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

[2aguy]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here.....

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


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


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

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


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


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

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

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

You are the one who seems to be afraid; why does freedom scare you so much?

I am not scared. I walk in the US free and not scared. What are you so scared of that you have to have a gun every time you step outside? What is your "freedom" thing about? Why do you feel so threated?

 

[Blues Man]

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.

Hey, fuckhead, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Bad people do bad things, but bad people without guns a less capable of doing bad things. That's the point. The rest of the ******* world has figured this out.

View attachment 469991

You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.

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

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

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

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

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......

When did I say that. My position is the reason we have so much ******* crime is because idiots like you make it way too easy for the bad guys to get guns... that's the point.

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

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

 

[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.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Blues Man]

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.

You are the one who seems to be afraid; why does freedom scare you so much?

I am not scared. I walk in the US free and not scared. What are you so scared of that you have to have a gun every time you step outside? What is your "freedom" thing about? Why do you feel so threated?

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.

 

[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.

This has nothing to do with cats. You apparently are incapable of dealing with a serious issue. Your misogyny and racism are noted. Grow up before you type.
Just whom do you want to shoot at? BTW: what is your race, sex, ethnicity, and religion? Do you have a putin's poodle beard? Are you yelling at somebody from Thailand?

You just sound like every lonely cat lady I ever met, is all..... have you heard yourself?


I'm a 51 year old, retired grunt, Heathen peckerwood biker from Texas, and whiny ass females like you tend to hate me because I wouldn't **** you, not even with some *******'s dick, lol.

 

[freyasman]

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.

You are the one who seems to be afraid; why does freedom scare you so much?

I am not scared. I walk in the US free and not scared. What are you so scared of that you have to have a gun every time you step outside? What is your "freedom" thing about? Why do you feel so threated?

Of course you are, why are you pretending?

 

[Flash]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here.....

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


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

Especially knowing that ARs are very seldom used in crime.

The gun of choice for the thugs that commit most of the gun crimes in this country is a cheap handgun.

A guy planning to rob you would use a $150 Taurus (easily concealed, probably stolen) rather than a bulky $1K AR.

 

[2aguy]

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.

You are the one who seems to be afraid; why does freedom scare you so much?

I am not scared. I walk in the US free and not scared. What are you so scared of that you have to have a gun every time you step outside? What is your "freedom" thing about? Why do you feel so threated?

Again...

According to you rape does not exist in the U.S.?

According to you robberies do not happen in the U.S.?

According to you, no one is ever murdered in the U.S.?

Is that your stance?

 

[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.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

Especially knowing that ARs are very seldom used in crime.

The gun of choice for the thugs that commit most of the gun crimes in this country is a cheap handgun.

A guy planning to rob you would use a $150 Taurus (easily concealed, probably stolen) rather than a bulky $1K AR.

Rifles in general are not used in crimes. In fact murders with any type of rifle account for less than 2% of murders annually.

 

[Vrenn]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here.....

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


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

That analysis misreads Heller.

The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629.

And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


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

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


Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s “core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interestbalancing’ approach.” Heller, supra, at 634. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.


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

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

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

 

[westwall]

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.

Hey, fuckhead, a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy. Bad people do bad things, but bad people without guns a less capable of doing bad things. That's the point. The rest of the ******* world has figured this out.

View attachment 469991

You don't oppose gun violence, Iosef.

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

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

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

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

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......

When did I say that. My position is the reason we have so much ******* crime is because idiots like you make it way too easy for the bad guys to get guns... that's the point.

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

 

[Vrenn]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here.....

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


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here.....

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


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vrenn]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here.....

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


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Flash]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

townhall.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here.....

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


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]



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

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.

But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.



If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scalia stated in Heller....

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

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

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

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

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

Especially knowing that ARs are very seldom used in crime.

The gun of choice for the thugs that commit most of the gun crimes in this country is a cheap handgun.

A guy planning to rob you would use a $150 Taurus (easily concealed, probably stolen) rather than a bulky $1K AR.

Rifles in general are not used in crimes. In fact murders with any type of rifle account for less than 2% of murders annually.

China Joe once made a recommendation that we use shotguns.

More shotguns are used in crimes than AR-15s.

 

[JoeB131]

Again with the 43 lie......

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

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

 

[JoeB131]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[westwall]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

[westwall]

still parroting that debunked 43 times bullshit I see

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

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

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

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

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

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

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