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

[ThoughtCrimes]

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.

That failure is your multiple misfires in post after post! More projection, I see!

Put a fork in me, I'm Done with you two dishonest folks!

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

That failure is your multiple misfires in post after post! More projection, I see!

Put a fork in me, I'm Done with you two dishonest folks!

Thank Gd! This board has a high tolerance for imbeciles but you're pushign the limit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Instead of the pointless, childish name-calling and accusations, look instead to the current state of Second Amendment jurisprudence, where AR and AK pattern rifles are in fact not subject to Constitutional protections:

One of the best illustrations is the D.C. Circuit’s 2011 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II). The decision addresses a challenge to the gun law devised by the District in response to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision. Addressing a variety of challenges to the new law, the Court of Appeals applies the emerging dominant standard, asking 1) whether a restriction impinges upon a core right protected by the Second Amendment (with “longstanding” regulations presumptively lawful), and if it does, then 2) whether the restriction passes muster under the level of constitutional scrutiny the court deems appropriate.

One part of the challenged law banned a category of semiautomatic rifles, including the AR 15. Functionally this rifle is just like countless repeating rifles that have not raised the ire of legislatures. But based on its styling (it looks like the military M-16) it is perennially on the wish list of guns that should be banned. There are millions of AR-15s in the civilian inventory. This is one of the unintended consequences of the now expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which in the same breath banned the AR-15 (and a variety of other guns) and blessed functionally identical guns like the Ruger Mini 14 and cosmetically modified post-ban AR-15’s (e.g., the same guns minus the superfluous flash suppressors, adjustable stocks and bayonet lugs).

Both the majority and the dissent acknowledge that the AR-15 is a gun in common use. How they proceed from there is illuminating. The dissent treats common use as a solid liberty-protecting standard. Guns in common use cannot be banned.

For the majority, acknowledging the AR-15 as a gun in common use is just a rhetorical lead-in to the burgeoning two stage standard of review. The court found that the D.C. law did in fact burden a core Second Amendment concern. But at stage two it determined that the ban does not “substantially burden” the right to self-defense (people could still have handguns and many other long guns).

Gun Rights in Scrutiny Land: The Federal Courts Attempt to Claw Back Heller - Fordham Law

Those of us who are gun rights advocates can agree to disagree with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and continue to seek relief in the courts, with the understanding that until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, bans on AR and AK pattern rifles are Constitutional.

Indeed, should the SAFE Act or similar laws be subject to review by the High Court, it is quite likely laws banning AR 15s would be invalidated in all jurisdictions:

This reasoning is not derived from Heller and it is interesting to speculate what else would pass muster under this approach. Pushed hard, it would seem to allow very broad gun bans as long as some core self-defense guns remained legal. That is not terribly far from the District’s back up argument in Heller (rejected by the majority of the Supreme Court) that there was an implicit self-defense exception to the original D.C. law which required long guns to be kept disassembled and unloaded. It also hews closer to the balancing approach offered by Justice Breyer’s dissent than to the decision of the Heller majority.

Gun Rights in Scrutiny Land: The Federal Courts Attempt to Claw Back Heller - Fordham Law

 

[Pogo]

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

I believe judges rule on laws, not guns, but here goes a question:

If AR15s are not "dangerous and unusual arms" -- then what's the point of having one?

 

[turtledude]

Instead of the pointless, childish name-calling and accusations, look instead to the current state of Second Amendment jurisprudence, where AR and AK pattern rifles are in fact not subject to Constitutional protections:

One of the best illustrations is the D.C. Circuit’s 2011 decision in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II). The decision addresses a challenge to the gun law devised by the District in response to the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision. Addressing a variety of challenges to the new law, the Court of Appeals applies the emerging dominant standard, asking 1) whether a restriction impinges upon a core right protected by the Second Amendment (with “longstanding” regulations presumptively lawful), and if it does, then 2) whether the restriction passes muster under the level of constitutional scrutiny the court deems appropriate.

One part of the challenged law banned a category of semiautomatic rifles, including the AR 15. Functionally this rifle is just like countless repeating rifles that have not raised the ire of legislatures. But based on its styling (it looks like the military M-16) it is perennially on the wish list of guns that should be banned. There are millions of AR-15s in the civilian inventory. This is one of the unintended consequences of the now expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which in the same breath banned the AR-15 (and a variety of other guns) and blessed functionally identical guns like the Ruger Mini 14 and cosmetically modified post-ban AR-15’s (e.g., the same guns minus the superfluous flash suppressors, adjustable stocks and bayonet lugs).

Both the majority and the dissent acknowledge that the AR-15 is a gun in common use. How they proceed from there is illuminating. The dissent treats common use as a solid liberty-protecting standard. Guns in common use cannot be banned.

For the majority, acknowledging the AR-15 as a gun in common use is just a rhetorical lead-in to the burgeoning two stage standard of review. The court found that the D.C. law did in fact burden a core Second Amendment concern. But at stage two it determined that the ban does not “substantially burden” the right to self-defense (people could still have handguns and many other long guns).

Gun Rights in Scrutiny Land: The Federal Courts Attempt to Claw Back Heller - Fordham Law

Those of us who are gun rights advocates can agree to disagree with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and continue to seek relief in the courts, with the understanding that until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, bans on AR and AK pattern rifles are Constitutional.

Indeed, should the SAFE Act or similar laws be subject to review by the High Court, it is quite likely laws banning AR 15s would be invalidated in all jurisdictions:

This reasoning is not derived from Heller and it is interesting to speculate what else would pass muster under this approach. Pushed hard, it would seem to allow very broad gun bans as long as some core self-defense guns remained legal. That is not terribly far from the District’s back up argument in Heller (rejected by the majority of the Supreme Court) that there was an implicit self-defense exception to the original D.C. law which required long guns to be kept disassembled and unloaded. It also hews closer to the balancing approach offered by Justice Breyer’s dissent than to the decision of the Heller majority.

Gun Rights in Scrutiny Land: The Federal Courts Attempt to Claw Back Heller - Fordham Law

complete fail. semi automatic carbines are owned in huge numbers by citizens in the USA and are not unusually dangerous. They thus meet the Heller test

oh BTW where did the federal government PROPERLY get the power to regulate any small arms ownership by a citizen?

 

[M14 Shooter]

complete fail. semi automatic carbines are owned in huge numbers by citizens in the USA and are not unusually dangerous. They thus meet the Heller test

Handguns are demonstrably far more "dangerous" than 'assault weapons' - classes of weapons suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes one mught have for a gun - as they are the firearm most commonly used in the comission of as crime, especially murder, and especially in the cities

It is unconstitutional, under any level of scrutiny, to ban handguns; I'd like to see a sound argument that 'assault weapons', under any level of scruity, can be be constitutionally banned.

 

[turtledude]

complete fail. semi automatic carbines are owned in huge numbers by citizens in the USA and are not unusually dangerous. They thus meet the Heller test

Handguns are demonstrably far more "dangerous" than 'assault weapons' - classes of weapons suitable for any of the traditionally lawful purposes one mught have for a gun - as they are the firearm most commonly used in the comission of as crime, especially murder, and especially in the cities

It is unconstitutional, under any level of scrutiny, to ban handguns; I'd like to see a sound argument that 'assault weapons', under any level of scruity, can be be constitutionally banned.

Lets look at the scum known as Handgun Control Inc, the Brady Bunch and the VPC

years ago they pushed to ban handguns because the scum claimed

1) handguns are easily concealed

2) are often cheap

3) are not useful for hunting

4) used in most gun crimes

5) are not generally "military useful"

6) not very accurate

then in the late 80s, the scum tried banning "assault weapons" which are

1) hard to conceal

2) rarely used in crime

3) are militarily useful

4) are expensive

in other words-scum want to ban guns no matter what

 

[M14 Shooter]

in other words-scum want to ban guns no matter what

A conclusion obvious to everyone, including the people in question, who will never admit it in public.