District Court Upholds California AWB

[bigrebnc1775]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

That was your wish before the ruling. The Ruling did nothing to change that.

What the court has done is to try and tell you something that many of us that have spent time on the battle field already know, the AR-15 is the same as a M-16 used in combat and just as deadly for exactly the same reasons. I won't bother to go into why since it's already been said and you disregard it because of "You can't tell me what to do" is more important than other peoples children's lives.

So a soldier going into battle, given the choice between an M-16/M-4 and an AR-15 will 50/50 split between the two?

You are just throwing BS into the ball game. Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16. The Troops aren't given a choice. Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference. Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories. Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting. The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo. I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal. And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16. Your argument is flawed.

Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.

A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

That was your wish before the ruling. The Ruling did nothing to change that.

What the court has done is to try and tell you something that many of us that have spent time on the battle field already know, the AR-15 is the same as a M-16 used in combat and just as deadly for exactly the same reasons. I won't bother to go into why since it's already been said and you disregard it because of "You can't tell me what to do" is more important than other peoples children's lives.

So a soldier going into battle, given the choice between an M-16/M-4 and an AR-15 will 50/50 split between the two?

You are just throwing BS into the ball game. Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16. The Troops aren't given a choice. Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference. Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories. Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting. The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo. I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal. And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16. Your argument is flawed.

Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.

United States Army for one. There are some AR-15s that are stamped M-16 in the Armories. There is at least one Army dude that was issued one in here. How about the United States Air Force that was issued over 14,000 AR-15s. Then there are the Armies around the world that cannot get permission to purchase the M-16 or the M-4 but they can purchase the Colt Model 750 (AR-15) and the Colt LE6920. Or they can purchase the thousands of clones of the ARs sold throughout the world. The list is shorter for you to tell me what Army DOESN'T use the AR-15.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

That was your wish before the ruling. The Ruling did nothing to change that.

What the court has done is to try and tell you something that many of us that have spent time on the battle field already know, the AR-15 is the same as a M-16 used in combat and just as deadly for exactly the same reasons. I won't bother to go into why since it's already been said and you disregard it because of "You can't tell me what to do" is more important than other peoples children's lives.

So a soldier going into battle, given the choice between an M-16/M-4 and an AR-15 will 50/50 split between the two?

You are just throwing BS into the ball game. Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16. The Troops aren't given a choice. Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference. Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories. Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting. The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo. I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal. And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16. Your argument is flawed.

Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.

A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.

I wouldn't go that far. I will go on to say that since the AR-15 can be custom built to the individual, it's going to be more virsitile, faster and more confortable. Plus be a little lighter. But, that being said, most of the really good parts will come from the same parts bins.

 

[hjmick]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

You're a ******* pig.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That was your wish before the ruling. The Ruling did nothing to change that.

What the court has done is to try and tell you something that many of us that have spent time on the battle field already know, the AR-15 is the same as a M-16 used in combat and just as deadly for exactly the same reasons. I won't bother to go into why since it's already been said and you disregard it because of "You can't tell me what to do" is more important than other peoples children's lives.

So a soldier going into battle, given the choice between an M-16/M-4 and an AR-15 will 50/50 split between the two?

You are just throwing BS into the ball game. Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16. The Troops aren't given a choice. Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference. Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories. Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting. The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo. I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal. And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16. Your argument is flawed.

Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.

A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.

I wouldn't go that far. I will go on to say that since the AR-15 can be custom built to the individual, it's going to be more virsitile, faster and more confortable. Plus be a little lighter. But, that being said, most of the really good parts will come from the same parts bins.

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So a soldier going into battle, given the choice between an M-16/M-4 and an AR-15 will 50/50 split between the two?

You are just throwing BS into the ball game. Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16. The Troops aren't given a choice. Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference. Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories. Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting. The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo. I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal. And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16. Your argument is flawed.

Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.

A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.

I wouldn't go that far. I will go on to say that since the AR-15 can be custom built to the individual, it's going to be more virsitile, faster and more confortable. Plus be a little lighter. But, that being said, most of the really good parts will come from the same parts bins.

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

No, but it means that the parts meet a standard that all others must meet. And in order to call it Mil Spec, it must be made by Colt of FN, the only two that have the copyrights to the name Mil Spec for the AR. Most parts that are top of the line will advertise, "Meets Mil Spec"

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

Indeed. It's not hard to find better than mil-spec barrels and BCGs
"Mil-spec" is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, standard; the fact something "mil-spec" in no way means it is near the pinnacle of efficacy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are just throwing BS into the ball game. Some Armies use the AR-15 while others used the M-16. The Troops aren't given a choice. Some Armies are still using old British bolt action 303 Enfields because they have no other choice.

As for the battlefield, both the AR and the M-16 will be used semi auto so there won't be any difference. Hell, they will both even use the same ammo and magazines and accessories. Being an old combat vet, I won't care one way or another since I will be using even the M-4 in semi auto setting. The 3 shot burst is pretty worthless and wastes about 66% of your ammo. I would rather have ALL my ammo at my disposal. And in semi auto settings, I get that from both the AR and the M-16. Your argument is flawed.

Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.

A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.

I wouldn't go that far. I will go on to say that since the AR-15 can be custom built to the individual, it's going to be more virsitile, faster and more confortable. Plus be a little lighter. But, that being said, most of the really good parts will come from the same parts bins.

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

No, but it means that the parts meet a standard that all others must meet. And in order to call it Mil Spec, it must be made by Colt of FN, the only two that have the copyrights to the name Mil Spec for the AR. Most parts that are top of the line will advertise, "Meets Mil Spec"

I see you don't understand what milspec is or means.
Milspec doesn't make a part better and Milspec you can't buy as a civilian

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

Indeed. It's not hard to find better than mil-spec barrels and BCGs
"Mil-spec" is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, standard; the fact something "mil-spec" in no way means it is near the pinnacle of efficacy.

It just means it meets military standards.

 

[miketx]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

This is as ignorant as it is idiotic and wrong.

‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

You are a liar in every post you make here. 2nd amendment aint about self defense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

Indeed. It's not hard to find better than mil-spec barrels and BCGs
"Mil-spec" is a quantitative, rather than qualitative, standard; the fact something "mil-spec" in no way means it is near the pinnacle of efficacy.

It just means it meets military standards.

Correct- the MILitary SPECification.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Tell me an army that uses a semi-automatic AR-15 as a standard battle rifle.

A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.

I wouldn't go that far. I will go on to say that since the AR-15 can be custom built to the individual, it's going to be more virsitile, faster and more confortable. Plus be a little lighter. But, that being said, most of the really good parts will come from the same parts bins.

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

No, but it means that the parts meet a standard that all others must meet. And in order to call it Mil Spec, it must be made by Colt of FN, the only two that have the copyrights to the name Mil Spec for the AR. Most parts that are top of the line will advertise, "Meets Mil Spec"

I see you don't understand what milspec is or means.
Milspec doesn't make a part better and Milspec you can't buy as a civilian

I stated what REAL MILSPEC is. You need to go back to your buddies in the locker room and have your laugh and keep shooting that junk. You want real MILSPEC, buy either a Colt Model 750 or a Colt LE6920. I believe FN produces one model as well. Or you can roll your own but you are going to buy all your parts from Colt and FN. Milspec equiv is NOT Milspec.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A lot of AR 15s are better made than the M16.

I wouldn't go that far. I will go on to say that since the AR-15 can be custom built to the individual, it's going to be more virsitile, faster and more confortable. Plus be a little lighter. But, that being said, most of the really good parts will come from the same parts bins.

I would go that far. Just because it's milspec doesn't mean it's superior.

No, but it means that the parts meet a standard that all others must meet. And in order to call it Mil Spec, it must be made by Colt of FN, the only two that have the copyrights to the name Mil Spec for the AR. Most parts that are top of the line will advertise, "Meets Mil Spec"

I see you don't understand what milspec is or means.
Milspec doesn't make a part better and Milspec you can't buy as a civilian

I stated what REAL MILSPEC is. You need to go back to your buddies in the locker room and have your laugh and keep shooting that junk. You want real MILSPEC, buy either a Colt Model 750 or a Colt LE6920. I believe FN produces one model as well. Or you can roll your own but you are going to buy all your parts from Colt and FN. Milspec equiv is NOT Milspec.

and I stated that mil-spec doesn't make it superior.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

This is as ignorant as it is idiotic and wrong.

‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


And as the Supreme Court stated, this does not hold up...

Clayton....you do not understand current 2nd Amendment law or jurisprudence...neither does this court....

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

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.

You keep posting this denial of certiorari, which you clearly don’t understand.

The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, it made no ruling as to the Constitutionality of the assault weapon band at issue, and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.

What you are posting is the dissent written by Scalia and Thomas, their minority opinions are devoid of the force of law and are in no manner binding on the lower courts – hence the District court’s ruling cited in the OP.

In essence it’s a temper-tantrum on the part of Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are upset that the Court did not grant cert.

Every time you post this you only further demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity.

 

[2aguy]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

This is as ignorant as it is idiotic and wrong.

‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


And as the Supreme Court stated, this does not hold up...

Clayton....you do not understand current 2nd Amendment law or jurisprudence...neither does this court....

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

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.

You keep posting this denial of certiorari, which you clearly don’t understand.

The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, it made no ruling as to the Constitutionality of the assault weapon band at issue, and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.

What you are posting is the dissent written by Scalia and Thomas, their minority opinions are devoid of the force of law and are in no manner binding on the lower courts – hence the District court’s ruling cited in the OP.

In essence it’s a temper-tantrum on the part of Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are upset that the Court did not grant cert.

Every time you post this you only further demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity.

Yes......they did, but Scalia, the one who wrote the opinion in Heller, used his opinion to explain why the court needed to hear the case, and then went on to explain Heller to those incompetent hacks on the 7th Circuit.......he explained Heller in greater detail...you dope...

Moron, the 7th Circuit refused to obey prior Supreme Court rulings, you dope....and Scalia explained why they are morons in his dissent on why the court should have heard the case....since Scalia wrote the actual opinion in Heller, his explaining how the 7th got it wrong has actual merit......

 

[2aguy]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

This is as ignorant as it is idiotic and wrong.

‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


And as the Supreme Court stated, this does not hold up...

Clayton....you do not understand current 2nd Amendment law or jurisprudence...neither does this court....

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

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.

You keep posting this denial of certiorari, which you clearly don’t understand.

The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, it made no ruling as to the Constitutionality of the assault weapon band at issue, and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.

What you are posting is the dissent written by Scalia and Thomas, their minority opinions are devoid of the force of law and are in no manner binding on the lower courts – hence the District court’s ruling cited in the OP.

In essence it’s a temper-tantrum on the part of Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are upset that the Court did not grant cert.

Every time you post this you only further demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity.

and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.


Yes....they do... As Scalia explained in Heller, and Alito explained in Caetano.....the fake reasoning the 7th used violates actual Supreme Court rulings on these weapons, which my links and quote show....this court is a rogue court, willfully ignoring the Supreme Court and it's rulings on the 2nd Amendment....

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

This is as ignorant as it is idiotic and wrong.

‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


And as the Supreme Court stated, this does not hold up...

Clayton....you do not understand current 2nd Amendment law or jurisprudence...neither does this court....

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

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.

You keep posting this denial of certiorari, which you clearly don’t understand.

The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, it made no ruling as to the Constitutionality of the assault weapon band at issue, and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.

What you are posting is the dissent written by Scalia and Thomas, their minority opinions are devoid of the force of law and are in no manner binding on the lower courts – hence the District court’s ruling cited in the OP.

In essence it’s a temper-tantrum on the part of Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are upset that the Court did not grant cert.

Every time you post this you only further demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity.

Why do you ignorant people ignore the fact that U.S. vs Miller ensured that American citizens rights to military-style weapons were protected, Heller and McDonald made sure that individual right was protected.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.

This is as ignorant as it is idiotic and wrong.

‘Liberals’ seek to neither ‘ban’ nor ‘confiscate’ guns.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.


And as the Supreme Court stated, this does not hold up...

Clayton....you do not understand current 2nd Amendment law or jurisprudence...neither does this court....

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

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.

You keep posting this denial of certiorari, which you clearly don’t understand.

The Supreme Court refused to hear this case, it made no ruling as to the Constitutionality of the assault weapon band at issue, and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.

What you are posting is the dissent written by Scalia and Thomas, their minority opinions are devoid of the force of law and are in no manner binding on the lower courts – hence the District court’s ruling cited in the OP.

In essence it’s a temper-tantrum on the part of Scalia and Thomas, both of whom are upset that the Court did not grant cert.

Every time you post this you only further demonstrate your ignorance and stupidity.

and consequently such bans do not violate the Second Amendment.


Yes....they do... As Scalia explained in Heller, and Alito explained in Caetano.....the fake reasoning the 7th used violates actual Supreme Court rulings on these weapons, which my links and quote show....this court is a rogue court, willfully ignoring the Supreme Court and it's rulings on the 2nd Amendment....

You don't know what you are talking about.

This is true he doesn't

 

[M14 Shooter]

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

Tell us how this satisfies the holding from the USSC that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ALL "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.
Try to not lie while doing so.

 

[2aguy]

And residents of California have ample access to other firearms sufficient to facilitate personal self-defense.

Tell us how this satisfies the holding form the USSC that the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear ALL "bearable arms" for traditionally lawful purposes.
Try to not lie while doing so.

This is only one time I will say this...at least joe is open about his gun grabbing insanity.....clayton, hiding his behind fake law is just annoying....