Idiot Judge rules AR 15s are “dangerous and unusual arms”.

[M14 Shooter]

In the SCOTUS decision of District of Columbia v Heller (2008), Justice Scalia wrote in citing the Miller decision, "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.".

Indeed.
And, according to Miller, what weapons are those?

If a person takes the effort, one could read that the Miller decision revolved around the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The case did not involve pointing to classifications of weapons, just the constitutionality of the NFA.

You -could- read it that way, but you'd miss some pretty big indicators that you are wrong.

Phrases like "in common use at the time" and "part of the ordinary military equipment" come to mind - in fact the decision revolved around the fact it was not within judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun fell into this category, and therefore not shown to havea " reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" so the court could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

So, again: according to Miller, what are those "certain types of weapons"?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

Bubba and a keger aren't a 'well-regulated militia.'

It's funny that you think your statement, however true it may be, has any meaning whatsoever.

My only question here: Are you arguing from ignorance or dishonesty?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

Do you actually believe that tripe??

I know you are a liberal, but you aren't a stupid one.

It's no more 'tripe' than a conservative who believes a woman doesn't have a right to privacy, where the state may force her to give birth.

There is nothing 'stupid' about perceiving the Second Amendment as a 'collective' right, provided that those who hold such a position understand that it's a minority position and not consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Last, and again, the issue has nothing to do with 'liberal' or 'conservative,' as a majority of liberals agree with Heller and consider it settled, accepted case law.

Abortion has nothing to do with any rights to privacy. It's the right to murder your own child.

 

[The Rabbi]

M14 asked about Miller. I responded to that question accurately...no dodge. You are in gadfly mode, huh?

No, you did not answer the question accurate. Yes, you did dodge it. Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A. In Miller's case they ruiled the short barrel shotgun was not such a weapon. Which implies that there are a class of weapons that are protected, as being serviceable for the militia.

That is total BULL! If Miller says what you claim highlighted above, cite the passages that support your outlandish statements! As to the second bit, the Syllabus of Miller has the following passage;
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." It doesn't imply a thing in and of itself in line with your thought! Wait and read further.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice [emphasis added, sic] that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

J. McReynolds did cite it in Miller. But it doesn't mean what you think it means. This is where knowing how to read helps! Return above to the Syllabus of Miller and note the reasoning of the Court; here is the legal definition of "judicial notice"

Wex Legal Dictionary: Judicial notice is used by a court when it declares a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation of evidence. A court can take judicial notice of indisputable facts.

Since both the Tennessee Judge and J. McReynolds ruled in their respective cases that they declined judicial notice, that meant neither could pin their decisions relative to Amendment II, the direct opposite of your assumption. PAY ATTENTION TO THE PARTICULARS OF A CASE AND DON'T READ NRA BS IN TO IT!

Those would certainly include the AR15, America's Rifle.

...

Too bad the Supreme Court in Heller agrees with me and not you on this point.
QED.
Next.

 

[Wildman]

Abortion has nothing to do with any rights to privacy. It's the right to murder your own child.

RIGHT ON !!!

to liberliars it is akin to a tumor, an unwanted mass of biodegradable tissue.

 

[Youch]

A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.

To call AR and AK platform rifles “dangerous and unusual arms” and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

Idiots such as this base their hatred, I mean assessment, not on caliber or functionality, but based on appearance. Fools.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

No, you did not answer the question accurate. Yes, you did dodge it. Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A. In Miller's case they ruiled the short barrel shotgun was not such a weapon. Which implies that there are a class of weapons that are protected, as being serviceable for the militia.

That is total BULL! If Miller says what you claim highlighted above, cite the passages that support your outlandish statements! As to the second bit, the Syllabus of Miller has the following passage;
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." It doesn't imply a thing in and of itself in line with your thought! Wait and read further.



J. McReynolds did cite it in Miller. But it doesn't mean what you think it means. This is where knowing how to read helps! Return above to the Syllabus of Miller and note the reasoning of the Court; here is the legal definition of "judicial notice"

Wex Legal Dictionary: Judicial notice is used by a court when it declares a fact presented as evidence as true without a formal presentation of evidence. A court can take judicial notice of indisputable facts.

Since both the Tennessee Judge and J. McReynolds ruled in their respective cases that they declined judicial notice, that meant neither could pin their decisions relative to Amendment II, the direct opposite of your assumption. PAY ATTENTION TO THE PARTICULARS OF A CASE AND DON'T READ NRA BS IN TO IT!

Those would certainly include the AR15, America's Rifle.

...

Too bad the Supreme Court in Heller agrees with me and not you on this point.
QED.
Next.

Now that is a DODGE! I challenged you to back up your statement, "Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A." So where is it hot shot?

Your DODGE to pull Heller into the discussion is moot!!

QED my ass! You've let your mouth overload you butt once again with false bravado and a resolve to get outta DODGE . Foolish!

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Indeed.
And, according to Miller, what weapons are those?

If a person takes the effort, one could read that the Miller decision revolved around the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The case did not involve pointing to classifications of weapons, just the constitutionality of the NFA.

You -could- read it that way, but you'd miss some pretty big indicators that you are wrong.

Phrases like "in common use at the time" and "part of the ordinary military equipment" come to mind - in fact the decision revolved around the fact it was not within judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun fell into this category, and therefore not shown to havea " reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" so the court could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

So, again: according to Miller, what are those "certain types of weapons"?

I've not seen a list. Have you? Does it make any difference with regard to the discussion re: U.S. v Miller? Your question is moot, but noted in its intent!

 

[M14 Shooter]

If a person takes the effort, one could read that the Miller decision revolved around the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The case did not involve pointing to classifications of weapons, just the constitutionality of the NFA.

You -could- read it that way, but you'd miss some pretty big indicators that you are wrong.

Phrases like "in common use at the time" and "part of the ordinary military equipment" come to mind - in fact the decision revolved around the fact it was not within judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun fell into this category, and therefore not shown to havea " reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" so the court could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
So, again: according to Miller, what are those "certain types of weapons"?

I've not seen a list. Have you?

Your avoidance is noted.

 

[Spoonman]

A Clinton appointee, Federal Judge Catherine C. Blake made one of the most ignorant rulings I have seen on Guns.

To call AR and AK platform rifles “dangerous and unusual arms” and not covered by the Second Amendment is a ruling that will be overturned on appeal.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/aug/12/federal-judge-upholds-strict-new-maryland-gun-laws/

Incorrect.

The ruling is consistent with other rulings concerning similar restrictions in Connecticut and New York, and is consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence. holding that although jurisdictions may enact bans on particular types of firearms, they may not ban firearms outright. Such restrictions are Constitutional provided citizens have some type of access to firearms for self defense.

From your cited article:

“The Act substantially serves the government’s interest in protecting public safety, and it does so without significantly burdening what the Supreme Court has now explained is the core Second Amendment right of ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home,’ ” she wrote.

A 'significant burden' would manifest should a jurisdiction seek to prohibit possession of all handguns, or firearms overall. Laws allowing the possession of handguns, rifles, shotguns, but not AR or AK platforms are Constitutional because they do not violate the right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

Consequently it is the OP who is ignorant of the law, not the judge who is 'ignorant' of firearms.

And that Clinton appointed the judge who ruled in this case is irrelevant, as the judge who ruled that the New York SAFE Act banning AR platform rifles was Constitutional, Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny, was appointed by George H.W. Bush in 1990.

Thus the OP's effort to contrive this into some sort of 'partisan issue' fails.

I acknowledge and accept the fact that this is indeed current Second Amendment jurisprudence, although I disagree with it. This and similar rulings are likely subject to appeal, and may eventually come before the Supreme Court, at which time a determination will be made that the Second Amendment right is more comprehensive, placing a greater burden upon the state to justify the banning of specific firearms, invalidating New York's SAFE Act and like measures such as the one in Maryland.

The NY Safe act is a joke. People are buying NY approived AR's and for a $12.99 magazine release buttton are converting them to the banned AR's. An what is even more of a blow to the safe act is kids are building their own AR's AK''s, R 700's and many more. All without serial numbers, all unot traceable, all without any record of sale. how to do it has gone viral and now evey kids wants one, and is getting one. NY and CT have completely lost all track and any way to track what is out there.

The safe act, besides being unconstitutional is a joke. you can not infringe on people rights in this country and not expect repercussions and blowback. try taking away peoples rights and they will fight back, there will be bloodshed and people on both sides will probably experience loss of life.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

You -could- read it that way, but you'd miss some pretty big indicators that you are wrong.

Phrases like "in common use at the time" and "part of the ordinary military equipment" come to mind - in fact the decision revolved around the fact it was not within judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun fell into this category, and therefore not shown to havea " reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" so the court could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
So, again: according to Miller, what are those "certain types of weapons"?

I've not seen a list. Have you?

Your avoidance is noted.

Nice edit of my post to make it appear as avoidance! Why were you afraid of the remainder of my post? It's simple enough. Perhaps you wished to AVOID responding to the points of challenge for you. I'll provide my full remarks again:

I've not seen a list. Have you? Does it make any difference with regard to the discussion re: U.S. v Miller? Your question is moot, but noted in its intent!

I guess some folks just lean a little toward dishonesty when it suits their purpose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I've not seen a list. Have you?

Your avoidance is noted.

Nice edit of my post to make it appear as avoidance!

Because it is - unless, of course, you do not have the capacity to read the decision and take the information in it to form an answer my question.

I suspect that you do, you simply won't. Thus, avoidance.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Your avoidance is noted.

Nice edit of my post to make it appear as avoidance!

Because it is - unless, of course, you do not have the capacity to read the decision and take the information in it to form an answer my question.

I suspect that you do, you simply won't. Thus, avoidance.

You swerve from the original point and expect a reasonable person to follow just because? Such hubris! And your dishonesty is on full display!

 

[Pete7469]

Actually, assault rifles are MORE, not less what the 2nd Amendment was all about. Hard to envision a well-regulated militia armed only with handguns.

In a nutshell?

The second amendment was meant to dispense with a standing full time ground force by having part time volunteers. The present configuration of the military basically nullifies it. However, case law has corrupted original intent.

Common sense wise? It's appropriate for people to keep arms in the home within reason.

Open carry and concealed carry? Is not reasonable.

And neither are assault rifles.

You clearly do not understand the 2nd Amendment.

Bed wetters like swallow don't know shit about shit, least of all when it comes to issues, behaviors or people they're programmed to hate.

It's because of mindless, servile, anti-intellectual parasites like swallow that millions upon millions of innocent people have been butchered by their own governments. "People" like swallow embrace leaders who have programmed them into the belief that the 2A is somehow compromising their safety. The leaders of the "progressive" (or whatever they call themselves today) know damn well why the framers put the RKBA second only to the rights of the people to freely express opposition to government policy. They are intolerant of opposition to their dreams of a hellish orwellian "utopia", and they know damn well they could not possibly manage a well armed "human resource".

If that simple truth could penetrate the incredibly dense black holes of moonbat ignorance between the ears of simpering dipshits like the dumbfuck libtards on this board, there would be a reduced need for semi-automatic weapons. The very existence of these people creates the potential for despotic regimes to rise up and seize control of nations.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nice edit of my post to make it appear as avoidance!

Because it is - unless, of course, you do not have the capacity to read the decision and take the information in it to form an answer my question.

I suspect that you do, you simply won't. Thus, avoidance.

You swerve from the original point and expect a reasonable person to follow just because? Such hubris! And your dishonesty is on full display!

The original point, by adding emphasis, was yours:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.".
http://www.usmessageboard.com/9627206-post50.html

I asked you to describe what certain weapons types of weapons the 2nd extends to, per Miller; in doing so, I have not in any way swayed from your point.

So, do you have the capacity to read the decision and take the information in it to form an answer my question, or not?

 

[The Rabbi]

...

Too bad the Supreme Court in Heller agrees with me and not you on this point.
QED.
Next.

Now that is a DODGE! I challenged you to back up your statement, "Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A." So where is it hot shot?

Your DODGE to pull Heller into the discussion is moot!!

QED my ass! You've let your mouth overload you butt once again with false bravado and a resolve to get outta DODGE . Foolish!

The sounds of ownage. I showed you where it was already. I showed you the Supreme Court in Heller agreed that was the case. Now, who is more authoritatve here, Antonin Scalia or some ignorant fucktard on the internet? Yup. Thought so
Case closed.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

The original point, by adding emphasis, was yours:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.".
http://www.usmessageboard.com/9627206-post50.html

I asked you to describe what certain weapons types of weapons the 2nd extends to, per Miller; in doing so, I have not in any way swayed from your point.

So, do you have the capacity to read the decision and take the information in it to form an answer my question, or not?

The quote was from Justice Scalia in Heller to POINT TO MILLER in a post to another. Don't falsely attribute that to me! I cited remark of Scalia to another for a specific reason related to a specific circumstance not related to your question!

There you go again! It's been asked and answered multiple times! So here is a rundown of the exchange'

Your original post to which I have repeatedly responded was your question:

Indeed. And, according to Miller, what weapons are those?

THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION I'VE BEEN RESPONDING TO ALL ALONG!
My response to your question was:

If a person takes the effort, one could read that the Miller decision revolved around the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The case did not involve pointing to classifications of weapons, just the constitutionality of the NFA.

Question asked and answered!
To which you responded with:

You -could- read it that way, but you'd miss some pretty big indicators that you are wrong.

Phrases like "in common use at the time" and "part of the ordinary military equipment" come to mind - in fact the decision revolved around the fact it was not within judicial notice that a sawed-off shotgun fell into this category, and therefore not shown to havea " reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" so the court could not say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

So, again: according to Miller, what are those "certain types of weapons"?

Already asked and answered!
To which I responded:

I've not seen a list. Have you? Does it make any difference with regard to the discussion re: U.S. v Miller? Your question is moot, but noted in its intent!

Again, asked and answered!
And your response after your false and deceitful misquote of me directly above:

Your avoidance is noted.

Your statement certainly doesn't relate to your question or my direct response to it. So who was avoiding and deviating from the question YOU initiated and the responses to your question?
To which I replied:

Nice edit of my post to make it appear as avoidance! Why were you afraid of the remainder of my post? It's simple enough. Perhaps you wished to AVOID responding to the points of challenge for you. I'll provide my full remarks again:

I've not seen a list. Have you? Does it make any difference with regard to the discussion re: U.S. v Miller? Your question is moot, but noted in its intent!

I guess some folks just lean a little toward dishonesty when it suits their purpose.

You were the one avoiding! You had created a fallacy then faced with producing a non-existent list you asked for from the start, you AVOID responding and project your position toward me.
And in double-down mode, your response:

Because it is - unless, of course, you do not have the capacity to read the decision and take the information in it to form an answer my question.

I suspect that you do, you simply won't. Thus, avoidance.

It should be apparent I am very familiar with Miller and refreshed my reading yesterday. Trying to cast doubt on my competence is pretty much a HS debate tactic and obvious fallacy. I'm not the one avoiding answering your question, your are avoiding acknowledging my direct responses.
Anyway, I responded to that foolishness of yours with:

You swerve from the original point and expect a reasonable person to follow just because? Such hubris! And your dishonesty is on full display!

And you replied:

The original point, by adding emphasis, was yours:

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.".
Idiot Judge rules AR 15s are “dangerous and unusual arms”.

I asked you to describe what certain weapons types of weapons the 2nd extends to, per Miller; in doing so, I have not in any way swayed from your point.

So, do you have the capacity to read the decision and take the information in it to form an answer my question, or not?

So that has been the exchange. Ill repeat from above to make it clear:

The quote was from Justice Scalia in Heller to POINT TO MILLER in a post to another. Don't falsely attribute that to me! I cited the remark of Scalia to another for a specific reason related to a specific circumstance not related to your question!

You were simply trying to entrap me knowing your question had no valid answer. I knew that and turned the tables. You DODGED and AVOIDED responding to my valid replies knowing what you had fallen into. So one final time, here is the response to your initial question:

I've not seen a list. Have you? Does it make any difference with regard to the discussion re: U.S. v Miller? Your question is moot, but noted in its intent!

Not what you were looking for, but that is what you DID, INDEED, ask for.

 

[RoadVirus]

Their penis substitutes are going to be more expensive for them.

Koreans in LA's Koreatown used those "penis substitutes" to defend their businesses when Blacks went on the warpath after the cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not what you were looking for, but that is what you DID, INDEED, ask for.

Yeeaaah. You keep thinking that.
Failure to stand and deliver: yours.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Too bad the Supreme Court in Heller agrees with me and not you on this point.
QED.
Next.

Now that is a DODGE! I challenged you to back up your statement, "Miller speaks directly to what is considered an appropriate militia weapon, which would be protected under the 2A." So where is it hot shot?

Your DODGE to pull Heller into the discussion is moot!!

QED my ass! You've let your mouth overload you butt once again with false bravado and a resolve to get outta DODGE . Foolish!

The sounds of ownage. I showed you where it was already. I showed you the Supreme Court in Heller agreed that was the case. Now, who is more authoritatve here, Antonin Scalia or some ignorant fucktard on the internet? Yup. Thought so
Case closed.

You're lying, but then that seems not to bother you in the least. If you're not lying, where in your posts to me display that somehow linkage exists between Heller and Miller regarding the appropriate militia weaponry, save the mutual withholding of judicial notice for the same reasoning by both Justices? There is none, but prove me wrong and present the post(s) you sent me. You can't because they don't exist and you don't know what the Hell you're talking about anyway!