"Virginia Democrats won an election. Gun owners are talking civil war"

The second amendment. The state of virginia can not pass laws that violate the second amendment, or any other amendment. Red flag laws violate the 5th and 14th amendments due process clauses. "assault weapon" bans violate the second amendment.

 

Well if no federal court have ruled against assault weapons bans and the supreme court refuses to take the case guess it's constitutional.

Red flag laws simply allow for people suspected of being a threat to be evaluated and have their weapons temporarily suspended which is much better than someone losing their life because of "their rights to a gun"

 

it isn't. The supreme court has already ruled that banning entire classes of bearable arms, in common usage for legal purposes, is unconstitutional.

Caetano v Massachusetts, DC v Heller, Chicago v Mcdonald.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

and they violate the 5th and 14th amendments due process clauses. They are unconstitutional.

 

Only about 3% of guns are ar15 and those types. that is not common usage.

 

there are over 10 million AR's in circulation, that is common usage. VA assault weapons ban doesn't just ban AR's. It bans any semi auto rifle or handgun capable of accepting a magazine greater than 10 rounds. That brings in the most popular and widely owned 22lr, the Ruger 10/22, and also the post popular handguns, the glock 17, 19 etc. These are unconstitutional, as the 3 cases I cited for you point out.

 

10M out of 300M that is 1% not 3% (the hell was I thinking). No one can make a reasonable argument that you need 10 or more rounds at once to carry out common function of self protection.

The supreme court has no wish to stick itself into the spotlight again to make a more clear ruling.

 

which is common usage.

I have no need to provide a reasonable "need" to exercise a constitutional right. I have the right, as the supreme court told you.

Of course it does. There was a case on the books to be heard on the NY law, but NY repealed the law because they knew it was unconstitutional.

 

Common use is 1% really?

The landmark cases stated that people had a right to self defense with a gun and that the restrictions or bans that made it unusable for that purpose were unconstitutional. They did not give any other reason.

Yep, because that law had a travel ban on it. But is it not strange they won't take a case of one of the laws in place in 9 or 10 states and DC?

 

Yes

I see you haven't read any of the cases. They state no such thing.

none have been presented to them

 

Then please define what you consider common use because no business would consider 1% of something common.

What was the reason the requirement of locking up the gun in the house was reversed in DC?

So no one has appealed the rulings of the district courts? Then I guess that means the NRA won't even fight it.

 

common usage. I commonly use, as well as millions of other americans, AR 15's for sporting and competition shooting.

It violated the 2nd amendment.

NRA doesn't have standing to bring it to the SCOTUS

 

Re:

Actually, the firearms that our Northam - Bloomberg administration want to ban are any firearm that may accept a magazine holding more than 10 rounds.
In other words, it's not just AR-15s etc but most all semiautomatic pistols and rifles that the N. - B. administration wants to ban which is a percentage far greater than 1%.

Additionally, what a business may or may not do is irrelevant to making laws that comply with the Constitution.

 

Huh? The M16 and M4 is directly based on the AR15 aside from the fire control group.

 

No military on earth uses the AR 15. An M16 is not an AR15. An M4 is not an AR15.

 

Can a state ban weapons with due process of law?

 

You said an AR15 is not suited or designed for military use. That is the whole point of the design. You take a fire control group out of a m16/m4 and install it in a mil spec grade (takes about 2 minutes) ar15 you have a military grade weapon.

 

18 million of 423 million = 4.25%
Please demonstrate how this proves AR15s are not commonly ---used--- for the traditionally lawful purposes of a firearm.

 

You cannot demonstrate this to be true.

 

If you read the decision...
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

 

Holy cow. What are you talking about?? You obviously have no knowledge of the AR platform.

 

The "whole point" of the AR15 design is not suitability for military use.
If it were, it would be select fire and called "M16".

 

That's why we have the courts in this country; if you disagree with a law you have the right to challenge it in a court of law. It is the mechanism we use to settle disputes and it's worked very well since instituted at the country's founding.

 

True but I understand they can be modified to fire automatically with a simple add-on kit.

 

For individuals yes.