Scalia's Supreme Court accepted Assault Weapons Ban

There is no significance in need of being addressed, other than the fact that lower courts are refusing to abide by the binding precedent set in the Heller ruling, and thus engaging in judicial activism.

 

7 of the 9 SCOTUS Justices feel the Appeals Courts are abiding by the Heller ruling, which they mostly voted for.

 

Yet again another baseless statement that is devoid of both fact, and understanding on the matter. There is no evidence that the united state supreme court actually agrees with the lower rulings, it is nothing more than the hypothesis of yourself.

 

I believe SCOTUS has voted 7 to 2 four times already to reject an AWB appeal case.

4 of those 7 Justices voted FOR the Heller decision.


to not see this as a sign that the great majority of SCOTUS believes the AWB laws do not violate the letter or spirit of the Heller ruling, is nothing but wishful thinking.

 

Nope, unsubstantiated hot air is instantly dismissed as false and everyone is in awe and much Lulz is had by all.

Includes a Christian Weston Chandler Award for excellence with Sonichu medallion.

 

i know you are

 

Your belief. Meaning an open admission of not knowing one way or another as to what the truth of the matter is, but is being assumed in favor of the position of yourself.

As others have explained to yourself, numerous times already, a denial of certiorari does not mean the united state supreme court agrees with the lower ruling. Even the united state supreme court itself has stated such to be the case.

Then why will they not come out and rule such, once and for all, and put an end to the matter?

 

Its the only rational conclusion that can be made.

 

There's no need to.

SCOTUS is under no obligation to hear every case on every issue, no matter how many times the same issue comes before them.

If folks keep suing against laws banning murder, should SCOTUS eventually take one of those appeals too?

 

Given the make-up of the Court, that decision could go either way. Perhaps neither side wants to take that risk at this time.

 

They are not

 

Nope.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

you seem terribly confused here. It is of course relevant, as it directly refutes your argument.

the court mad no such ruling.

 

Name a firearm sold legally in the US today that is "dangerous and unusual".

 

why?

 

"
Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

 

ok? again I ask, why? I'm not advocating for the banning of any additional firearms or classes.

 

Can you refer me to your post where you describe what you are advocating for?

 

I'm not advocating for anything. My purpose is to correct the misconceptions the hard core nutters have regarding US law, specifically surrounding firearms.

I'm an avid gun owner and shooter, but the nutters give us a bad name and I try to correct that.

 

Do you feel that ownership of the AR-15 is protected by the Second Amendment and SCOTUS decisions?

 

yes

 

Meaning it is the only conclusion that supports the preconceived notions being supported by yourself.

 

Then do not claim that their silence equates to support for the rulings issued by the lower courts.

Off topic hyperbole and nonsense. Murder is an act that harms everyone, ownership of certain firearms does not.

 

Then explain why ordnance, such as rocket propelled grenades, as not general issue equipment provided to troops for each and every deployment, and instead only issued on specific missions, when a specific use is necessary.

 

What is being cited by yourself is nothing more than the dicta, which has no bearing or legal weight. It is nothing more than a synopsis.

Except for the fact it was shown that the united state supreme court did indeed rule such.

 

common sense is a virtue