MASSIVE SHOOTING in MAINE RIGHT NOW and shooter on the lose

[2aguy]

In D.C. v Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to bear arms is not unlimited.

Yeah, you left out the rest of that.....


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

-

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

 

[bodecea]

wow ! just wow ! you take this tragedy and twist it to fit your own racist narrative .. what are you going to say if the perp does not fit the traditional white description .. what if he's Arabic and a Hamas sympathizer ? get help Im2 .

Talk about Irony!

 

[Faun]

The vast majority of gun owners use them for protection against predatory poisonous snakes, target practice to improve their shooting of predatory creatures and criminals who shoot at them or a family member first. Most people never have to use their weapons in that way, but they are entitled to prevent criminals and troublemakers from invading their homes to steal or kill.

Has nothing to do with what I said.

Like Roe v. Wade back when? Durrrrr....

Thanks for affirming my point -- the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and their rulings are legally binding.

 

[bodecea]

I am ready on twitter

I will give you a link

Twitter source.................

 

[2aguy]

But you have more guns per capita then anywhere else on the planet. What this results in, horrendous gun killing stats and a horrendous number of idiots that think more guns is the answer.

The, "More Gun", idiots are thicker than my kitchen worktop.

One day, the 2ndA will get scrapped, the sooner the better. Then as regulations come in and generations die out, you will start to enjoy proper freedom, instead of the illusion from America's marketing slogan. As laws and regs increase, stats will decline over the decades, they don't happen over night.

As the generations with your gun mentality die out, the safer America will get.

You guys banned guns from 1920s.....then went on to murder 15-20 million innocent men, women and children, over 1 million children.......in just 6 years....

In the U.S., gun murder over our entire 247 year history, around 2,470,000

Your governments murdered more people in 6 years than our gun murder in 247 years......can you see how stupid you are?

 

[bodecea]

Yep....he was in the looney bin for 2 weeks....told them, explicitly, that he was hearing voices and that he wanted to do a mass public shooting...and they did nothing.....

you doofus....you can't hide the facts in this....your god, "Government," failed again to stop a known mass public shooter.

"shall not be infringed"..............right?

 

[Faun]

Yeah, you left out the rest of that.....


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------






Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

-

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

LOL

And they still affirmed there are limits to bearing arms.

 

[2aguy]

Has nothing to do with what I said.




Thanks for affirming my point -- the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and their rulings are legally binding.

Yes....legally binding...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[beautress]

INCEL?

Didn't yo mama teach you could beat incel by making a berry pie? It brings a smile even to a grumpy crocodile.

 

[2aguy]

"shall not be infringed"..............right?

He was a prohibited person by law......you dumb ass....just like actual felons you guys keep releasing from jail and prison who do almost all of our gun crime and murder.

 

[bodecea]

Police release photo of vehicle connected to shootings​

The Lewiston Police Department released this image of a vehicle connected to the active shooter situation. Lewiston Maine Police Department

View attachment 848719

Is it a Middle Eastern car?

 

[bodecea]

He was a prohibited person by law......you dumb ass....just like actual felons you guys keep releasing from jail and prison who do almost all of our gun crime and murder.

"shall not be infringed"....right?

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

Maine Police Order City Lockdown, Citing ‘Active Shooter’ at Two Locations​

A dispatcher with the sheriff’s office said there were multiple victims in the shooting in Lewiston, but didn’t know how many.

The authorities in Maine ordered residents of Lewiston to shelter in place on Wednesday night as they responded to an “active shooter situation” at two locations involving multiple victims.

The Maine State Police said it was assisting the Lewiston Police Department in its response to the shooting. “Law enforcement is asking people to shelter in place,” the state police said on Facebook. “Please stay inside your home with the doors locked.”

“Law enforcement is currently investigating at two locations right now,” the agency said, without specifying where.

A dispatcher at the Androscoggin County Sheriff’s Office said there were multiple victims, adding that the exact number and their conditions were still unknown.

Maine Police Order City Lockdown, Citing ‘Active Shooter’ at Two Locations

A dispatcher with the sheriff’s office said there were multiple victims in the shooting in Lewiston, but didn’t know how many.

www.nytimes.com

Funny how we see no rush to post this story. The photo has been shown. The shooter is white.

16 killled, and there may be more deaths coming. Lewiston is 77 percent white and this appears to be another white on white crime.

A video of Card's X account, using the username @RobertC20041800, shows he was interested in right-wing figures. His "liked" tweets include content published by Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D'Souza. He also liked tweets by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, according to the screenshots.

What Robert Card's social media reveals about Maine mass shooting suspect

Card has been identified as a person of interest in a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, on Wednesday evening.

www.newsweek.com

 

[2aguy]

LOL

And they still affirmed there are limits to bearing arms.

Yes......specific places....not specific weapons....and the AR-15 is one of those protected by the 2nd Amendment...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

A more detailed quote from Friedman...

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered “whether lawabiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,” and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because “f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411.

Although the court recognized that “Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,” it thought that “Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.” Id., at 411.

 

[2aguy]

A video of Card's X account, using the username @RobertC20041800, shows he was interested in right-wing figures. His "liked" tweets include content published by Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D'Souza. He also liked tweets by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, according to the screenshots.

What Robert Card's social media reveals about Maine mass shooting suspect

Card has been identified as a person of interest in a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, on Wednesday evening.

www.newsweek.com

And? He was crazy and should have been confined......and your god, "government," let him go...after he stated he was hearing voices and wanted to actually do a mass public shooting......

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As always with these shootings, the shooter was FUCKING INSANE.

Nice work, shrinks.

Big Pharma is the cause of these shootings. Why is it such a high % off these shooters are nutbags on psychotic drugs?

WHERE IS THE NASVILLE TANNY SHOOTER MANIFESTO?!

 

[Conservative from Georgia]

And? He was crazy and should have been confined......and your god, "government," let him go...after he stated he was hearing voices and wanted to actually do a mass public shooting......

A crazy right wing nut is a redundancy.

 

[bodecea]

A video of Card's X account, using the username @RobertC20041800, shows he was interested in right-wing figures. His "liked" tweets include content published by Donald Trump Jnr., Tucker Carlson and Dinesh D'Souza. He also liked tweets by former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan, according to the screenshots.

What Robert Card's social media reveals about Maine mass shooting suspect

Card has been identified as a person of interest in a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, on Wednesday evening.

www.newsweek.com

So, he definitely IS mentally ill.

 

[Faun]

Yes....legally binding...

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Great, keep highlighting how that only applies to bearable arms

You're literally making my point for me every time you do.

 

[beautress]

Has nothing to do with what I said.




Thanks for affirming my point -- the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and their rulings are legally binding.

Not forever if they're based outside the Constitution about human rights. Of course, you can blather on about how a 2-cell human is dead while it actually is performing a billion tasks to get to birth. I consider that quite alive. Apparently you're stuck on your own refusal to think straight. Hint: fetuses are alive. Their oxygen comes through their mother's umbilical cord. Keep claiming they're not important if it makes you feel better, but the truth, you can't handle the truth ya big lummox.