Rifles and stun guns protected in two big decisions in U.S....sanity rules for a little while longer

[2aguy]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

 

[2aguy]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

No...it wasn't blocked because of "Assault Rifle" it was blocked because towns and cities can't pass gun laws, only the state government in Illinois can.....which is why it was bounced.

 

[2aguy]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

Considering that Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller, and then went on to write this....where he specifically states the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment shows you are wrong....

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

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

No...it wasn't blocked because of "Assault Rifle" it was blocked because towns and cities can't pass gun laws, only the state government in Illinois can.....which is why it was bounced.

Boston, NYC and a few others don't seem to have that problem. It's legal to own an AR in Massachusetts but it's illegal to own one in Boston. That was upheld in court last year. This was when the famous saying of "If you don't like the law, move" came into being.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

Considering that Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller, and then went on to write this....where he specifically states the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment shows you are wrong....

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

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

You back to this BS again? What part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. Dissenting is the losing sides views, not the winning side views. The Dissenting part of any ruling isn't worth anything more than toilet paper and should be used as such. Once again, you get an award with 2 bronze oak leaf clusters.

 

[2aguy]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

No...it wasn't blocked because of "Assault Rifle" it was blocked because towns and cities can't pass gun laws, only the state government in Illinois can.....which is why it was bounced.

Boston, NYC and a few others don't seem to have that problem. It's legal to own an AR in Massachusetts but it's illegal to own one in Boston. That was upheld in court last year. This was when the famous saying of "If you don't like the law, move" came into being.

And it is unConstitutional....cupcake........ as the rulings in Heller, Caetano, Friedman, and Miller state.....4 Supreme Court rulings ignored by the left wing judges in those states.....hoping that hilary was going to appoint 2-3 more anti gun justices....

 

[2aguy]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

Considering that Justice Scalia, who wrote the opinion in Heller, and then went on to write this....where he specifically states the AR-15 rifle is protected by the 2nd Amendment shows you are wrong....

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

That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.

The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

You back to this BS again? What part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. Dissenting is the losing sides views, not the winning side views. The Dissenting part of any ruling isn't worth anything more than toilet paper and should be used as such. Once again, you get an award with 2 bronze oak leaf clusters.
View attachment 251682View attachment 251683View attachment 251684

No, moron....... he dissented because the court didn't take the case.....in that dissent he, the guy who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, explained Heller to that stupid court, stating these rifles are protected by the Constitution, as explained in Heller.....

 

[Marion Morrison]

I don't want an AR, but people should be allowed to have them.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

No...it wasn't blocked because of "Assault Rifle" it was blocked because towns and cities can't pass gun laws, only the state government in Illinois can.....which is why it was bounced.

Boston, NYC and a few others don't seem to have that problem. It's legal to own an AR in Massachusetts but it's illegal to own one in Boston. That was upheld in court last year. This was when the famous saying of "If you don't like the law, move" came into being.

And it is unConstitutional....cupcake........ as the rulings in Heller, Caetano, Friedman, and Miller state.....4 Supreme Court rulings ignored by the left wing judges in those states.....hoping that hilary was going to appoint 2-3 more anti gun justices....

Almost all of the rulings you stated are based on Heller V. All Heller V covered was the right to a citizen of a given city to be afforded the realistic chance to receive a license to have a licensed serviceable HANDGUN in the privacy of their own home. And that was all it covered. It didn't take away DC right to register firearms or license gun owners as long as it was done in a reasonable manner. Without bring up the toilet paper dissent, where does it refer to an AR at all? Or where does it refer to the 30 round Mag? Or is it referring to the "Reasonable" handgun whether it's a revolver or a semi auto? It strictly deals with simple home defense of the home and family, nothing more. Again, it doesn't matter about the running of the mouth of the Dissenting View, it only deals with what was put in front of the Court and that was what Heller sued for and won. Even after the ruling, he still had to file for a license to possess and register his handgun.

 

[2aguy]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

No...it wasn't blocked because of "Assault Rifle" it was blocked because towns and cities can't pass gun laws, only the state government in Illinois can.....which is why it was bounced.

Boston, NYC and a few others don't seem to have that problem. It's legal to own an AR in Massachusetts but it's illegal to own one in Boston. That was upheld in court last year. This was when the famous saying of "If you don't like the law, move" came into being.

And it is unConstitutional....cupcake........ as the rulings in Heller, Caetano, Friedman, and Miller state.....4 Supreme Court rulings ignored by the left wing judges in those states.....hoping that hilary was going to appoint 2-3 more anti gun justices....

Almost all of the rulings you stated are based on Heller V. All Heller V covered was the right to a citizen of a given city to be afforded the realistic chance to receive a license to have a licensed serviceable HANDGUN in the privacy of their own home. And that was all it covered. It didn't take away DC right to register firearms or license gun owners as long as it was done in a reasonable manner. Without bring up the toilet paper dissent, where does it refer to an AR at all? Or where does it refer to the 30 round Mag? Or is it referring to the "Reasonable" handgun whether it's a revolver or a semi auto? It strictly deals with simple home defense of the home and family, nothing more. Again, it doesn't matter about the running of the mouth of the Dissenting View, it only deals with what was put in front of the Court and that was what Heller sued for and won. Even after the ruling, he still had to file for a license to possess and register his handgun.

You don't know what you are talking about, so you should stop.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Deerfield is even dumber than you are. I read the ban. It got bounced because of the wording. The idjits used the term "Assault Rifle". Not a court in the land will allow that to stand. We both know the intent and we both know the possible outcomes. Now, like all the other bans, when (not if) they reintroduce the same ban with the words, "AR-15 and it's various clones" it will stand as constitutional. I can't believe that they are that stupid. I can believe that YOU are that stupid though. BTW, the mag limit had nothing to do with the throwing out the ban. It was strictly the wording on the Rifle Ban.

No...it wasn't blocked because of "Assault Rifle" it was blocked because towns and cities can't pass gun laws, only the state government in Illinois can.....which is why it was bounced.

Boston, NYC and a few others don't seem to have that problem. It's legal to own an AR in Massachusetts but it's illegal to own one in Boston. That was upheld in court last year. This was when the famous saying of "If you don't like the law, move" came into being.

And it is unConstitutional....cupcake........ as the rulings in Heller, Caetano, Friedman, and Miller state.....4 Supreme Court rulings ignored by the left wing judges in those states.....hoping that hilary was going to appoint 2-3 more anti gun justices....

Almost all of the rulings you stated are based on Heller V. All Heller V covered was the right to a citizen of a given city to be afforded the realistic chance to receive a license to have a licensed serviceable HANDGUN in the privacy of their own home. And that was all it covered. It didn't take away DC right to register firearms or license gun owners as long as it was done in a reasonable manner. Without bring up the toilet paper dissent, where does it refer to an AR at all? Or where does it refer to the 30 round Mag? Or is it referring to the "Reasonable" handgun whether it's a revolver or a semi auto? It strictly deals with simple home defense of the home and family, nothing more. Again, it doesn't matter about the running of the mouth of the Dissenting View, it only deals with what was put in front of the Court and that was what Heller sued for and won. Even after the ruling, he still had to file for a license to possess and register his handgun.

You don't know what you are talking about, so you should stop.

What's the matter, did I give you a BooBoo? You just can't stand it that I quote the LAW while you keep bringing up Bull Crap. Again, what part of "Dissenting" are you having trouble with. You do know you just won another Bronze Oak Leaf again, don't you.

 

[Rustic]

ARs are just sporting rifles...

 

[Toronado3800]

Two good cases were decided ...one stops a magazine and rifle ban in Deerfield, Illinois, the other one stops a Stun Gun ban in New York....I mean, come on anti-gunners....Stun Guns? You don't want people to have those.....besides, Justice Alito already stated in the Caetano v. Massachusetts decision that Stun Guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment....

BREAKING: Illinois Judge Permanently Blocks Deerfield's 'Assault Weapon' and Magazine Possession Bans - The Truth About Guns

Today, an Illinois judge in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit Court for Lake County, IL ruled for gun owners in the case of Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Village of Deerfield. The order issued today permanently blocks enforcement the Village of Deerfield’s gun ban.

The ordinance would have outlawed America’s favorite rifle and numerous other popular firearms along with standard capacity ammunition magazines in today’s best-selling and most used handguns and rifles.
=====

BREAKING: US District Court Strikes Down New York's Ban on TASERs and Stun Guns - The Truth About Guns

New York, being opposed to citizens having the ability to adequately defend themselves, either within our outside their homes, has had a longtime banon the possession of electronic dart (TASER) and stun guns. Owning one is a misdemeanor and displaying or threatening to use one is a felony.

But not any more. In a decision announced today, US District Court Judge David N. Hurd has struck down the state’s ban under the Heller decision, ruling that the prohibition is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The Stun Gun was already protected under Heller, and Justice Alito had to explain this to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals by explaining it, as if to a child, why the 4th is stupid in his opinion in Caetano v Massachusetts......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

----As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).


That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.


Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.

But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.

Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.

554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.


In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

The NRA probably should make some friends to prevent an amendment after some terrible crime or other.

- Its time for the NRA to start showing up to symbolically "guard" or support mosques, black power rallys and gay pride parades. They can even hand out membership cards. Think of their persuasion powers with even more members.

- The NRA needs to stand up and just DEMAND one death sentence for someone white who does something stupid with a gun while high or drunk. Public perception matters.

- The NRA should probably support something pointless like making you get the FFL to own a bump stock and the similar toys just like a the fully auto weapons they are designed to imitate.

- The NRA should engage the personal rights libertarians as much as the don't tax me pretend libertarians they already do well with. This Facebook/Google privacy issue should serve nicely. Facebook and Google know what guns you have. That should upset the NRA. Facebook and Google know what medical pot questions you've asked, that should upset the personal rights folks. The NRA and them hippies should find common ground. Heck, the ACLU might even get together with em.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

ARs are just sporting rifles...

Yes, but a poor example of a sporting rifle unless your sport involves a lot of school children, theater viewers, concert attendees or you are being attacked by a whole herd of drugged up rabid gophers armed with AK-47s and Flame Throwers.

 

[Rustic]

ARs are just sporting rifles...

Yes, but a poor example of a sporting rifle unless your sport involves a lot of school children, theater viewers, concert attendees or you are being attacked by a whole herd of drugged up rabid gophers armed with AK-47s and Flame Throwers.