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

[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.

You still refuse to look at the US v Miller decision which renders your arguments irrelevant.

US v Miller was mentioned in Heller V and some of it was thrown out during the dissertation. Yes, the dissent went on and on about it but the dissertation is what counts. The rulings since have referred to Heller V and not Miller V.

 

[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.

You still refuse to look at the US v Miller decision which renders your arguments irrelevant.

US v Miller was mentioned in Heller V and some of it was thrown out during the dissertation. Yes, the dissent went on and on about it but the dissertation is what counts. The rulings since have referred to Heller V and not Miller V.

The underlying ruling of Miller was ONLY WEAPONS USEFUL FOR A MILITARY PURPOSE ARE COVERED BY THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And that has been upheld in various courts.

It's unconstitutional. But who cares about the constitution, right? Individual rights don't serve the interests of the party and the party comes first, right?

Really? Great.

What Amendment is violated in requiring people to decrypt hard drives or phones?

Man who refused to decrypt hard drives is free after four years in jail

Court holds that jail time to force decryption can't last more than 18 months.

arstechnica.com

5th.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

It is a semi-automatic rifle just like any other semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun....if you can ban it because of the way it shoots, then you can ban every other semi-automatic rifle, pistol and shotgun.......which is the whole strategy behind going after the AR-15.

The AR-15 kills fewer people each year than knives, clubs and bare hands.......so your reason why it is more dangerous than other weapons is just silly. The AR-15 is nothing more than a standard civilian rifle...it is not used by the military.....but the pump action shotgun and deer hunting rifle are actual, current, military weapons .........which is why the anti-gun extremists say weapons of war now....so they can later ban those guns too.

But it's the leader in Mass Shootings because that is exactly what every part was made to do. In every other type of shooting (short of war), the AR-15 doesn't place even a distant 4th in the ratings. Even cheaper conventional Semi-Autos score higher. But for mass shootings, it does take the #1 slot hands down.

No, it isn't. More handguns are used in mass public shootings than rifles. The AR-15 was made popular for mass shootings by the anti-gunners. And again, each year, knives, clubs and bare hands are used to murder more people than AR-15 rifles....

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



Knives...1,476

Clubs....397

Bare hands....600

Rifles...364

Funny, you use totals instead of the number of people killed at each shooting. It's a lot tougher to get a death rate of over 50 with a casualty rate of between 200 and 400 out of a knife, club, bare hands or even a handgun.

Yeah.....and only one mass shooting achieved over 50........that was 61 people... because he used a rifle at long distance, firing into an unaware, tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night.........

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France using a rental truck and 5 minutes of driving murdered 86 and wounded 435......

The vegas shooter had a private pilots license...he could have killed more people had he rented a plane and flown into the crowd....

The weapon does not determine how many people will be killed......the major factor in mass public shootings is the target location....and add to that the gun free zone status of the location..

The shooting stops when the good guys with guns get there...

Just for the record...

Sandy Hook... AR-15....27 killed, 2 injured.

Colorado theater, AR-15 which malfunctioned followed by a shotgun and pistol...12 killed...70 wounded.....and his AR-15 malfunctioned

Holmes reportedly threw two canisters emitting a gas or smoke, that partially obscured the audience members' vision, made their throats and skin itch, and caused eye irritation.[16] He fired a 12-gauge Remington 870 Express Tactical shotgun, first at the ceiling and then at the audience.

He also fired a Smith & Wesson M&P15[17] semi-automatic rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, which eventually malfunctioned.[17][18][19]

Finally, he fired a .40-caliber Glock 22 Gen4 handgun.[20][21]

Meanwhile......pistols have killed more people....

Virgini Tech shooting, 2 pistols...... 32 killed, 23 wounded


Luby's Cafe....2 pistols....24 killed.. 27 injured...

Kerch, Russia, Polytech school shooting....5 shot, pump action shotgun....20 killed, 70 wounded.

So, mass public shootings do not depend on long range shooting. You have one, the Vegas Shooting, vs all the rest.......

At the ranges a mass public shooting occurs, the attacker could kill as many people or more with pistols or shotguns.....a rifle does not give them an advantage.

The Desire to ban the AR-15 rifle by anti-gun extremists has nothing to do with mass public shooting, as the facts show.....they just know if they can get uninformed or gullible people to allow them to ban the AR-15 rifle, a civilian rifle, a semi-automatic rifle no different in operation from a semi-auto pistol, or shotgun........then they can come back and demand banning semi-auto pistols and shotguns too.....because they all operate the same way.

And don't forget the gallon of gasoline in New York that murdered over 70.

Thank the gods that the asshole in Vegas used a gun. If he'd have done a Nice France type attack, he would have probably killed over 1000. They were literally packed in like fish in a barrel.

Or a Cessna full of gasoline.

 

[JoeB131]

Used a pistol. Doesn't further your argument so you neglect to mention the weapon used.

Typical moronic Joe B post.

You're disappointed he couldn't kill more people? Gun nuts are weird.

Yeah.....and only one mass shooting achieved over 50........that was 61 people... because he used a rifle at long distance, firing into an unaware, tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night.........

You can always tell when there's been a mass shooting, because 2AGuy (AKA Dick Tiny) gets out there and spooges the threads with "Gun violence isn't that bad".

This guy had no problem walking into a store, buying a gun and then proceeding to murder 8 people.

 

[westwall]

Used a pistol. Doesn't further your argument so you neglect to mention the weapon used.

Typical moronic Joe B post.

You're disappointed he couldn't kill more people? Gun nuts are weird.

Yeah.....and only one mass shooting achieved over 50........that was 61 people... because he used a rifle at long distance, firing into an unaware, tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night.........

You can always tell when there's been a mass shooting, because 2AGuy (AKA Dick Tiny) gets out there and spooges the threads with "Gun violence isn't that bad".

This guy had no problem walking into a store, buying a gun and then proceeding to murder 8 people.

No, I am pissed that ignorant *****, like you, mandate people be victims. Bad people do bad things. Assholes, like you, demand their victims have no chance.

YOU, are fucked in the head.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You can always tell when there's been a mass shooting, because 2AGuy (AKA Dick Tiny) gets out there and spooges the threads with "Gun violence isn't that bad".

This guy had no problem walking into a store, buying a gun and then proceeding to murder 8 people.

Should he have had a problem? If so, what problem?

 

[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.

 

[daveman]

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

The AR-15 is not high powered....the 5.56 or .22 version of the rifle is weaker than the deer hunting rifle people use every fall....you have no idea what you are talking about or the issues involved........you talk out of your ass and ask questions that reveal your ignorance.....

It's the little one on the right.

 

[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.

 

[daveman]

The Desire to ban the AR-15 rifle by anti-gun extremists has nothing to do with mass public shooting, as the facts show.....they just know if they can get uninformed or gullible people to allow them to ban the AR-15 rifle, a civilian rifle, a semi-automatic rifle no different in operation from a semi-auto pistol, or shotgun........then they can come back and demand banning semi-auto pistols and shotguns too.....because they all operate the same way.

Leftists don't give a shit about the safety of gun crime victims.

They want people unarmed and unable to resist their tyranny.

Because armed people don't get on the boxcars.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

And that has been upheld in various courts.

It's unconstitutional. But who cares about the constitution, right? Individual rights don't serve the interests of the party and the party comes first, right?

He sure doesn’t that’s for sure.

 

[daveman]

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

The AR-15 is not high powered....the 5.56 or .22 version of the rifle is weaker than the deer hunting rifle people use every fall....you have no idea what you are talking about or the issues involved........you talk out of your ass and ask questions that reveal your ignorance.....

It's not a matter of this gun or that gun. Why are you people doing this? I'm trying to find out what you folks are so afraid of. So many Americans, like me, are not afraid to live each day in these United States. You are. What gives? What's your neighborhood like? I live in one in northern Virginia in which I can find people from every nation in the world, but there are no problems, and the food is really good.

So......crime doesn't exist in the U.S.? Anywhere? People are not killed....ever? Raped.....ever? Robbed....ever?

Wow........didn't know that.

Where do live that you fear so much? Who is getting into your house??? Do you have to spray bullets all over the place? Should every household in the US have the capacity to spray bullets? Really. What is your fear?

If gun owners were as violent as your programming says they are, there wouldn't be any anti-gun people.

 

[daveman]

Used a pistol. Doesn't further your argument so you neglect to mention the weapon used.

Typical moronic Joe B post.

You're disappointed he couldn't kill more people? Gun nuts are weird.

Yeah.....and only one mass shooting achieved over 50........that was 61 people... because he used a rifle at long distance, firing into an unaware, tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, at night.........

You can always tell when there's been a mass shooting, because 2AGuy (AKA Dick Tiny) gets out there and spooges the threads with "Gun violence isn't that bad".

This guy had no problem walking into a store, buying a gun and then proceeding to murder 8 people.

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.

****. That. Shit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

****. That. Shit.

What they really want is us being helpless against their criminal element so we are always at a disadvantage. They want to see the entire country look like Portland where people have few gun rights and the government looks out more for the criminals than law abiding citizens. They get great joy when they see five of these lowlifes beat a single conservative person to the ground and him being unable to defend himself.

You'd never see that in my state because our laws give us the right to fill them full of holes and ship them home in boxes where they rightfully belong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

The thread premise is a lie – AR 15s are not banned in Colorado, at issue is an ordinance in the City of Boulder only.

Moreover, the issue addressed by the court had nothing to do with the regulation of AR 15s or LCMs per se; rather, the issue was that the City’s ordinance conflicts with State law prohibiting jurisdictions from regulating firearms:

“…the legislature clearly and unequivocally stated its intent to prohibit local governments from exercising their authority to regulate lawful firearms.”

https://dl.airtable.com/.attachments/3620eb35746c9c1b7ae66392bdde057d/14e14ef3/ChambersvBoulderOrderonMSJ.pdf

The cited source in the OP in intentionally dishonest and misleading, typical of rightwing misinformation media.

And the OP is just as dishonest.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

But that’s not the issue.

The issue is the enactment of bad laws, government excess and overreach, and firearm regulatory measures that are likely un-Constitutional – laws banning assault weapons are an example of such bad laws.

The problem of gun violence in America has little to do with the availability or possession of certain types of firearms; the problem is far too complex to be solved with ‘bans,’ where AWBs serve only to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[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...

 

[2aguy]

I just want to say to all you people who ask "What are you so afraid of that you need to own a gun?"

Have any of you people been the victim of a violent crime?

I have been the victim of a violent crime. A crime that included a vicious beating by 3 piece of shit thugs. That assault left me with a grade 4 concussion, a fractured eye orbital and some permanent vision impairment in my left eye, 3 broken ribs and a ruptured spleen. I was left bleeding on the sidewalk in the middle of winter after those 3 shit stains robbed me and took my winter coat and even my ******* boots.

I regained consciousness about an hour or so later still on the ground which resulted in a mild case of hypothermia. I hobbled my way to a hospital 6 blocks away bloody and gasping in pain and watched 2 cruisers pass me by as well as at least half a dozen other cars.

So you're ******* right I carry a gun because no ************ is ever going to do that to me again and I cannot count on the ******* cops or anyone else to render aid.

So just because you may not have ever been the victim of a violent crime don't be so ******* naive to think that there isn't real violence in this world. Just be thankful you haven't experienced it and keep your judgments about other people to yourselves.

Sorry...did. not. happen........ joe and lystrata state that there is no crime in the U.S. since no one they know has ever been a victim of crime......those stories of rape, robbery and murder you see on the news are simply fake news......

 

[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.