Mass Judge Rules AR-15's Not Protected By The Second.

Firearms "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected. According to the 4th Circuit Court in Kolbe v Hogan, AR-15s and the like are in common use for lawful purposes.

 

You can piss into the wind 'till the cows come home. Advancing technology is what has compromised the 2nd Amendment.

 

Common misconception. Heller states, "1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.".

Firearm, not just handgun, and for traditionally lawful purposes such as self defense within the home . The right is not limited to just self defense in the home.

 

Sue the state of Massachusetts.

 

I don't had standing to do so. You do, I believe.

 

And what was the context?

Preventing felons and the mentally ill from owning firearms. Also not granting people the right "keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" - so people do not have a right to the entire panoply of weapons such as nuclear bombs or biological weapons or nerve gas artillery shells.

That was right before the opinion brings up the M-16 and that the population needs to be effective against a military.

Context is important, which is probably why you leave it out and quote little bits.

 

Against what military?

 

That's what this case is all about, and it's quite common for the lower court to get overturned if they ignored a higher courts decision which appears to have happened in this case.

 

It isn't? Are you putting Roe on the table now?

 

It always was on the table.

You think scotus decisions are never overturned? How silly. Lol

 

Clearly, they are. It's just not usual for a liberal to assert this position given the tenuous nature of so many of their historic legal victories. It's kind of refreshing.

 

To deny reality is ridiculous. Heller, Miller, roe, hell even miranda could all be overturned at some point

 

Interesting basket of cases. I think authoritarian government would very much like your choices....

 

You want miranda overturned because it is to authoritarian?

 

Not my point. I pointed out that an authoritarian government would very much like gun control, not having to extend civil rights to the accused, etc. And, as noted, your basket seems to support this kind of authoritarianism... I see the liberal attack on free speech, an armed citizenry, erosion of evidentiary rights, erosion of individual rights to privacy etc as the backdrop to your basket. Seems to fit perfectly.

 

We are both authoritarians. It's only differs who you want the guns pointed at

 

you're the ones who call it the "Trump Supreme Court"

 

You can't ****ing "comprise" an Amendment. You can only re-Amend it or repeal it.

 

You can certainly infringe it, and I believe that's the meaning of "compromise" that Dave is using.

 

Except that it has been compromised.

 

I doubt it. For folks like me, our guns are for our defense, personal, or when necessary in support of the nation. For you, it's to control the population. Fundamentally, the reason for having a personal defense in the first place...

 

That's legally meaningless.

 

A) I've never said anything remotely close to that
B) I didn't vote for Trump...or Hillary for that matter
C) You shouldn't make it a habit of making sweeping generalizations...it makes you look like a *****
Carry on

 

Funny. It's as if you're trapped in an endless rerun of Le Mis.... The world hasn't looked like this since the last time republicans took your slaves away from you....

 

The Heller ruling, in it own words, applies to all firearms in common use for traditionally legal purposes.