If banning rifles is a winner for democrats, why do they want to hide it from voters?

[westwall]

And any time the government gets to make a decision about whether you get to have that gun you in fact have NO Right. The government can prevent you at whim. That's the whole point. A Right that is regulated is no longer a Right, it is a privilege. Learn the difference.

A right is when it doesn't overlap another persons rights. When it does, it becomes a privilege. I know the difference. When you are dealing with public safety something something that is claimed to be a right becomes a privilege.

Wrong. Rights are IMMUTABLE. ALL PEOPLE in the USA have the same Rights. Your position is certain people are special, that is not what the Founders believed, or wrote into our COTUS. You are quite simply wrong.

For the weapons that were available a the time of the writing, they were 100% correct. There was no difference between a rifle of war versus the common hunting rifle or self defense musket. Things have changed. What you are pretty much saying is that they were wrong in 1934 about the Thompson MG and all full auto weapons after that. They were equally wrong about the higher classes of weapons as well. Do I have the right to have a M-249, M-2 or M-60 pointed out the front of my house?

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Keep your fetishes to yourself you old pervert

Oh, you have harmed me. I am not a Pervert. There are three classes of Perverts. There is the Prevert. That's the Pervert in Training. Then there is the Pervert. That's the practicing Pervert. Then there is me, the Provert, the Instructor.

Wow proud of instructing perverts

You have far more problems than your irrational fear of Ar 15s

Humor is not your strong suit. And I don't fear the AR15. I respect it. I just don't respect you.

And I don't respect control freaks who try to tell other people how they should live their lives

Then you shouldn't respect yourself since you are trying to use Rural America's values for Urban America. You should strip off your shirt and use a strap on your own back.

You have me confused with someone else. But then again confused is your perpetual state

IDGAF if any law abiding person be it in the country or in a city owns guns and I would not deign to tell them they can't own guns

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh, you have harmed me. I am not a Pervert. There are three classes of Perverts. There is the Prevert. That's the Pervert in Training. Then there is the Pervert. That's the practicing Pervert. Then there is me, the Provert, the Instructor.

Wow proud of instructing perverts

You have far more problems than your irrational fear of Ar 15s

Humor is not your strong suit. And I don't fear the AR15. I respect it. I just don't respect you.

And I don't respect control freaks who try to tell other people how they should live their lives

Then you shouldn't respect yourself since you are trying to use Rural America's values for Urban America. You should strip off your shirt and use a strap on your own back.

You have me confused with someone else. But then again confused is your perpetual state

IDGAF if any law abiding person be it in the country or in a city owns guns and I would not deign to tell them they can't own guns

In your home, you have the right to own guns for protection of home, property etc. and that has been upheld in court. What has not been upheld is that there is no limits to those ownerships.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A right is when it doesn't overlap another persons rights. When it does, it becomes a privilege. I know the difference. When you are dealing with public safety something something that is claimed to be a right becomes a privilege.

Wrong. Rights are IMMUTABLE. ALL PEOPLE in the USA have the same Rights. Your position is certain people are special, that is not what the Founders believed, or wrote into our COTUS. You are quite simply wrong.

For the weapons that were available a the time of the writing, they were 100% correct. There was no difference between a rifle of war versus the common hunting rifle or self defense musket. Things have changed. What you are pretty much saying is that they were wrong in 1934 about the Thompson MG and all full auto weapons after that. They were equally wrong about the higher classes of weapons as well. Do I have the right to have a M-249, M-2 or M-60 pointed out the front of my house?

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

That is true, but semi auto is semi auto… And they’re all sporting rifles/pistols

Agreed, and that revolver wasn't even a semi auto.

Semi Autos jam. WheelGuns rarely do. I can see why he used the Wheel Gun for the shoot. I personally like a wheel gun. I am fond of a SW Model 19 myself. I wished I still had the one I owned at one time.

Yes, they do. And I can show you dozens and dozens of cops who died because their revolvers jammed. The primary cause of jams is poor maintenance of weapons. Especially over the last 40 years where ammunition production has improved to the point where misfires are virtually unheard of. Even in rimfire ammunition.

And who's fault it that? If you have a tool you must keep it serviceable. If I own a weapon, it's going to be clean and well maintained. If I own a wheel gun, it's going to fire every time unless the ammo is faulty which is almost never a misfire for that reason. I occasionally will have a misfire or jam on a semiauto but on a wheel gun, it just doesn't happen. I don't care if it's a lowly Ruger Police Special firing 38 specials. Any cop that died from his Ruger Police Special jamming just as well as committed suicide.

Obviously it is the fault of the cops who died. Duh. As far as your supposed misfires, you must be shooting some really crappy, cheap or old ammo. I shoot at least 300 rounds a week, and I haven't had a misfire or a jam in years.

I used to shoot a Govt 1911. And it did have a tendency to jam once in awhile even with good ammo. It got accurized. That means the ramp got cleaned up among other things. Many of what we did back then were later incorporated into the new production high end firearms. And I was going through one hell of a lot more than 300 rounds a week. When someone else is paying for the ammo, go for it. You kids think it's been like it is now forever. Well, someone or someones had to make it that way.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

Na, it’s just a sporting rifle just like any other semi-auto

It doesn't matter one whit. The courts disagrees with you. And more and more states and local governments are disagreeing with you. And those are the only ones that count.

No red states will ever take that notion...
That’s why I have always said Rural and urban America will never have the same interests whatsoever.

I can't speak for the rest of the US but for Colorado, your meme is really, really wrong. Stop making shit up.

No, it is accurate. That is the county by county break down of the election results.

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. Rights are IMMUTABLE. ALL PEOPLE in the USA have the same Rights. Your position is certain people are special, that is not what the Founders believed, or wrote into our COTUS. You are quite simply wrong.

For the weapons that were available a the time of the writing, they were 100% correct. There was no difference between a rifle of war versus the common hunting rifle or self defense musket. Things have changed. What you are pretty much saying is that they were wrong in 1934 about the Thompson MG and all full auto weapons after that. They were equally wrong about the higher classes of weapons as well. Do I have the right to have a M-249, M-2 or M-60 pointed out the front of my house?

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

US V MILLER, 1934 NFA. How on Earth am I being abusive to you?

 

[westwall]

Agreed, and that revolver wasn't even a semi auto.

Semi Autos jam. WheelGuns rarely do. I can see why he used the Wheel Gun for the shoot. I personally like a wheel gun. I am fond of a SW Model 19 myself. I wished I still had the one I owned at one time.

Yes, they do. And I can show you dozens and dozens of cops who died because their revolvers jammed. The primary cause of jams is poor maintenance of weapons. Especially over the last 40 years where ammunition production has improved to the point where misfires are virtually unheard of. Even in rimfire ammunition.

And who's fault it that? If you have a tool you must keep it serviceable. If I own a weapon, it's going to be clean and well maintained. If I own a wheel gun, it's going to fire every time unless the ammo is faulty which is almost never a misfire for that reason. I occasionally will have a misfire or jam on a semiauto but on a wheel gun, it just doesn't happen. I don't care if it's a lowly Ruger Police Special firing 38 specials. Any cop that died from his Ruger Police Special jamming just as well as committed suicide.

Obviously it is the fault of the cops who died. Duh. As far as your supposed misfires, you must be shooting some really crappy, cheap or old ammo. I shoot at least 300 rounds a week, and I haven't had a misfire or a jam in years.

I used to shoot a Govt 1911. And it did have a tendency to jam once in awhile even with good ammo. It got accurized. That means the ramp got cleaned up among other things. Many of what we did back then were later incorporated into the new production high end firearms. And I was going through one hell of a lot more than 300 rounds a week. When someone else is paying for the ammo, go for it. You kids think it's been like it is now forever. Well, someone or someones had to make it that way.

I have accurized all of my 1911's (did the work myself) except for the collectible ones, and I assure I know more about them than you do. Yes, when i was younger I used to go through over 5,000 rounds per week when i was actively competing. Now i just do enough to maintain the basic skill levels. Every now and then though, I will go and do a serious bit of shooting where my friends and i will shoot up well over 10,000 rounds each on a weekend.

 

[westwall]

Na, it’s just a sporting rifle just like any other semi-auto

It doesn't matter one whit. The courts disagrees with you. And more and more states and local governments are disagreeing with you. And those are the only ones that count.

No red states will ever take that notion...
That’s why I have always said Rural and urban America will never have the same interests whatsoever.

I can't speak for the rest of the US but for Colorado, your meme is really, really wrong. Stop making shit up.

No, it is accurate. That is the county by county break down of the election results.

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

 

[2aguy]

They know stating their gun control intent is not (yet) a winning proposition. They are wise to tone that down.
Never fear, they will never (as long as it's allowed) stop their march to disarm America

Remember in November....any vote for a democrat is a vote to end the 2nd Amendment....

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are the reasons to vote for Trump....... and Ginsburg and Breyer are two reasons to vote for Republican Senators in November....

I'm not feeling that Kavanaugh guy at all. He smells like the The Swamp to me.

Yes.... Repbulican justices are always a 50/50 chance of turning into left wing social justice warriors...... democrat appointees to the supreme court are 100% left wing nut jobs.

 

[2aguy]

And any time the government gets to make a decision about whether you get to have that gun you in fact have NO Right. The government can prevent you at whim. That's the whole point. A Right that is regulated is no longer a Right, it is a privilege. Learn the difference.

A right is when it doesn't overlap another persons rights. When it does, it becomes a privilege. I know the difference. When you are dealing with public safety something something that is claimed to be a right becomes a privilege.

Wrong. Rights are IMMUTABLE. ALL PEOPLE in the USA have the same Rights. Your position is certain people are special, that is not what the Founders believed, or wrote into our COTUS. You are quite simply wrong.

For the weapons that were available a the time of the writing, they were 100% correct. There was no difference between a rifle of war versus the common hunting rifle or self defense musket. Things have changed. What you are pretty much saying is that they were wrong in 1934 about the Thompson MG and all full auto weapons after that. They were equally wrong about the higher classes of weapons as well. Do I have the right to have a M-249, M-2 or M-60 pointed out the front of my house?

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

wrong....the lower courts are violating the law.... the Supreme Court gave the opinion, backed it up with several others, and the lower court still ignored it... they are in violation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

For the weapons that were available a the time of the writing, they were 100% correct. There was no difference between a rifle of war versus the common hunting rifle or self defense musket. Things have changed. What you are pretty much saying is that they were wrong in 1934 about the Thompson MG and all full auto weapons after that. They were equally wrong about the higher classes of weapons as well. Do I have the right to have a M-249, M-2 or M-60 pointed out the front of my house?

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

US V MILLER, 1934 NFA. How on Earth am I being abusive to you?

This dealt with one specific shotgun only. It wasn't for all firearms. It had to do with only a sawed off shotgun. No mention of any other type of firearm at all.

Now it's my turn.

Your buddies keep bringing up Heller V DC. That's a fun one. I've posted the real ruling so this should not be in question of what I am going to say. The ruling was that Heller was denied his rights because he was denied his right to have a fully functional handgun in his home. He was denied his right to register his firearm for his home. He was denied his right (if he didn't have any issues) with his obtaining a license to own said firearm. In essence, that was the entire scope of the bill. It dealt strictly with handguns. It did not deal with long guns, shotguns or anything else. It was extremely specific. You have a right to have what the community believes is a reasonable firearm to protect your home, family and property in your home.

Then we have Voisine v. United States. This was done in 2016. The Supreme Court ruled that a person with a misdemeanor for violence can be denied his right to bear arms.

McDonald V Chicago. Struck down the Chicago ban for handguns. Handguns are the protected firearm. It meets all requirements of the firearm most likely to be accepted for home defense and self protection of the home. What came out of it was the Chicago Assault Rifle Ban that still stands.

Presser V Illinios. Presser was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for possessing a firearm illegally. It was upheld. He claimed to be part of a Militia. What came out of this was that it's illegal for the Federal Government to restrict firearms rights but it's okay for the states to do so.

United States V Cruikshank. In 1875 a mob of whites attacked and disarmed (among other things) a group of black protesters. The Feds arrested them for various violations. In the end, it was ruled that there were no federal firearms violations since the Federals cannot impose firearms restrictions. Those are left to the Stated. Since Civil Rights were not an issue in those days, all of the white men were free to walk away.

Do you see where this is leading? In the United States we have a long history of the States and lower governments regulating or outright banning firearms. The only class of firearm that has been protected has been the handgun for the home. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns have been regulated somewhat only by the number of rounds they may contain while hunting. But that is also done by the state. Here is the one that really sticks in you and your buddies craw.

NRA V Massachusetts The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League is a political component of the NRA. It's a way that they try to hide their actions. Judge Young was appointed to the federal Court in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Here ruling is as follows.


Federal Judge Sides With AG Healey, Rules Second Amendment Does Not Cover AR-15s & High-Capacity Mags
By Evan Lips | April 6, 2018, 16:12 EDT
http://newbostonpost.com/2018/04/06...ent-does-not-cover-ar-15s-high-capacity-mags/
BOSTON — Attorney General Maura Healey is hailing a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s 1998 assault weapons ban, a ruling she said “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and our efforts to enforce the law.”

Young later summarized his decision by hinting that if residents living in Democrat-dominated states like Massachusetts are fed up with strict gun laws, they should move elsewhere.

“Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives,” he wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

Young added the following, and included a nod to the deceased conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy. Justice Scalia would be proud.”

Healey, meanwhile, called it a “victory.”

“Strong gun laws save lives,” she wrote in a Twitter post Friday morning. “We will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.

“Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

The order was handed down by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge William Young, who concluded firearms such as “AR-15s and its analogs, along with large-capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to bear arms.”

Young also sided with the so-called “copycat” ban on weapons designed to look like AR-15s, initiated by Healey in July 2016. Young pointed out that Healey’s 2016 directive did not seek to prosecute individuals who had purchased firearms ahead of the release of her enforcement notice.

“That fact, together with the plaintiffs’ failure to provide this court with any other reason to believe they face imminent prosecution for these past transactions, weighs heavily against concluding that there is a credible threat of prosecution,” Young wrote.

Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

The lawsuit, filed in part by the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, was brought against Healey and Governor Charlie Baker’s administration in January 2017. The complaint claimed that the state’s ban “is a non-technical, entirely fabricated, and political term of uncertain definition and scope.”

Federal court records show that in December both sides motioned for summary judgement, and presented their arguments in February.

Young ultimately ruled that “assault weapons and LCMs [large-capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal ‘right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

His ruling plainly determined that AR-15 rifles, while lacking the automatic-firing of the similarly-looking M16s used in military combat, “fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

Young’s decision arguably proves he agrees with the plaintiff’s claim that the ban is political — but not in the manner in which the Gun Owners’ Action League had hoped — as he ultimately ruled that the ban constitutes a policy matter “left to the people directly through their elected representatives.”

Healey held a press conference Friday afternoon to celebrate Young’s ruling. Flanked by several Boston Public Schools students she said helped organize last month’s pro-gun control march on Boston Common, Healey called the ruling backing the ban a victory to those who are “tired of the gun lobby trying to re-write the rules.”

“I want to remind people about how we got here today,” Healey said before delving into describing how she arrived at her decision to issue the 2016 copycat directive — which landed following a deadly Orlando massacre and just prior to the Democratic National Convention. “Twenty years ago we decided as a state that these military-style weapons had no place in Massachusetts.

“But it turned out the gun manufacturers were selling them here anyway,” she added.

Healey said the “gun lobby” took to the courts to “overturn our law.”

“Today, they got their answer,” she said. “Today the court declared that our constitution provides no right to own an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine, and Massachusetts has a right to keep our people safe.”

She added that it will be “up to the gun lobby” as to whether the case is appealed, and added that her office is “ready to confront whatever challenges the gun lobby puts in our way.”

A little less than two hours after Healey finished holding her press conference, the Gun Owners’ Action League released a statement criticizing the ruling and Healey, but not saying whether an appeal is forthcoming:

This is well within the historic rulings from day one from the Supreme Court. It's not the Federal Government's job to regulate firearms. It's strictly up to the States and lower Governments. If the Supreme Court rules any other way, it pretty well throws away at least 300 years of American History.

Now, Westwall, give me specifics where the Supreme Court has EVER over ruled any of this. And, no, the ruling for Religious Pamphlets don't count.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It doesn't matter one whit. The courts disagrees with you. And more and more states and local governments are disagreeing with you. And those are the only ones that count.

No red states will ever take that notion...
That’s why I have always said Rural and urban America will never have the same interests whatsoever.

I can't speak for the rest of the US but for Colorado, your meme is really, really wrong. Stop making shit up.

No, it is accurate. That is the county by county break down of the election results.

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

 

[westwall]

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

US V MILLER, 1934 NFA. How on Earth am I being abusive to you?

This dealt with one specific shotgun only. It wasn't for all firearms. It had to do with only a sawed off shotgun. No mention of any other type of firearm at all.

Now it's my turn.

Your buddies keep bringing up Heller V DC. That's a fun one. I've posted the real ruling so this should not be in question of what I am going to say. The ruling was that Heller was denied his rights because he was denied his right to have a fully functional handgun in his home. He was denied his right to register his firearm for his home. He was denied his right (if he didn't have any issues) with his obtaining a license to own said firearm. In essence, that was the entire scope of the bill. It dealt strictly with handguns. It did not deal with long guns, shotguns or anything else. It was extremely specific. You have a right to have what the community believes is a reasonable firearm to protect your home, family and property in your home.

Then we have Voisine v. United States. This was done in 2016. The Supreme Court ruled that a person with a misdemeanor for violence can be denied his right to bear arms.

McDonald V Chicago. Struck down the Chicago ban for handguns. Handguns are the protected firearm. It meets all requirements of the firearm most likely to be accepted for home defense and self protection of the home. What came out of it was the Chicago Assault Rifle Ban that still stands.

Presser V Illinios. Presser was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for possessing a firearm illegally. It was upheld. He claimed to be part of a Militia. What came out of this was that it's illegal for the Federal Government to restrict firearms rights but it's okay for the states to do so.

United States V Cruikshank. In 1875 a mob of whites attacked and disarmed (among other things) a group of black protesters. The Feds arrested them for various violations. In the end, it was ruled that there were no federal firearms violations since the Federals cannot impose firearms restrictions. Those are left to the Stated. Since Civil Rights were not an issue in those days, all of the white men were free to walk away.

Do you see where this is leading? In the United States we have a long history of the States and lower governments regulating or outright banning firearms. The only class of firearm that has been protected has been the handgun for the home. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns have been regulated somewhat only by the number of rounds they may contain while hunting. But that is also done by the state. Here is the one that really sticks in you and your buddies craw.

NRA V Massachusetts The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League is a political component of the NRA. It's a way that they try to hide their actions. Judge Young was appointed to the federal Court in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Here ruling is as follows.


Federal Judge Sides With AG Healey, Rules Second Amendment Does Not Cover AR-15s & High-Capacity Mags
By Evan Lips | April 6, 2018, 16:12 EDT
http://newbostonpost.com/2018/04/06...ent-does-not-cover-ar-15s-high-capacity-mags/
BOSTON — Attorney General Maura Healey is hailing a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s 1998 assault weapons ban, a ruling she said “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and our efforts to enforce the law.”

Young later summarized his decision by hinting that if residents living in Democrat-dominated states like Massachusetts are fed up with strict gun laws, they should move elsewhere.

“Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives,” he wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

Young added the following, and included a nod to the deceased conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy. Justice Scalia would be proud.”

Healey, meanwhile, called it a “victory.”

“Strong gun laws save lives,” she wrote in a Twitter post Friday morning. “We will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.

“Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

The order was handed down by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge William Young, who concluded firearms such as “AR-15s and its analogs, along with large-capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to bear arms.”

Young also sided with the so-called “copycat” ban on weapons designed to look like AR-15s, initiated by Healey in July 2016. Young pointed out that Healey’s 2016 directive did not seek to prosecute individuals who had purchased firearms ahead of the release of her enforcement notice.

“That fact, together with the plaintiffs’ failure to provide this court with any other reason to believe they face imminent prosecution for these past transactions, weighs heavily against concluding that there is a credible threat of prosecution,” Young wrote.

Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

The lawsuit, filed in part by the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, was brought against Healey and Governor Charlie Baker’s administration in January 2017. The complaint claimed that the state’s ban “is a non-technical, entirely fabricated, and political term of uncertain definition and scope.”

Federal court records show that in December both sides motioned for summary judgement, and presented their arguments in February.

Young ultimately ruled that “assault weapons and LCMs [large-capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal ‘right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

His ruling plainly determined that AR-15 rifles, while lacking the automatic-firing of the similarly-looking M16s used in military combat, “fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

Young’s decision arguably proves he agrees with the plaintiff’s claim that the ban is political — but not in the manner in which the Gun Owners’ Action League had hoped — as he ultimately ruled that the ban constitutes a policy matter “left to the people directly through their elected representatives.”

Healey held a press conference Friday afternoon to celebrate Young’s ruling. Flanked by several Boston Public Schools students she said helped organize last month’s pro-gun control march on Boston Common, Healey called the ruling backing the ban a victory to those who are “tired of the gun lobby trying to re-write the rules.”

“I want to remind people about how we got here today,” Healey said before delving into describing how she arrived at her decision to issue the 2016 copycat directive — which landed following a deadly Orlando massacre and just prior to the Democratic National Convention. “Twenty years ago we decided as a state that these military-style weapons had no place in Massachusetts.

“But it turned out the gun manufacturers were selling them here anyway,” she added.

Healey said the “gun lobby” took to the courts to “overturn our law.”

“Today, they got their answer,” she said. “Today the court declared that our constitution provides no right to own an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine, and Massachusetts has a right to keep our people safe.”

She added that it will be “up to the gun lobby” as to whether the case is appealed, and added that her office is “ready to confront whatever challenges the gun lobby puts in our way.”

A little less than two hours after Healey finished holding her press conference, the Gun Owners’ Action League released a statement criticizing the ruling and Healey, but not saying whether an appeal is forthcoming:

This is well within the historic rulings from day one from the Supreme Court. It's not the Federal Government's job to regulate firearms. It's strictly up to the States and lower Governments. If the Supreme Court rules any other way, it pretty well throws away at least 300 years of American History.

Now, Westwall, give me specifics where the Supreme Court has EVER over ruled any of this. And, no, the ruling for Religious Pamphlets don't count.

Yes, but what was the reason for their belief that the shotgun could be regulated? The answer is simple "NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE". That is the standard by which all other gun bans will be judged.

 

[2aguy]

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

US V MILLER, 1934 NFA. How on Earth am I being abusive to you?

This dealt with one specific shotgun only. It wasn't for all firearms. It had to do with only a sawed off shotgun. No mention of any other type of firearm at all.

Now it's my turn.

Your buddies keep bringing up Heller V DC. That's a fun one. I've posted the real ruling so this should not be in question of what I am going to say. The ruling was that Heller was denied his rights because he was denied his right to have a fully functional handgun in his home. He was denied his right to register his firearm for his home. He was denied his right (if he didn't have any issues) with his obtaining a license to own said firearm. In essence, that was the entire scope of the bill. It dealt strictly with handguns. It did not deal with long guns, shotguns or anything else. It was extremely specific. You have a right to have what the community believes is a reasonable firearm to protect your home, family and property in your home.

Then we have Voisine v. United States. This was done in 2016. The Supreme Court ruled that a person with a misdemeanor for violence can be denied his right to bear arms.

McDonald V Chicago. Struck down the Chicago ban for handguns. Handguns are the protected firearm. It meets all requirements of the firearm most likely to be accepted for home defense and self protection of the home. What came out of it was the Chicago Assault Rifle Ban that still stands.

Presser V Illinios. Presser was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for possessing a firearm illegally. It was upheld. He claimed to be part of a Militia. What came out of this was that it's illegal for the Federal Government to restrict firearms rights but it's okay for the states to do so.

United States V Cruikshank. In 1875 a mob of whites attacked and disarmed (among other things) a group of black protesters. The Feds arrested them for various violations. In the end, it was ruled that there were no federal firearms violations since the Federals cannot impose firearms restrictions. Those are left to the Stated. Since Civil Rights were not an issue in those days, all of the white men were free to walk away.

Do you see where this is leading? In the United States we have a long history of the States and lower governments regulating or outright banning firearms. The only class of firearm that has been protected has been the handgun for the home. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns have been regulated somewhat only by the number of rounds they may contain while hunting. But that is also done by the state. Here is the one that really sticks in you and your buddies craw.

NRA V Massachusetts The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League is a political component of the NRA. It's a way that they try to hide their actions. Judge Young was appointed to the federal Court in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Here ruling is as follows.


Federal Judge Sides With AG Healey, Rules Second Amendment Does Not Cover AR-15s & High-Capacity Mags
By Evan Lips | April 6, 2018, 16:12 EDT
http://newbostonpost.com/2018/04/06...ent-does-not-cover-ar-15s-high-capacity-mags/
BOSTON — Attorney General Maura Healey is hailing a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s 1998 assault weapons ban, a ruling she said “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and our efforts to enforce the law.”

Young later summarized his decision by hinting that if residents living in Democrat-dominated states like Massachusetts are fed up with strict gun laws, they should move elsewhere.

“Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives,” he wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

Young added the following, and included a nod to the deceased conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy. Justice Scalia would be proud.”

Healey, meanwhile, called it a “victory.”

“Strong gun laws save lives,” she wrote in a Twitter post Friday morning. “We will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.

“Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

The order was handed down by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge William Young, who concluded firearms such as “AR-15s and its analogs, along with large-capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to bear arms.”

Young also sided with the so-called “copycat” ban on weapons designed to look like AR-15s, initiated by Healey in July 2016. Young pointed out that Healey’s 2016 directive did not seek to prosecute individuals who had purchased firearms ahead of the release of her enforcement notice.

“That fact, together with the plaintiffs’ failure to provide this court with any other reason to believe they face imminent prosecution for these past transactions, weighs heavily against concluding that there is a credible threat of prosecution,” Young wrote.

Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

The lawsuit, filed in part by the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, was brought against Healey and Governor Charlie Baker’s administration in January 2017. The complaint claimed that the state’s ban “is a non-technical, entirely fabricated, and political term of uncertain definition and scope.”

Federal court records show that in December both sides motioned for summary judgement, and presented their arguments in February.

Young ultimately ruled that “assault weapons and LCMs [large-capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal ‘right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

His ruling plainly determined that AR-15 rifles, while lacking the automatic-firing of the similarly-looking M16s used in military combat, “fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

Young’s decision arguably proves he agrees with the plaintiff’s claim that the ban is political — but not in the manner in which the Gun Owners’ Action League had hoped — as he ultimately ruled that the ban constitutes a policy matter “left to the people directly through their elected representatives.”

Healey held a press conference Friday afternoon to celebrate Young’s ruling. Flanked by several Boston Public Schools students she said helped organize last month’s pro-gun control march on Boston Common, Healey called the ruling backing the ban a victory to those who are “tired of the gun lobby trying to re-write the rules.”

“I want to remind people about how we got here today,” Healey said before delving into describing how she arrived at her decision to issue the 2016 copycat directive — which landed following a deadly Orlando massacre and just prior to the Democratic National Convention. “Twenty years ago we decided as a state that these military-style weapons had no place in Massachusetts.

“But it turned out the gun manufacturers were selling them here anyway,” she added.

Healey said the “gun lobby” took to the courts to “overturn our law.”

“Today, they got their answer,” she said. “Today the court declared that our constitution provides no right to own an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine, and Massachusetts has a right to keep our people safe.”

She added that it will be “up to the gun lobby” as to whether the case is appealed, and added that her office is “ready to confront whatever challenges the gun lobby puts in our way.”

A little less than two hours after Healey finished holding her press conference, the Gun Owners’ Action League released a statement criticizing the ruling and Healey, but not saying whether an appeal is forthcoming:

This is well within the historic rulings from day one from the Supreme Court. It's not the Federal Government's job to regulate firearms. It's strictly up to the States and lower Governments. If the Supreme Court rules any other way, it pretty well throws away at least 300 years of American History.

Now, Westwall, give me specifics where the Supreme Court has EVER over ruled any of this. And, no, the ruling for Religious Pamphlets don't count.

You don't understand these rulings so you should really stop trying....

D.C. v Heller established that all bearable arms are protected...... Caetano v. Massachusetts stated that dangerous and unusual, one limit on arms, do not apply to rifles and pistols...... Then you have Friedman v. Highland Park that specifically named the AR-15 being protected....

Please stop... you don't know what you are talking about... the lower courts are breaking the law.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

A right is when it doesn't overlap another persons rights. When it does, it becomes a privilege. I know the difference. When you are dealing with public safety something something that is claimed to be a right becomes a privilege.

Wrong. Rights are IMMUTABLE. ALL PEOPLE in the USA have the same Rights. Your position is certain people are special, that is not what the Founders believed, or wrote into our COTUS. You are quite simply wrong.

For the weapons that were available a the time of the writing, they were 100% correct. There was no difference between a rifle of war versus the common hunting rifle or self defense musket. Things have changed. What you are pretty much saying is that they were wrong in 1934 about the Thompson MG and all full auto weapons after that. They were equally wrong about the higher classes of weapons as well. Do I have the right to have a M-249, M-2 or M-60 pointed out the front of my house?

The weapons that were protected by the 2nd Amendment WERE intended to be military weapons. The intent of the Founders was to ensure that in the event that the US government became illegitimate, we the people would have a means of removing that government. The Founders letters, and essays are VERY clear on this. The very first artillery company in the USA was PRIVATE. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston fought in every major war we engaged in up to the Span Am war.

Your claims are false based on well known historical fact. Add to that the SCOTUS decision in US V Miller of 1934 where they held that a sawed off shotgun COULD be regulated because it had no foreseeable military use, and your claims are moot. The AR-15 series of rifles is indeed a sporting rifle. It is based on a military rifle however, and I have no problem admitting that. I also have no problem pointing out that those weapons ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT SCOTUS has ruled on. And they say they are protected.

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

wrong....the lower courts are violating the law.... the Supreme Court gave the opinion, backed it up with several others, and the lower court still ignored it... they are in violation.

I already fed you your lunch. I am busy with Westwall who is saying the same BS you keep spouting with no supporting information. Now, let your hero have a go at it. I'm having fun with this one.

 

[westwall]

No red states will ever take that notion...
That’s why I have always said Rural and urban America will never have the same interests whatsoever.

I can't speak for the rest of the US but for Colorado, your meme is really, really wrong. Stop making shit up.

No, it is accurate. That is the county by county break down of the election results.

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

 

[2aguy]

I can't speak for the rest of the US but for Colorado, your meme is really, really wrong. Stop making shit up.

No, it is accurate. That is the county by county break down of the election results.

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Why do I think this is Brain357 with a different name?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But they haven't overruled the lower courts that state that if the states and lower governments specifically name the AR-15 and it's clones as to be a special case and can have special regulations on them. A Boston Federal Judge just made that ruling last week and no one has stepped forward to contest that ruling. Maybe it's too early but there isn't an inkling in the winds to have it overturned. There are 4 states and numerous local governments that have passed special consideration on the AR-15 and it's being upheld. Yes, the AR can be used as a sporting rifle but we all know that the real intent of the rifle is that of war.

OK, so you've just made it very clear that you don't understand how the Courts in the US work. The SCOTUS ruling IS the law of the land. The lower Courts are in violation of Case Law and when challenged in Court, they will lose.

HEre we go again. Now that you made these statements, be specific. What rulings were made that you are referring to. We can dig them out and take a look at them. Just being abusive like many are in here doesn't work on me. It's called bullying. fire up the V verus V and let's get this party on. Otherwise, it's just another boilerplate statement.

US V MILLER, 1934 NFA. How on Earth am I being abusive to you?

This dealt with one specific shotgun only. It wasn't for all firearms. It had to do with only a sawed off shotgun. No mention of any other type of firearm at all.

Now it's my turn.

Your buddies keep bringing up Heller V DC. That's a fun one. I've posted the real ruling so this should not be in question of what I am going to say. The ruling was that Heller was denied his rights because he was denied his right to have a fully functional handgun in his home. He was denied his right to register his firearm for his home. He was denied his right (if he didn't have any issues) with his obtaining a license to own said firearm. In essence, that was the entire scope of the bill. It dealt strictly with handguns. It did not deal with long guns, shotguns or anything else. It was extremely specific. You have a right to have what the community believes is a reasonable firearm to protect your home, family and property in your home.

Then we have Voisine v. United States. This was done in 2016. The Supreme Court ruled that a person with a misdemeanor for violence can be denied his right to bear arms.

McDonald V Chicago. Struck down the Chicago ban for handguns. Handguns are the protected firearm. It meets all requirements of the firearm most likely to be accepted for home defense and self protection of the home. What came out of it was the Chicago Assault Rifle Ban that still stands.

Presser V Illinios. Presser was arrested, convicted and imprisoned for possessing a firearm illegally. It was upheld. He claimed to be part of a Militia. What came out of this was that it's illegal for the Federal Government to restrict firearms rights but it's okay for the states to do so.

United States V Cruikshank. In 1875 a mob of whites attacked and disarmed (among other things) a group of black protesters. The Feds arrested them for various violations. In the end, it was ruled that there were no federal firearms violations since the Federals cannot impose firearms restrictions. Those are left to the Stated. Since Civil Rights were not an issue in those days, all of the white men were free to walk away.

Do you see where this is leading? In the United States we have a long history of the States and lower governments regulating or outright banning firearms. The only class of firearm that has been protected has been the handgun for the home. Hunting Rifles and Shotguns have been regulated somewhat only by the number of rounds they may contain while hunting. But that is also done by the state. Here is the one that really sticks in you and your buddies craw.

NRA V Massachusetts The Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League is a political component of the NRA. It's a way that they try to hide their actions. Judge Young was appointed to the federal Court in 1985 by Ronald Reagan. Here ruling is as follows.


Federal Judge Sides With AG Healey, Rules Second Amendment Does Not Cover AR-15s & High-Capacity Mags
By Evan Lips | April 6, 2018, 16:12 EDT
http://newbostonpost.com/2018/04/06...ent-does-not-cover-ar-15s-high-capacity-mags/
BOSTON — Attorney General Maura Healey is hailing a federal judge’s dismissal of a lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s 1998 assault weapons ban, a ruling she said “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war and our efforts to enforce the law.”

Young later summarized his decision by hinting that if residents living in Democrat-dominated states like Massachusetts are fed up with strict gun laws, they should move elsewhere.

“Both their general acceptance and their regulation, if any, are policy matters not for courts, but left to the people directly through their elected representatives,” he wrote. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens.”

Young added the following, and included a nod to the deceased conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia:

“These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous, and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy. Justice Scalia would be proud.”

Healey, meanwhile, called it a “victory.”

“Strong gun laws save lives,” she wrote in a Twitter post Friday morning. “We will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools.

“Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

The order was handed down by Massachusetts U.S. District Court Judge William Young, who concluded firearms such as “AR-15s and its analogs, along with large-capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to bear arms.”

Young also sided with the so-called “copycat” ban on weapons designed to look like AR-15s, initiated by Healey in July 2016. Young pointed out that Healey’s 2016 directive did not seek to prosecute individuals who had purchased firearms ahead of the release of her enforcement notice.

“That fact, together with the plaintiffs’ failure to provide this court with any other reason to believe they face imminent prosecution for these past transactions, weighs heavily against concluding that there is a credible threat of prosecution,” Young wrote.

Young was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan in 1985.

The lawsuit, filed in part by the Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, was brought against Healey and Governor Charlie Baker’s administration in January 2017. The complaint claimed that the state’s ban “is a non-technical, entirely fabricated, and political term of uncertain definition and scope.”

Federal court records show that in December both sides motioned for summary judgement, and presented their arguments in February.

Young ultimately ruled that “assault weapons and LCMs [large-capacity magazines] are not within the scope of the personal ‘right to bear arms’ under the Second Amendment.”

His ruling plainly determined that AR-15 rifles, while lacking the automatic-firing of the similarly-looking M16s used in military combat, “fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment.”

Young’s decision arguably proves he agrees with the plaintiff’s claim that the ban is political — but not in the manner in which the Gun Owners’ Action League had hoped — as he ultimately ruled that the ban constitutes a policy matter “left to the people directly through their elected representatives.”

Healey held a press conference Friday afternoon to celebrate Young’s ruling. Flanked by several Boston Public Schools students she said helped organize last month’s pro-gun control march on Boston Common, Healey called the ruling backing the ban a victory to those who are “tired of the gun lobby trying to re-write the rules.”

“I want to remind people about how we got here today,” Healey said before delving into describing how she arrived at her decision to issue the 2016 copycat directive — which landed following a deadly Orlando massacre and just prior to the Democratic National Convention. “Twenty years ago we decided as a state that these military-style weapons had no place in Massachusetts.

“But it turned out the gun manufacturers were selling them here anyway,” she added.

Healey said the “gun lobby” took to the courts to “overturn our law.”

“Today, they got their answer,” she said. “Today the court declared that our constitution provides no right to own an assault weapon or a large-capacity magazine, and Massachusetts has a right to keep our people safe.”

She added that it will be “up to the gun lobby” as to whether the case is appealed, and added that her office is “ready to confront whatever challenges the gun lobby puts in our way.”

A little less than two hours after Healey finished holding her press conference, the Gun Owners’ Action League released a statement criticizing the ruling and Healey, but not saying whether an appeal is forthcoming:

This is well within the historic rulings from day one from the Supreme Court. It's not the Federal Government's job to regulate firearms. It's strictly up to the States and lower Governments. If the Supreme Court rules any other way, it pretty well throws away at least 300 years of American History.

Now, Westwall, give me specifics where the Supreme Court has EVER over ruled any of this. And, no, the ruling for Religious Pamphlets don't count.

Yes, but what was the reason for their belief that the shotgun could be regulated? The answer is simple "NO FORESEEABLE MILITARY PURPOSE". That is the standard by which all other gun bans will be judged.

That only pertains to the Federal Government. Not the States. The NFA of 1934 is a Federal Law that covered more than just Sawed Off Shotguns. It also covered weapons like automatic weapons, explosives and more. While most of the NFA 1934 law is necessary, I do question why they stuck in the sawed off shotgun and someone hasn't challenged it closer to today. That was done one emotion on a Federal Level and clearly against the 2nd and 10th amendment laws. While I agree that a sawed off shotgun is a bad idea, it should be left up to the states. That ruling has since been over ruled by other rulings when pertaining to the states ability to regulate civilian firearms. In fact, before and after, that part about sawed off shotguns was a rare duck of a ruling by the Federal Court and has never been duplicated.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I can't speak for the rest of the US but for Colorado, your meme is really, really wrong. Stop making shit up.

No, it is accurate. That is the county by county break down of the election results.

Westwall, you are definitely showing favor on this one. We are just about ready for me to get banned again, you know that. Your buddies ain't going to like the outcome on that anymore than the last time. I know the breakdown of Colorado and that ain't it. According to that we should have almost all Republican Polititians. We don't. We have about half and half making it a purple stated but it leans blue. The Meme has been massaged for political reasons. Just because it agrees with your political bias doesn't make it right.

How are you about to be banned? Seriously dude, put some pants on.

Not the first time between the two of us, is it. But it's a bit harder this time around. Keep your finger over the Ban Button. You may need it. And enjoy the ride.

And once again, how is anything I am posting offensive to you, and why on Earth would you be banned for engaging in discussion? Like I said dude, you are making stuff up now.

Did I just butthurt you a bit? Now how about taking your own advice and getting back to the OP.