Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #321
You have no right to any weapon you choose
Neither does the guy planning to shoot up a school
You are entitled to AR-15 rifles, semi-auto rifles and 30 round magazines......those are Constitutionally protected weapons......as per Supreme Court rulings......
You are as long as the law does not spell out one specific weapon with something like "AR-15 and it's various clones". Then the AR-15 and it's various clones are single out and can be regulated seperately and even banned. This is very constitutional and has been upheld in numerous federal courts. Just because you don't like something doesn't automatically make it unconstitutional.
The lower courts are ruling against the Supreme Court rulings...they are breaking the law. Heller is specific as is Scalia when he states the AR-15 rifle is protected....
Just because you sound intelligent in your own brain doesn't mean you are.....read the actual Supreme Court rulings......
Scalia voiced the dissenting views. What part of Dissenting are you having trouble with. That's the losing side. His dissenting views written on paper are worth as much as used toilet paper. Now, if he gets a ruling in his favor and gets that into the ruling then you would be right. Instead, he just ran off on the mouth. No legal precedence was set. To date, the Supreme Court has refused to hear that and the lower courts rulings have stood. There are many reasons why the Supreme Court might refuse to hear a lower court challenge but most of the time it's that the lower court ruling should stand. IOWs, they agree with the Lower Courts ruling. You are trying to read into things that just aren't there. Here, you get your award.
View attachment 253490
View attachment 253491View attachment 253492
Moron........Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Heller...then after Heller, he wrote in Friedman v Highland Park that the AR-15 rifle is protected.....you don't know what you are talking about...Heller protects all bearable arms, in particular those that are in common use for lawful purposes.......as repeated in Caetano and now used in the magazine ban injunction in California...
Scalia was not in the 7th Circuit Court that ruled on Friedman V Highland Park. They did mention his dissention though. But in the end, didn't pay any mind to it. In the end, the ruling was that the term "Assault Rifle" was a bad term. It encompassed ALL semi auto rifles including even the tube fed 22 long rifles that there are more of than any other kind. The little 22 LR Semi Auto Model 60 is in more homes than any other type of rifle in existance. Since then, the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" has been upheld in the same courts. Stupid Oregon, last week, tried to sneak the "Assault Rifle" through and failed. Other states specifically stated "AR-15 and it's various clones" and the law sticks.
We now have a new term. It's called the Heller Test for mags. The courts have ruled that 10 rounds is too little while they upheld that 15 rounds is acceptable. Therefore, we can assume that the heller test is 15 rounds. Colorado had to change their law in 2013 to 15 rounds from 10 rounds long before anyone heard of the Heller Test to satisfy the court system.
Yes, Scalia did write the ruling. You have no idea how much I hate reading what he writes. He's a friggin wind bag. But a very knowledgable windbag. You keep confusing the dissenting views with Scalias views and they are completely opposite. Here is something that does apply written by Scalia and worth discussing from Hell V.
Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
The question is, what is a dangerous and unusual weapon and who makes that determination? The States, Congress and the Courts make those determinations. This is why the "Heller Test" exists now and is at 15 round limit for the mag. And why a State of a Common Wealth (state) or a municipal can specify a specific weapon and either highly regulate it or outright ban it. Scalia agrees with the Miller Ruling so that's the law as of this minute. But when the state and such law is written it has to be very specific like "AR-15 and it's various clones" instead of just a generic description or the generic term of "Assault Rifle". That is the Heller Test.
Again, you can fight it and misquote it all you want but that's just the way it is. You want to change it then get it changed. Until then, the lower courts are NOT disagreeing with the Supreme Court nor are they passing unconstitutional rulings. Otherwise, the Supreme Court would elect to hear the appeals. Instead, the losing parties know that it would do them no good to try and do an appeal past the District Courts at this time.
Like Roe V Wade, the Heller Test is now established law and even your hero Kavannah won't buck it.