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

Cease and desist with making baseless claims about what is supposedly known and not know by myself to be true. Start presenting actual, citable evidence.

 

except you know my post was perfectly clear, and I said that the rights restricted, had to pass strict scrutiny, which you directly quoted me saying 5 times. now.


You continue to intentionally look silly, because you know perfectly well I was talking about restrictions, not amendments, needing to pass strict scrutiny, and numerous people have pointed out to you.

 

Yet again another baseless claim on the part of yourself.

 

I don't make baseless claims.

 

I don't make baseless claims. He is pretending I said something I didn't, and he even quotes me NOT saying what he keeps claiming I said.

It's hilarious, and makes him look silly.

 

Reality and Xenamenes both look silly in insisting that Rahl's correction rightly of Reality was baseless.

 

The member Rahl has made numerous factually incorrect statements in the past. Chief among them is the claim that the auto-sear of a fully-automatic firearm actually controls the number of rounds of ammunition that are discharged within the time frame of a single minute.

 

Yeah. That was a laugh a minute - real Black Knight stuff, right there.

 

Not true.

 

Not true.
Your statements are Quite baseless.

 

JakeStarkey said: ↑
Rahl has run the rodeo on Reality, and Reality is on the ground kicking.

Rahl made it perfectly clear what he said, and Reality kept pretending that was not the case.

So Rahl put him on the ground and stood on his head, metaphorically.

So true.

 

JakeStarkey said: ↑
Reality and Xenamenes both look silly in insisting that Rahl's correction rightly of Reality was baseless.

so wrong

 

Either contribute something of actual relevance to the discussion at hand, or do not participate. The forum rules are quite clear on the matter.

 

The Scalia Supreme Court, the same court that voted 5 to 4 to defend 2nd Amendment rights in the Heller case, REJECTED an appeal of the Highland Park assault weapons ban, in a 7 to 2 vote.

that tells you that even the Scalia court believed the States have some authority to regulate guns.

 

More accurately, it means there was no desire on the part of the conservative justices to further cater to the whims and demands of the swing vote justice Anthony Kennedy, and agree to further needless, baseless restrictions being placed on the second amendment. They were forced to cater significantly just for Heller to be decided in favor of the people to the extent that it was.

 

assault weapons ban appeals are rejected by the SCOTUS consistently, 7 to 2.

that means they ain't interested.

assault weapons bans will be the law of the land for some time to come.

we should get used to it

 

Heller, McDonald and most recently Caetano have all been quite specific in the fact that the second amendment protects all implements that constitute bearable arms, which are in common use for legal purposes, even implements that could never have been imagined by the first congress at the time of the ratification of the united states constitution. Each and every one of these prohibitions is in violation of these rulings, and each lower court that has ruled otherwise is outright ignoring binding precedent set by the united state supreme court, the highest court in the nation. It does not matter what the lower courts rule to the contrary, they have no legal authority to state the Heller and the subsequent rulings got it wrong, or that they do not say what they actually say.

What is not understood is the fact that these rulings were invalidated before they were ever decided, because they ignore binding precedent. These rulings are not legal, no matter how many lower courts make them.

 

the same Supreme Court that gave us Heller has ALSO rejected appeals of assault weapons bans.

that means they believe the States have some authority to regulate firearms.

however, if the States banned the possession of ALL semi-auto rifles, not just assault weapons, they would clearly have taken the case.

 

The states can have their say as long as SCOTUS agrees.

 

With the various prohibitions being drafted in ever-greater terms of scope as to what firearms are affected and what are not, they will not be able to refuse much longer. Now supporters of greater firearm-related restrictions are pushing to expand the definition of so-called "assault weapons" to include all semi-automatic firearms.

The more the definition is pushed and expanded upon, the harder it is to legally justify the prohibition at all.

 

What is an assault weapon? A rifle with scary looking parts for libs.

 

no AWB will ban all semi-auto weapons.

but if that did happen, SCOTUS would vote to hear such an appeal.

 

Which is more deadly:

 

That is up to SCOTUS.

 

actually these is more deadly





but your AR-15 has a much larger magazine and a folding stock, which allows for many more dead bodies and possible concealment.