Scalia's Supreme Court accepted Assault Weapons Ban

Until all semiautomatic guns are banned, the AWB is worthless.

 

i prefer registration upon sale.

that would destroy the iron pipeline and kill most gun running

 

Then actually prove it.

Except there is no evidence of such a claim. If such were indeed believed, there is no reason that the united state supreme court would not hear an appeal, and confirm such to be fact once and for all. Until such is actually done, it is nothing more than your unfounded, baseless opinion.

 

Explain why so many registered firearms in the state of California find their way into the hands of prohibited individuals.

 

already did.

you just are in denial.

 

Nothing has been presented on the matter other than the claim, and the opinion of yourself. But neither amounts to actually being proof of anything.

 

you haven't proved ****

just baseless speculation about a SCOTUS conspiracy.

LOL!!!

 

Pray tell, precisely what about the position being presented by yourself elevates it to be more than just mere opinion, and confirms it as being actual fact?

 

Scalia's court? Really?

I didn't know judges owned courts. That's news to me.

I'll break it down into layman's terms so even you can understand it.

The SCOTUS as it stood back in 2015...

• There were four extreme alt-left judges: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.
• There was one swing vote judge: Kennedy
• There was one whichever-the-wind-blows judge: Roberts
• There were three solid conservative judges: Scalia, Thomas, Alito

The court leaned left slightly. So, why would they risk hearing a gun case that could horribly go wrong for us gun owners?

That's why it was imperative that Trump became President.

Hopefully Trump can replace Kennedy and Ginsburg.

 

Absolutely nothing.
Cet denied is absolutely meaningless.
Only the ignorant and/or dishonest do not understand this.

Conversely, the Supreme Court's denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari is sometimes misunderstood as implying that the Supreme Court approves the decision of the lower court. However, as the Court explained in Missouri v. Jenkins,[22] such a denial "imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case[.]" In particular, a denial of a writ of certiorari means that no binding precedent is created by the denial itself, and the lower court's decision is treated as mandatory authority only within the geographical (or in the case of the Federal Circuit, subject-specific) jurisdiction of that court. The reasons for why a denial of certiorari cannot be treated as implicit approval were set forth in Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc. (1950), in which the Court explained the many rationales which could underlie the denial of a writ which have nothing to do with the merits of the case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari

 

You have no idea what a denial of certiorari indicates legally speaking. Such is made rather clear by your erroneous opinion here.

 

This part. See this part? Its entirely unsupported by the evidence. A denial of the writ of certiorari does not make ANY comment upon the merits of the case whatsoever.

 

Only the ignorant and/or dishonest think otherwise.

 

Whishful speculation and either articulated on your part to incite counter discussion, speculation out of ignorance of how the Supreme Court chooses among the thousands of certain which to hear, or to create a narrative for useful idiots.
Why the court chooses the cases it hears is a deliberate mystery. There are many reasons, most of which the likely reason isn’t the narrative you are weaving.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-US-Supreme-Court-decide-which-cases-to-hear
In Heller, Scalia, if you read closely, indicates the majority opinion was not intended to be a thorough review of the interpretation of the 2A. Many of the conclusions drawn from phrases that used to frame the majority opinion as narrowly addressing the issues presented in the Cert and limiting the opinion to case before them have been extrapolated, both as a dishonest interpretation of the scope of their opinion or from ignorance in support of various narratives for political agendas. While none of us without the robe can be privy to the specific reason or reasons for the AWB ban cert denials, it’s unlikely, IMO, that the narrative you favor is the reason. Often, such cases are left to percolate in lower courts where various opinions, arguements, interpretations are argued across the breadth of the debate, giving justices a body of relevant discussion from which to draw for query and in opinion formulation when they finally choose to hear a case. Then too, it may be that none of the carts thus far presented either sufficiently limit the scope for review or is seen as providing the right vehicle for doing a judicial review of the 2A, that can be a definitive case. The settling of the 2A’s interpretation is a complex topic that intersects with the general limits of local, state and federal authority, nearly every individual right, scope of various levels of legislative authority, and has potentially explosive implications... thus, I suspect, few on the court are jumping to hear a case that will have so many potential ramifications to the future of the Country without exploring all the potential collateral ramifications thoroughly. While many of us have our opinions, few have considered the potential consequences tied to opinions that would emanate from any 2A case SCOTUS decides to hear. A thorough review of the 2A would be on of the largest cases in our lifetime with far reaching reverbations in law. It would likely result in fewer potential adverse consequences than would a repeal of the 2A or a deliberate, clarifying amendment.
As to what the real reason or reasons SCOTUS hasn’t accepted lower court appeals, we don’t know. Any speculation on why, is just that, pure speculation.

 

I'll break it down into layman's terms so even you can understand it.

The SCOTUS as it stood back in 2015...

• There were four extreme alt-left judges: Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan.
• There was one swing vote judge: Kennedy
• There was one whichever-the-wind-blows judge: Roberts
• There were three solid conservative judges: Scalia, Thomas, Alito

The court leaned left slightly. So, why would they risk hearing a gun case that could horribly go wrong for us gun owners?

That's why it was imperative that Trump became President.

Hopefully Trump can replace Kennedy and Ginsburg.

 

Would it stop straw purchases? Would dremel tools be banned?

 

How's that drug war working out for ya?

 

are you suggesting folks have a biochemical addiction to guns?

LOL!!!! that would be a hoot.

 

Alcohol prohibition didn't work.

The current drug prohibition isn't working.

And a gun prohibition wouldn't work.

 

folks seem to be doing quite well without being able to buy machine guns.

no signs of withdrawal.

still very funny that you make an analogy betwen drugs, alcohol and guns.

LOL!!!!

 

Criminals don't obey laws prohibiting Drugs and Guns and inebriation.
So what is the answer ?
More restrictions on law abiding citizens.

 

do you know someone that have a biochemical addiction to guns?

they should really seek help.

 

DDT was made illegal years ago.

Lead paint was made illegal years ago.

Asbestos was made illegal years ago.

............and yet there is no massive nation-wide black market selling these things.

 

more faith based nonsense.

 

would the same therapy help those who feel a need to control the lives of others?