Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

irrelevant

 

not incorrect. And this is what I just said. Every right is able to be restricted, as long as the government can demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest is served by the restriction.

 

Yet Circuit Courts continue to restrict the Second under intermediate scrutiny.

 

which they can do. It's up to the supreme court to determine if strict scrutiny is required.

 

Quite incorrect. As with many other statements that have been presented by yourself.

Except for the fact that it is not. The statement on the part of yourself pertained to government being able to restrict constitutional rights after passing only one of the three hurdles necessary for meeting the standard of strict scrutiny. A legitimate interest held by government is not sufficient to meet strict scrutiny. The approach must be narrowly tailored in achieving that one specific interest, and it must also be the least restrictive approach possible in going about achieving that interest.

 

Nope, which is why there are numerous, legal restrictions on your rights.

yes it is.

This is what I just said. The restriction must pass strict scrutiny if challenged.

 

Actually, I was wondering how many affected gun owners would comply with such a ban on AR-15 etc, 30rd magazines etc especially after many have invested thousands of dollars building their own rifle.
I suppose that it would depend on the likelihood of getting caught & prosecuted as legal fees, alone, could reach the tens of thousands.
For example, I live in gun friendly VA in a VERY gun friendly county in which I have my own target range as do several of my neighbors. I sincerely doubt that the local sheriff's department would chose to take part in an AR-15 etc round-up but Federal goons would if they were called in & heaven help them if they go goose stepping into the southern part of the county.

 

Amendments don't have to pass Strict Scrutiny. They pass the Art V amendment process (1 of 2) and once ratified are part of the constitution, period. Don't talk about a subject if you're that ignorant of it. Please.

 

Simply because a restriction exists does not mean it is either justified, or constitutional. This has been addressed numerous times.

History demonstrates otherwise, as has been proven and documented in past discussions.

The statement on the part of yourself pertained only to a compelling government interest, treating this as if it were the only hurdle in need of being cleared, when it is not.

 

your reading comprehension is terrible. I never said anything about an amendment needing to pass strict scrutiny. I said subsequent amendments, allow for the restriction of rights, as long as those restrictions pass strict scrutiny when challenged.

I see you need schooled once again.,

 

And you were wrong, in each of those times.

it has not.

That is not what I stated.

 

Send it to the Supreme . "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED "...

 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ....

 

Talk to SCOTUS. Your argument is over and done with a very long time ago.

 

Emphasis mine. As you can see, that is not in fact what you said.

Don't go adding things to your quote after the fact hoss.

 

The courts have the right to make such decisions, and if they do, they will be enforced. All the gunbunnies can do is say "nuh uh" and then risk the force of LEO.

 

I see. You misunderstand (deliberately?) his use of "amendment" or alterations, which can be made by the courts.

 

Jake Starkey: Talk to SCOTUS. Your argument is over and done with a very long time ago.

SCOTUS rules, rooster, not you. Don't call me a 'troll', in violation of board rules.

 

One of these days you will add something meaningful to the conversation.
Today is not that day.

 

Misunderstand? See the post you're responding to chief: He didn't say what he claimed he did the 2nd time. If you cannot be concise with your language you shouldn't be discussing the law.

 

JakeStarkey said: I see. You misunderstand (deliberately?) his use of "amendment" or alterations, which can be made by the courts.

I can conclude he is trying to get it right, and you of all people should not be correcting anyone on the use of language.

 

I don't misunderstand his meaning, I take the actual sentence he wrote and analyze it. Becuase I'm not a ****ing telepath Jake.
HE then doubled down, claiming he had explicated things that he in fact had not. If he wanted to correct his statement, he could've done so by saying "o my bad, I meant to add X".


What, precisely, is your gripe about my use of the common language we share?

 

JakeStarkey said: I see. You misunderstand (deliberately?) his use of "amendment" or alterations, which can be made by the courts.
I can conclude he is trying to get it right, and you of all people should not be correcting anyone on the use of language.

What he said is easily understood, including his follow up. You are refusing to accept that it is normal for people to amend, alter, followup, edit, and change comments in light of dialogue. You would want that type of treatment for yourself, I am sure, so I suggest you give it to others. And the fact remains that the courts, not you or me or anyone here, have the power to define and enforce their rulings concerning the 2dA. Finally, why do you seem angry?

 

Except that's not what he did: He claimed to have ORIGINALLY said something that he demonstrably did not, not to want to acknowledge a mistake and correct it.
He claimed not to have made a mistake at all. That is what I was pointing out.

So you're not going to answer my question as to what your gripe with my use of our common language is?
Angry? Is that what you think being corrected means? Bless your little heart dear.

 

The refusal for yourself to admit and accept that "presumptively lawful" is not the same thing as constitutional, is the fault of yourself and yourself alone.

And yet in each of the previous engagements, those partaking in the discussions agreed with the position of myself, rather than yourself.

Except for the fact that it is.

The exact words of yourself, ignoring the other two hurdles required to meet the standard of strict scrutiny.