Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
A person who passes all these requirements should get a concealed carry license as a reward.IUSSC:
"...When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct...."
Thus...
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.
Ownership and possession of magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.
Why do anti-gun loons continue to create restrictions they know are unconstitutional?
And the class will cost $1,000, be 3 days long and only be offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.And I'm sure it will take months to get the permit in places the progressives control the police department and the local government. And the class will be offered once a year to 20 people only.
Will the police have their magazines follow the ban?
And the class will cost $1,000, be 3 days long and only be offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
And the class will cost $1,000, be 3 days long and only be offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.
So, it’s still unconstitutionalSince the OP did not provide a link, I will explain what Oregon's Measure 114 does.
First, to buy a gun you have to get a permit from the local police chief or sheriff which will cost you a fee, you have to pass a background check, and you have take a firearm safety class.
Second, high capacity magazines over 10 rounds are banned.
Correct.So, it’s still unconstitutional
Correct.
None of those restrictions will pass constitutional muster.
Thank you, Justice Thomas.
They have to win the house, too.Until the democrats win the Senate....
USSC v Bruen had nothing to do witih high capacity magazines. . . .
California and New Jersey have 10 round magazine limits and the lower courts have upheld such bans.
The Supremes have not ruled yet.
As I said, the lower courts have upheld such bans.
Anti-gun loons hate guns, and the idea that we have the right to own and use them.Maybe it's time for you to do the same?
They have to win the house, too.
The cases that you are referring to, that 'upheld' the NJ and CA mag limit laws, have been vacated by SCOTUS, they have no value as law. You pointing to them, only shows how little you know how the law works.
There was a pending appeal to SCOTUS of the 9th Circuit's opinion in Duncan v Bonta which upheld Cali's mag limit law.
In NYSRPA, SCOTUS rejected the legal reasoning the 2nd Circuit used to decide NYSRPA (the "two-step inquiry"), also used in about 70 other gun cases in the lower courts, including the 9th to decide Duncan and the 3rd Circuit's decision upholding NJ's law.
When the Court handed down NYSRPA, SCOTUS GVR'd those cases which means they Granted the appeal for certiorari, Vacated the lower court's decision and Remanded the case back to the lower court that screwed the pooch, "for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. ___ (2022)", to give them a chance to get it correct (which means, to strike down the unconstitutional law).
Screengrab from: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/063022zor_5he6.pdf
If the lower Circuit courts get it right this time, and the states don't stupidly appeal those losses to SCOTUS, there is no need for SCOTUS to speak again . . . SCOTUS has already spoken it is now the lower court's job to simply obey the Constitution and SCOTUS.
Maybe it's time for you to do the same?
The Senate can't pack the court by itself.Until the democrats win the Senate....then they will abolish the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court......then the democrat brown shirt judges will strike down Heller, Bruen.......and all the rest.....of course, there will be no crying about "precedent," when they do this or any other things they will do....
v Bruen, was decided, in part, to negate the 2-part process the lower courts used to uphold those magazine bans.
I ask again :
What about ""The Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct" leads you to conclude the court will uphold a magazine ban?
Don;t worry - we both know you don't have a meaningful response.
And so, your claim that the ban will be upheld is a statement of ignorance or dishonesty..
Well. The Supreme Court didn’t rule on magazine capacity in Bruen. He is right about that.
And the plain text doesn’t cover a lot. For example. Many Arms are currently banned. Try to buy an Uzi as one example.
Several states have magazine capacity limits. Colorado as one. Now this law is being challenged. But let’s see where your love of the plain text ends.
Why can’t convicted felons own firearms? Nothing in the plain text of the Second prohibits it. Does it?
Here, buy an Uzi...Well. The Supreme Court didn’t rule on magazine capacity in Bruen. He is right about that.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
And the plain text doesn’t cover a lot. For example. Many Arms are currently banned. Try to buy an Uzi as one example.
Several states have magazine capacity limits. Colorado as one. Now this law is being challenged. But let’s see where your love of the plain text ends.
High-capacity magazine ban challenged in new lawsuit
A firearm group’s fight against gun restrictions in Colorado continues with a new challenge to the state’s large-capacity magazine ban.kdvr.com
Why can’t convicted felons own firearms? Nothing in the plain text of the Second prohibits it. Does it?
Very UnConstitutional. It will be struck down, after a lot of people get hurt.USSC:
"...When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct...."
Thus...
Simple ownership and possession of a firearm is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.
Ownership and possession of magazine with a capacity exceeding 10 rounds is protected from these restrictions by the 2nd.
Why do anti-gun loons continue to create restrictions they know are unconstitutional?
NYSRPA did not need to knock out every single unconstitutional gun law . . . Since Heller, the Circuit courts have devised a BS two-step process that served to sustain every challenged gun law.
SCOTUS directly and expressly rejected that process as it was used in the 2nd Circuit's NYSRPA decision and all the other 70 some-odd gun decisions in the Circuits . . .
The decisions that specifically sustained gun mag restrictions in CA and NJ were VACATED, that means they were crumpled-up and set on fire and SCOTUS ordered those Circuits to rehear the cases considering NYSRPA v Bruen.
Patience grasshopper . . .
They are all going away, along with the various assault weapon bans . . .
That is not the only test . . . The test is three-pronged, text, relevant history and tradition.
A law must be shown to either be directly represented in ratification period history (1791) or have at least some historical analogue in that period that can show a traditional intent to bar such persons from gun possession and use.
I'm not going to post a long explanation you will not read, I'm just going to link to CNN gun law expert Steve Gutkowski's article on the recent cases; one of which struck down the law prohibiting persons under felony indictment from having a gun, but upheld the felony conviction ban.
Actual knowledge and answers to your question at the link . . .
Federal Judge Who Struck Down Felony Indictment Gun Ban Upholds Conviction Ban
MSM news story link:
Americans under felony indictment have a right to buy guns, judge rules
A federal law prohibiting people under felony indictment from buying firearms is unconstitutional, a federal judge in Texas has concluded, citing a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that significantly expanded gun rights. U.S. District Judge David Counts, an appointee of Republican former President...news.yahoo.com
If the Supreme Court is going off of the clear text of the Second. They have to restore gun rights to Convicted Felons. Period.
