Supreme Court Won’t Hear Challenge to Assault Weapons Ban

Oh heaven forbid I didn't spell out FLASH (*)(*)(*)(*)ING SUPPRESSOR watfknmron. Anybody that knows enough about firearms, by looking at the picture will call it a suppressor, which is the very wording in CA law for it. JFC SMFH

 

Just curious...is the flash suppressor what is banned about that gun in California or do the law makers in California actually believe it is a sound suppressor because as we know they are two totally different things. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they thought it was a sound suppressor. Again....glad I don't live in California and have to worry about such nonsense not to mention the cost of living.

 

Not everyone knows the difference smart(*)(*)(*), and I wasn't the first one to make the distinction. I posted before I read all the posts.

Anyone who knows enough about firearms wouldn't call a "suppressor" a "silencer".

 

Which goes to my question above....do California law makers think that they are the same thing or do they just broadly outlaw all guns with any kind of suppressor whether flash or sound? There are all kinds of loopholes in Arkansas in regards to guns and carry laws but it seems to me that if California law makers so broadly define things that it leaves no loopholes for any kind of misunderstanding as far as legality of that term.

 

Who knows. California is insane.

What pistol grips and heat shrouds and 10 round magazines and flash hiders and bullet buttons are supposed to do to stop criminal behavior is beyond me.

 

English doesn't seem to be your forte', maybe you should go back and reassess what it was I stated.

 

Well, you know it does make the gun more dangerous, just like the shoulder thing that goes up.

 

They simply seem to outlaw different forms of suppressors, whether they are flash or sound or both, dependent on the magazine of the weapon being detachable or not.

 

Oh look another expert, how nice. Please tell me what an assault weapon is and how it is functionally different from any other semi-auto rifle.





Here are two. tell me the functional difference and if you can't the we will know what you and any other liberals who uses the term assault weapon are talking out of.

 

If you want to call a flash suppressor a suppressor in a non-gun related forum full of people who don't know the difference, go ahead and look both a fool and an antagonistic (*)(*)(*), I don't care either way.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah but anything with a scope is a "sniper rifle" in the liberal mind.

 

why would I want to kiss the magazine goodbye?

Do you have any idea how quickly I can drop a mag and slam home a new one?

the idea of the 2A is so the people can stand up against the govt when they over-step the Constitution.

Frankly, if a person can afford a tank then let them have one.

Nowhere in the 2A does it state that the govt can restrict automatic or semi-automatic guns.

It's high time Democrats get voted out and we stop their assault upon liberty.

 

Why not let them bring back slavery. the argument of state rights is a joke and largely over used

 

Should I have just called it a "hider" instead? People would really have been confused then. The term suppressor simply out of convenience and ease of understanding since it is a flash "suppressor".

 

No use? I use mine for target shooting, tactical training, hunting, and plinking. It's modular, so if I need a different calibre (say for larger game) I don't have to get a whole other gun. But you were right about one thing. I don't sleep with it. But it's within arms reach and ready to go.

 

Sounds like tyranny is certainly gleeful today.

 

with the attitude that you display in this thread, I encourage every good American to obtain a long gun. If you want to urinate on the 2A which makes it even easier for the govt to impose their liberal will upon people, then we need to be capable of engaging the oppressors from distance, not just 12 yards.

THAT is the true purpose of the 2A. Yes, people hunted back then and do so today. People shot for sport and do so today.

But, America is not Europe. We were born by over-throwing our oppressors and must retain that ability.

 

It's interesting this is a state right, but something like abortion (not protected under the constitution) and gays marriage (not protected under the constitution) is a federal thing.

 

A regular rifle would be more powerful so that's why they would use one. Assault weapon is a made up political term for a regular rifle that looks scary to liberals (because you see automatic weapons in movies and think that's what they are).

 

elections have consequences and voting Democrat continues to erode the Constitution.

 

The 2nd Amendment was included to protect "We the People" not only from Foreign Invaders, but also from our own government. If you read what the founders intended, it was for citizens to have access to arms that mirrored that standard arm of the light infantryman. That means we should have access to the "assault rifles" that they possess. They didn't want us having grenades, anti-tank, or flame throwers, but the actual guns. A solid .223 should never be banned, even if it was fully automatic. But, most infantry don't use those firing conditions but in bursts as the accuracy is poor when you do and you have huge amounts of reload time.

The Supreme Court not hearing this case, tells us that we are now at a time when we really do have to start worrying about a tyrannical government. It is fantastic that millions of Americans saw it coming and have bought these arms already.

 

Your point is dead on the mark. They are arbitrary to push ideology and no longer representing the U.S. Constitution.

Our supreme court no longer represents the constitution. They proved that with Obamacare. Not only did they allow a spending bill to originate in the senate, but they also allowed a non-tax to be a tax against legislative intent expressly stated. We have reached a Post-Constitutional era.

 

The dissent to the decision not to take the case was pretty straight forward.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKBN0TQ1SU20151207

This is how you lose your freedoms, a piece at a time.

 

Not going to get rid of them anyway.

In congressional testimony last year, the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimated assault-style weapons domestically in the range of 5 million to 8.2 million.

 

actually, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

is pretty clear..........SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

there are no restrictions. If you can afford an Apache helicopter and the munitions then so be it. The issue is that the govt has made it llegal to obtain those munitions. The founders understood that the people MUST be capable of fighting against a tyranical govt, even if it's their own.

 

Since you seem to know so much tell us how it functions.