase in both homicide and suicide after prohibition and passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.(20)