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

[Flash]

This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.

 

[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.

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.

No... none of Miller was thrown out...please....show us in Heller where parts of miller were thrown out....

 

[Flash]

Explain yourself and why you would need an assault weapon.

The "need" is perfectly explained in the Constitution: "Being neccessary for the security of a free state". I shit you not. Go look it up if you don't believe me.

 

[2aguy]

This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.

Don't count on it.......so far kavanaugh and barrett haven't shown a lot of freaking courage....

 

[Flash]

This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.

Don't count on it.......so far kavanaugh and barrett haven't shown a lot of freaking courage....

I agree. We can't count on the Judicial branch to protect our Liberties any more than we can count on the Legislative or Executive branches.

My statement was more along the lines of hoping that they would do the right thing and rule favorably on Strict Scrutiny.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This will probably force the Supreme Court to finally rule on Strict Scrutiny for the Second and that will put an end to all this anti gun bullshit the Communist states have been getting away with.

If that happens, they will simply bring in commie judges to pack the court to rule against the people and Constitution.

I hate to say it, but what we may be experiencing is the end of the Great Experiment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

HEY YOU!!!! What did you do with the real Clayton????

 

[woodwork201]

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.

15 is the max? Shit... I'll need 15 more before I can move to Colorado...

I'll need 5000 more before I can move to Colorado. Why limit yourself to 30? I don't own anything over 30 but that doesn't mean I'd accept a ban of anything larger.

 

[Lysistrata]

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?

 

[Lysistrata]

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.....

What is it that you people actually want? I am of the generation where we had guns and shot them at targets. But this gun-crazy thing is very strange. Who do you people want to shoot at? I don't trust you people because you are paranoids with mental problems.

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

Americans owning guns isn't a problem or a concern....the democrat party constantly releasing violent gun criminals, captured committing gun crimes, and gun murder, is what drives our gun crime problem in democrat party controlled cities...

You should ask the democrats why they keep releasing these violent gun criminals...the ones actually doing all of the shooting.

You seem to have a political problem between the Democratic and Republican parties. Perhaps also a racial problem. Who is releasing violent criminals? I'm not into your fantasy. I've never experienced a home invasion. The worst shit that I have ever experienced here in the US was not based on my race or religion or ethnic background. It was based on my gender.

 

[Blues Man]

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?

you're a ******* moron if you think a .22 pistol is a good weapon for self defense.

FYI an Ar 15 is not a high powered weapon. In fact it shoots what is a .22 caliber bullet.

And before you assume anything about what guns I own , I do not own an AR 15.

You don't know shit about the reasons a person carries a gun.

read post 100 and learn something

 

[Blues Man]

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.....

What is it that you people actually want? I am of the generation where we had guns and shot them at targets. But this gun-crazy thing is very strange. Who do you people want to shoot at? I don't trust you people because you are paranoids with mental problems.

Moron.....as more Americans own and carry guns our gun murder rate went down 49%, our gun crime rate went down 75%....our violent crime rate went down 72%.....

Americans owning guns isn't a problem or a concern....the democrat party constantly releasing violent gun criminals, captured committing gun crimes, and gun murder, is what drives our gun crime problem in democrat party controlled cities...

You should ask the democrats why they keep releasing these violent gun criminals...the ones actually doing all of the shooting.

You seem to have a political problem between the Democratic and Republican parties. Perhaps also a racial problem. Who is releasing violent criminals? I'm not into your fantasy. I've never experienced a home invasion. The worst shit that I have ever experienced here in the US was not based on my race or religion or ethnic background. It was based on my gender.

you have never experienced a violent crime so you're convinced that no one else has .

You're so naive you border on being mentally retarded

 

[freyasman]

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.

BFYTW

 

[2aguy]

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?

What threat to the rest of society? Of the 10,235 gun murders in the U.S. 70-80% of the victims were criminal thugs involved in crime. Of the 2,000 remaining victims, the majority of those victims are friends and family of criminals caught up in the crossfire of the actual criminals they know.

A country of over 320 million people with about 2,000 innocent people murdered by criminals with guns..........concentrated in democrat party controlled cities, murdered by criminals released by democrat party judges, prosecutors and politicians....criminals, who are released over and over again no matter how many times they are arrested on gun charges.....they are the ones doing the shooting....career criminals with long histories of crime and violence, released by the democrat party to commit more gun crimes.


Meanwhile....doofus......Americans own over 600 million guns and over 19.4 million Americans can carry guns in public for self defense.....

What has that caused....what threat to the rest of society?

Over the last 27 years, before the democrat party went to war against the police,

Gun murder down 49%

Gun crime down 75%

Violent crime down 72%


So no, gun owners do not pose a threat to society. As usual...the democrat party and their policies are the threat to society. The criminals the democrat party keeps releasing from jail and prison are the ones doing 95% of all the gun crime....and the democrat party keeps letting them out......

Over the last 27 years, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[westwall]

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?

There is no threat to you.

 

[freyasman]

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

It's not possible to explain things like "freedom" to someone like you. You lack the necessary intellect and character to ever understand.

 

[freyasman]

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.

Superiority of firepower. At least parody of firepower. That's why. That's more explanation than you're entitled to.

Why do you need such "firepower"? I am entitled to an explanation because I live in this country and guns are designed to be pointed at other people.

No, you're not entitled to a damn thing actually.

 

[freyasman]

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.

It's really not so much about need as it is want. In a free country, you should be able to buy yourself toys even if you have no "need" for them.

More importantly, Democrats have used increments to get their way to their ultimate goal. I remember when gays only wanted to be out of the closet. Look at them today. I remember when they only wanted to outlaw cigarettes in movie theaters. Today you can't smoke outside in some commie cities unless it's pot. I remember when all they wanted was to take lead out of gasoline. Today we have 30 different blends of gasoline.

It's like the great late Rush Limbaugh said so many times: I know liberals like I know every square inch of my glorious naked body.

That being said, there is nobody that will convince me they are going to stop at AR's, AKs, anything. Because liberals have a history of using increments. We all know they won't be happy, or quit pushing until it's nearly impossible for law abiding citizens to be armed. If you look at their bills, they are trying to do it right now.

You sound dangerous; very paranoid. Gays and smoking and something about communism. Wow. We simply have two major political parties in this country, and you claim that one of them is restricting your rights, but both parties do that. Who are you going to shoot at? Who is harming you? Who are you afraid of? You are not rational.

BTW: as a white heterosexual woman raised Christian in the Jersey suburbs who has lived and gone to school in Washington, D.C., I have to say that the worst shit I've ever gotten has been from white men and was based on gender. I don't carry a gun and I never shot anyone. I've known many LGBTQs. They never did a damned thing to me. Many helped me when I needed it. Friends. And folks of African descent. Same-same. Good neighbors who help.

I went to law school at night after work in DC, so I rode the rails. My significant other gave me a derringer. It never got out of its box because I don't do that stuff.

You need any more cats by chance? My mom's just had a litter a couple weeks ago.

You sound like a lady with a lot of them........ and not much else.

 

[freyasman]

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.

Translation = "Waahhhh!!!"

 

[freyasman]

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

I hate to see a short eyes get freed, but protecting our liberty is more important.

Someone can always slit his throat later.