So, anti gunners who say no one wants to take our guns...what about the 4th circuit gun ban?

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

anything can be a weapon of war

people kill with their bare hands in war when need be so I guess you don;t have a right to your hands

Oh, my gosh, you are right. Email scotus.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects dipshit......you have an excuse....you are not a judge..you can be stupid about the law....the morons on the 4th....they are just left wing activists who wear robes...

And the judge says you are wrong. And the difference is that the court has the power to define this law while you don't.

 

[RealDave]

The idea that the spoon fed NRA fools think the Second Amendment means all types of weaponry. We had a federal ban on assault rifles. We survived. Deal with it.

 

[MisterBeale]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects dipshit......you have an excuse....you are not a judge..you can be stupid about the law....the morons on the 4th....they are just left wing activists who wear robes...

And the judge says you are wrong. And the difference is that the court has the power to define this law while you don't.

 

[Auld Phart]

The idea that the spoon fed NRA fools think the Second Amendment means all types of weaponry. We had a federal ban on assault rifles. We survived. Deal with it.

and we survived without it.

Deal with it

 

[Winston]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

2aguy thinks he has a right to a crew served weapon, a mortar, a frigate, or whatever he considers a weapon of war.

 

[2aguy]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

That is exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects dipshit......you have an excuse....you are not a judge..you can be stupid about the law....the morons on the 4th....they are just left wing activists who wear robes...

And the judge says you are wrong. And the difference is that the court has the power to define this law while you don't.

No...they didn't...From Heller....from the Supreme Court...the superior court to the 4th Circuit and whose opinion needed to be followed by the 4th....

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[2aguy]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Moron...you read the Miller part wrong...he specifically points out that according to Miller they ruled against the sawn off shotgun because it wasn't a military weapon and military weapons are protected.........and even then miller was a bad ruling when it banned sawn off shotguns... .......

 

[hazlnut]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

How did it ignore Heller?

District of Columbia v Heller - Justice Scalia


Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

 

[MikeK]

Arguments of this kind serve mainly to affirm that the legal profession is comprised of and exists by engaging in elaborate bullshit contests. This specific argument is a perfect example of a bullshit contest being won because one side simply gives up trying to outdo the other side's stamina in creating reams of convoluted bullshit.

In fact, this is the very reason I dropped out of law school. I couldn't take any more. Reading law made my hair hurt.

In this example, the Second Amendment could not be more clear -- provided we refer to the often ignored but critical factor of original intent, which automatically dismisses the notion that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms refers only to owning a handgun for personal defense and that it excludes the need for owning "military type" arms. When referring to the obvious original intent of the Second Amendment it could not be more clear that its purpose is to enable the citizens to throw off an oppressive government -- not simply and exclusively for home or personal defense.

The very word, militia, plainly implies military usage, yet these exalted bullshit artists with law degrees, political connections, and the remarkable ability to concoct fantastic and endless streams of convoluted, mind-bending verbal tripe engage in exchanging barrages of bullshit hoping their adversaries will succumb before they do.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You have guns.

You don't have a constitutional right to weapons of war.

anything can be a weapon of war

people kill with their bare hands in war when need be so I guess you don;t have a right to your hands

Oh, my gosh, you are right. Email scotus.

so now you see how ridiculous the statement about "weapons of war" is

 

[Winston]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

 

[Winston]

Arguments of this kind serve mainly to affirm that the legal profession is comprised of and exists by engaging in elaborate bullshit contests. This specific argument is a perfect example of a bullshit contest being won because one side simply gives up trying to outdo the other side's stamina in creating reams of convoluted bullshit.

In fact, this is the very reason I dropped out of law school. I couldn't take any more. Reading law made my hair hurt.

In this example, the Second Amendment could not be more clear -- provided we refer to the often ignored but critical factor of original intent, which automatically dismisses the notion that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms refers only to owning a handgun for personal defense and that it excludes the need for owning "military type" arms. When referring to the obvious original intent of the Second Amendment it could not be more clear that its purpose is to enable the citizens to throw off an oppressive government -- not simply and exclusively for home or personal defense.

The very word, militia, plainly implies military usage, yet these exalted bullshit artists with law degrees, political connections, and the remarkable ability to concoct fantastic and endless streams of convoluted, mind-bending verbal tripe engage in exchanging barrages of bullshit hoping their adversaries will succumb before they do.

Myth. Total ******* myth.

Constitutional Fallacies Part 1: Insurrectionists

 

[JakeStarkey]

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" From hazlnut's link above

The term "weapons of war" needs to be considered in terms of the 2nd and what that means to America.

 

[Auld Phart]

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

 

[danielpalos]

The anti gunners keep telling us that no one wants to take our guns away from us....and then the 4th Circuit court of appeals does just that with it's ruling on the new Massachuesetts law.....which completely ignored Heller and essentially can be used to take away just about every type of firearm we now have....

As I have said in the past...left wing judges do not follow Precedent......this was a favorite line from one of the anti gunners, that no one was going to take guns because it was already settled law....well.....it just became unsettled....and it ignored all of the legal Precedent that came before, even those set by the 4th Circuit...which also vacated an earlier ruling on the issue.....

Good thing you are not Japanese, and we are not in real times of war, with war time tax rates, to prove it.

 

[danielpalos]

Yeah, I saw that.

I warned a friend of mine as I follow the Deep State the much of this administration was going to be distraction in order to take guns away. That didn't take long.

'Military-Style' Firearms Aren't Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules | The Huffington Post

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

Don't expect the Supreme Court to stop this one, or Trump to end it, they all work together, they won't stop it.

"‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules"

Wonder if they included all 1911 style semi automatics, the military has been using for decades?
or weapons like the .357 and .45s Patton carried?

Assault weapons and facsimiles, are for the common offense, not defense of self and property.

 

[Winston]

Damn but the stupid spreads fast. Here is the decision.

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

It is not a weapon in military use, it is a weapon that is MOST USEFUL in military service. In the published opinion you will notice that four other courts of appeals at the federal level have REJECTED second amendment protection claims for assault rifles. And the "most useful" standard was one implemented by HELLER. This decision vacated the ONLY, and I mean the ONLY court decision to ever rule that assault weapons were protected by the second amendment post Heller.

It all revolves around a "strict-scrutiny" standard verses an intermediate scrutiny standard. The reality is that, post Heller, a guns second amendment protection completely revolves around the necessity of the weapon in question for personal defense. It is not absolutely necessary, to have an assault weapon for personal defense. Matter of fact, an assault rifle is MOST USEFUL in military service. One can't make that argument for a shotgun, a pistol, or even 1911 style semi-automatic pistols. One could make an argument that those weapons are absolutely critical to an individuals second amendment right to self-defense. Are you prepared to make that argument for the AR-15 assault rifle?

Boy...you are the dumb one.....

The rifle is the primary weapon of self defense against an illegitmate government.....it is specifically covered by the 2nd Amendment asswipe.

The AR-15 has never been used in military service.....and that isn't the standard set even by Heller....the standard is "in common use" and since the AR-15 is the most popular and most commonly used rifle in this country...you are wrong, as is the 4th circuit that made up that term without regard to the Constitution or legal Precedent...

Not any more, if you would pull your head out of your ass you might could hear what I have been telling you. Not post Heller. And the Heller decisi

From Heller....

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
----------

NO that is NOT the decision. The decision is a 157 page pdf file.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

It probably starts at about page 56, the opinion, reads like Scalia, I didn't check. Scalia kind of arguing with himself as he talks about Miller, the militia use standard, and how it no longer applies. It even mentions the whole any weapon could be a military weapon argument. Then it talks about banning weapons "most useful", hell yeah, actually uses the term, "most useful" in military service. It actually proclaims that no amount of small weapons would be effective against modern bombers, but, and I quote,

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

That "prefatory clause", the only reason it is there is as a descriptor of "the people", meaning the "people" commonly drawn together as a militia. In other words, free land-owning white men. It is what Scalia and the majority convince themselves of anyway. I am quite sure they didn't have a hard time doing that, the "white men" and all. And with that being the case, with no military necessary weapon precluded from regulation now that it is an individual right based on self-defense, any state can ban an assault weapon, or pretty near any other primarily offensive weapon.

Again...this is actually from Heller nitwit......

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

You are like a broken record. So what if that is from Heller. So is this, as well as the posting of another poster,

nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

You know, if you don't have the intelligence to actually read and understand the ruling maybe you ought to stfu.

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”

common use at the time?

are you one of those fools that believe we should only be allowed flintlocks and muskets?

Damn but the stupid is rampant in this thread. Read the ******* decision. Read ******* Heller. And then read this decision from the DC court of Appeals--the other "Heller".

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/inter...C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

The way I see it, well you got about three hundred pages of material to cover. That ought to take you about three years to get through.