reagan appointee quotes scalia in upholding gun ban

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19672249

A semi automatic weapon can be defined as a weapon that does not require manually loading

Can be defined by whom?

Not only are you insane for trying to compare lawn mower accidents to intentional mass murder by lunatics with a legally purchased assault rifle, you are paranoid with uncontrollable willingness to accept conspiracy theories that 'they' are coming to take your handgun and hunting rifle.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

2aguy, post: 19672002

..you don't care about deaths....you hate these guns.

I certainly care more about victims, survivors and families of mass murder by semi-automatic firearms than you do.

You are more concerned about your forlornly fabricated right to play with semi automatic wespons than those who end up getting shot by one. You want the victims to shut up so you can play with unusual and dangerous toys.

Dumb ass....Americans use their legal guns, including AR-15s 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack, rape, robbbery and murder.......that outnumbers rifles used in mass shooting by about 1,500,000 times......


They are the most common rifles in the country, so they are not unusual, they are no different from any other gun so they are not dangerous in any way that allows them to be banned per the ruling in D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts....

Why can't you provide the data on AR15s as you were asked to provide?

 

[August West]

2aguy, post: 19672249

A semi automatic weapon can be defined as a weapon that does not require manually loading

Can be defined by whom?

Not only are you insane for trying to compare lawn mower accidents to intentional mass murder by lunatics with a legally purchased assault rifle, you are paranoid with uncontrollable willingness to accept conspiracy theories that 'they' are coming to take your handgun and hunting rifle.

It was 9 years ago when another white supremacist lunatic thought that Obama was coming for his guns. He bought an assault rifle and murdered 3 Pittsburgh cops.

2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers - Wikipedia

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Bruce_T_Laney, post: 19671551

You can own a fully automatic weapon but the requirements and cost are a lot more than a semi-automatic!

You must hate yourself then.

Manufacture and sale of new ones to the general public are banned. Collectors can own older and fire ones but not buy certain essential parts,

If you think I'm stupid please explain why all the above is not a government restriction on the sale and use of those types of firearms.

My point stands. Yours makes no sense at all.

Read what you wrote and I pointed out you can buy fully automatic weapons and used Politico for your benefit.

Because you made the stupid comment is not my damn problem. It is those like you that have no clue what it take to own a firearm from fully automatic to revolver, so please educate yourself for once before commenting on subjects you lack knowledge of!

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Read what you wrote and I pointed out you can buy fully automatic weapons and used Politico for your benefit.

I cannot buy a fully automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.

No one can legally.

Do you understand that is why they do not exist in the numbers of their little cousins the semi-automatic assault rifle.

The Machine Gun Ban saves lives

That's why you have no news reports of police encounters with criminals carrying fully automatic weapons EVERY DAY as you said.


Accept reality.

It will be good for you.



NotfooledbyW, post: 19623417

Billy_Kinetta, post: 19623326

Of course you are. Clear the background check and pay the tax.

How much is a tax? And is it not an infringement on your SA right?

We could tax the AR15 out of existence.

The Parkland shooter could not have easily purchased one and would have received more scrutiny and questioned his purpose for needing one.

And besides since 1986 you are wrong:

. under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist

Thank You Ronny Reagan.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It was 9 years ago when another white supremacist lunatic thought that Obama was coming for his guns. He bought an assault rifle and murdered 3 Pittsburgh cops.

Just pointing out It was not a fully automatic rifle.

2009 shooting of Pittsburgh police officers - ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki › 2009...
According to Pittsburgh Police Chief, Nathan Harper, Poplawski was armed with a semi- automatic AK-47-style rifle, a shotgun and three handguns (a .357 Magnum revolver, a .380- caliber ...


It may have been legally purchased


That is why semi- automatics should be banned - same as fully automatics.

 

[toobfreak]

Here’s an example of someone who can’t discuss this topic intelligently.

TRANSLATION: I make a case that shoots holes in all of your claims which you cannot refute.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 19672350

Dumb ass....Americans use their legal guns, including AR-15s 1,500,000 times a year

How many times is it an AR15
To stop a robbery or rape. If you are going to cite data could you cite data relevant to the discussion about a judge upholding an assault rifle ban.

You are saying AR15s are commonly used for self or property defense. So how many times.

No, dip stick I said they are included in the total......and at least several times a year are used to stop criminals......but even if they were never used ,they are still protected by the 2nd Amendment.....and gun grabber judges can't change that fact.

Heller already defined them as protected, Caetano v. Massachusetts did as well.....Supreme Court Precedent has already spoken, the lower court judges are ignoring it......

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 19672350,

They are the most common rifles in the country, so they are not unusual, they are no different from any other gun so they are not dangerous in any way that allows them to be banned per the ruling in D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts....

You say AR15s

".... are not dangerous in any way that allows them to be banned"

You are wrong and on the losing side.

"Seven states and the District of Columbia have enacted laws banning assault weapons. The others are California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. In addition, Minnesota and Virginia regulate assault weapons, the center said."

The Supreme Court Ruling on the 2nd Amendment Did NOT Grant an Unlimited Right to Own Guns

Seven down - 43 to go.

There is no unlimited right to own dangerous and unusual guns. Thank you. Justice Scalia.

And if they can easily be converted to fully automatic machine guns because they can fire multiple rounds without overheating the barrel then they are extremely dangerous.

A case can be made that semi-automatics are the manufacturer's way to skirt the machine gun ban.

If a converted one were used in a mass shooting I wonder if the manufacturers could be sued for producing something so close to an illegal firearms.

You can't convert a three shot deer rifle to a fully automatic can you.

And you and that link are lying.......I have posted the opinion in Heller and Caetano, you can ignore what they say, you can lie about what they say, but there is nothing in either ruling that supports your claim...the AR-15 civilian rifle and all other civilian semi auto weapons are protected .......

You are typical of anti gunners, irrational and stupid........this is why we can't negotiate with you......you will not stop until you have ended the 2nd Amendment.......and you showed this truth just before the midterm election...thank you.

 

[2aguy]

2aguy, post: 19672249

A semi automatic weapon can be defined as a weapon that does not require manually loading

Can be defined by whom?

Not only are you insane for trying to compare lawn mower accidents to intentional mass murder by lunatics with a legally purchased assault rifle, you are paranoid with uncontrollable willingness to accept conspiracy theories that 'they' are coming to take your handgun and hunting rifle.

The AR-15 is not an assault rifle......not even close....it is not a military weapon, it is not a weapon of war, it has never been used by the military...but keep lying.....the more you reveal who and what you are the more it helps us...

 

[2aguy]

To explain it again....the D.C. v. Heller decision protects semi automatic rifles, pistols and shotguns an in particular, AR-15 rifles....

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

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

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.

--------


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.

---

Semi Auto rifles are the most common weapons in this Country.......they are bearable arms.......they are protected....

And before the numb nuts, gun grabbers bray out..."Dangerous and Unusual"....we have Caetano....which slapped down the 4th Circuit when they tried to ban stun guns.....the court then used the same argument to ban Semi auto rifles......gun grabbers have no shame.....

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

Opinion of the Court[edit]

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

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "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" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

----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.

If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.---------

The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693.


But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624.


Instead, Miller and Heller recognized that militia members traditionally reported for duty carrying “the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home,” and that the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.


554 U. S., at 627; see id., at 624–625. Indeed, Heller acknowledged that advancements in military technology might render many commonly owned weapons ineffective in warfare. Id., at 627–628. But such “modern developments . . . cannot change our interpretation of the right.” Ibid.
In any event, the Supreme Judicial Court’s assumption that stun guns are unsuited for militia or military use is untenable.

These local and state gun bans are unConstitutional....they are ignoring the Precedents set down by the U.S. Supreme court......and the only thing that keeps them on the books are 4 anti gun extremists on the Supreme Court who are willing to let lower courts defy their rulings on the Constitutional issue because they care more about banning guns, than holding to their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment

Ahhh...so it looks like a rare victory for common sense:

"Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."

Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.""

And before we start the round of calling out 'liberal' judges...U.S. District Judge William Young --was appointed by ..Ronald Reagan.

William G. Young - Wikipedia

It isn't a victory, the judge lied since Scalia wrote in Heller, and Alito in Caetano that these weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment...this judge lied...

Nope..oh ignorant one..this judge ruled. Just because his ruling does not conform to your desires does not make it a lie.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons) have been outlawed since 1933.

Ignorant Trolls...unable to address the topic of the thread...just drop some shit and call it good, eh? LMAO at outlawed..as I own two fully automatic weapons..legally.

Nice to see you got your FFL. But that was a provision added later..

As to your thread.... How can you discuss this topic intelligently when most don't know the difference between a cap gun and a real one. Most don't know what the legal definition of the weapon is and what differentiates how they are classified. They see a gun and want it banned because "its scary" to them.

Ya know..you're right...they want bans because they are scared. The fear is valid..even if the solution is asinine.

Assault weapon...Lol! Give me enough reason and a .22 Buntline--and you'll find that it's assault weapon enough to do the job. All guns are assault weapons.

The reason I liked the judges ruling..is that I see it as a victory for States Rights.

Oh..and for whoever it was that i saw howling about "shall not be abridged'--you're OK with criminals having guns? Since you feel that the term is absolute...then any abridgment is illegal. The reverse of that..is that if the govt. can restrict certain people from owning weapons..then they can pick and choose.

One way or the other..if that is how you wish to frame the argument.

 

[LuckyDuck]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

take it up with scalia, hack

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic. Thus, they envisioned that such civilians should be armed in such a manner as would be effective against an enemy force.
That was the purpose of the Second Amendment, thus it gave the right of each individual to bear weapons that would deter the armed foot soldiers against whom they would have to fight. Once the far-left gets into control of the country, it will be tyrannical.

 

[LuckyDuck]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

Clearly, the judge didn't review the entire reason the Second Amendment was created for. If he had, he would have understood that the citizens do have the right to weapons like the AR-15.
I'm waiting to hear about some city cops going to forcibly take guns away from those who haven't committed any crimes and are not willing to give up their guns without an actual fight. I expect the bloodshed will begin. Both cops and civilians will lose their lives. If enough such actions take place, then I believe the millions of gun owners who possess AR-15 style rifles will rise up and the sooner the better.

 

[TNHarley]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

take it up with scalia, hack

Fuck Scalia too.
How am i a hack by being able to read a document on my own? Are you fuckin retarded?

The funny thing is that you don't even realize you are interpreting it to mean what you want it to. Thats just human nature.

Intent my dear watson

 

[2aguy]

Judge: Assault weapons ban doesn't violate 2nd Amendment

Ahhh...so it looks like a rare victory for common sense:

"Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts' ban on the weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."

Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

"Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens," Young said. "These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.""

And before we start the round of calling out 'liberal' judges...U.S. District Judge William Young --was appointed by ..Ronald Reagan.

William G. Young - Wikipedia

It isn't a victory, the judge lied since Scalia wrote in Heller, and Alito in Caetano that these weapons are covered by the 2nd Amendment...this judge lied...

Nope..oh ignorant one..this judge ruled. Just because his ruling does not conform to your desires does not make it a lie.

It is a lie.....the judge lied about what Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Heller......D.C. v. Heller and Caetano v. Massachusetts make this judges ruling unConstitutional....it doesn't matter what my desire is, the actual Supreme Court rulings say the judge is a liar...

From your own post....the judge is lying about Scalia...

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to "bear arms."

This judge is not the first to lie about Scalia.....they did it before and Alito bitch slapped them in Caetano....and then they come back and do it again with these rulings.....they are anti gun extremists who don't care about the law or the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, they hate guns and they will ban them with their rulings no matter what it takes...

From Heller....

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

Here is how the judge in the 4th Circuit lied....and this judge as well..

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

----

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

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.

---
P.55

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

And the 4th Circuit completely ignoring Heller.....and intentionally getting it wrong....they out and out lie about what Heller said about M-16 rifles......

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

We conclude — contrary to the now vacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach.

They deliberately misinterpreted what Scalia said in the majority opinion....Heller said no such thing...in fact, the defense of weapons in "Common Use" specifically protects the AR-15 rifle and all semi automatic rifles since they are the most popular and common rifles in the United States....

 

[2aguy]

Ignorant left tards... Automatic weapons, which are be definition assault weapons) have been outlawed since 1933.

Ignorant Trolls...unable to address the topic of the thread...just drop some shit and call it good, eh? LMAO at outlawed..as I own two fully automatic weapons..legally.

Nice to see you got your FFL. But that was a provision added later..

As to your thread.... How can you discuss this topic intelligently when most don't know the difference between a cap gun and a real one. Most don't know what the legal definition of the weapon is and what differentiates how they are classified. They see a gun and want it banned because "its scary" to them.

Ya know..you're right...they want bans because they are scared. The fear is valid..even if the solution is asinine.

Assault weapon...Lol! Give me enough reason and a .22 Buntline--and you'll find that it's assault weapon enough to do the job. All guns are assault weapons.

The reason I liked the judges ruling..is that I see it as a victory for States Rights.

Oh..and for whoever it was that i saw howling about "shall not be abridged'--you're OK with criminals having guns? Since you feel that the term is absolute...then any abridgment is illegal. The reverse of that..is that if the govt. can restrict certain people from owning weapons..then they can pick and choose.

One way or the other..if that is how you wish to frame the argument.

You really are a stupid person......

 

[Crepitus]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

take it up with scalia, hack

Fuck Scalia too.
How am i a hack by being able to read a document on my own? Are you fuckin retarded?

The funny thing is that you don't even realize you are interpreting it to mean what you want it to. Thats just human nature.

Intent my dear watson

It was reinterpreted in 2008. History inspector gadget.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

LOL what a fuckin hack
The Constitution is quite clear. It is AMAZING how much "interpretation" happens with something that has 27 fucking words...
Its pathetic.

take it up with scalia, hack

The Second Amendment was created so that civilians could form well regulated militias in each state and use their "personal" weapons to defend their state from a tyrannical government, whether foreign.....or.....domestic. Thus, they envisioned that such civilians should be armed in such a manner as would be effective against an enemy force.
That was the purpose of the Second Amendment, thus it gave the right of each individual to bear weapons that would deter the armed foot soldiers against whom they would have to fight. Once the far-left gets into control of the country, it will be tyrannical.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment codifies a right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unrelated to militia service:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Only the possession of a handgun is entitled to Constitutional protections; the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of a state’s AWB, consequently such measures are perfectly Constitutional and consistent with Second Amendment case law.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, what was the original intent of the Framers and the original understand of the Founding Generation, including the Second Amendment.