Supreme Court likely to hear new “assault weapons” ban case

posted at 8:31 am on February 6, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

While it’s not a done deal yet, there’s a good chance that we may finally be receiving a final decision from the Supreme Court on the question of so called “assault weapons” bans. Back in December, gun rights activists were largely disappointed when SCOTUS decided they would not hear an appeal to Illinois’ assault weapons ban, allowing a lower court ruling in favor of the law to stand. At the time, I speculated that they were waiting for more lower courts to weigh in on similar challenges around the country to see if there was some sort of consensus or if the states were divided and in need of clarification from above.

This week that question may have been answered. The 4th Circuit, hearing a Maryland case, went the other way, overturning a ban on AR-15 style rifles and expanded capacity magazines. (Baltimore Sun)

In a 2-1 decision applauded by gun rights advocates, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concluded that the semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines banned by Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act “are in common use by law-abiding citizens.” As a result, they don’t fall under the exception to the right to bear arms that applies to “unusual” weapons such as machine guns and hand grenades, the court said.

This apparent contradiction between the 7th Circuit Court’s ruling in Friedman v. City of Highland Park and the 4th’s ruling in Maryland has likely provided enough contrast for the Supremes to take up the question. This, as you might imagine, has liberal gun rights opponents in a state of panic, as a ruling agreeing with the rationale cited by the 4th Circuit Court would essentially kill off any similar rifle bans around the nation. That sense of distress shows up in this piece from Dahlia Lithwick at Slate. (Emphasis added)

The ruling sets the wheels in motion for another major gun fight at the high court. It will now likely have to answer this question: In a country where one bloody massacre seems to follow another, and 33,636 people were killed by firearms in 2013, does the court want to be in the business of handing out AR-15s like so much Halloween candy?

Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act was passed along with a raft of similar gun control measures in other states in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre in December 2012. Twenty children and six adult staff members were killed in that massacre by a gunman using three semi-automatic firearms. Among other things, the Maryland statute banned possession of firearms designated as “assault weapons,” including AR-15s and AK-47s. Maryland also banned sales and purchases of ammunition magazines of more than 10 rounds.

The court hasn’t given a final ruling on “assault weapons” but they have provided some limits to Second Amendment rights in the Heller decision when it comes to “unusual” weapons. The original candidate for that classification was the short barrel (or sawed off) shotgun, but it also included weapons of war such as grenades and rocket launchers. The 4th circuit has wisely recognized that a semi-automatic rifle – particularly one already owned by tens of millions of Americans who break no laws with them – are hardly unusual. And as we’ve discussed in the past, not only is the typical AR-15 with a .223 round a relatively underpowered varmint rifle, it’s rarely used in homicides. The Slate author is quick to note Hillary Clinton’s favorite talking point about 33 thousand people killed by firearms, but purposely ignores the specifics when it comes to the rifles under discussion. Roughly two thirds of those firearms deaths were suicides, but of the 8, 124 homicides committed in 2014 using firearms, the FBI reminds us that the number killed by rifles of any sort was a pittance.

Table8

Yes, you read that correctly. In 2014 the total number of murders committed with rifles was 248 out of more than 8,000. And that’s rifles of all types. The FBI doesn’t break it down to specific models, so that figure includes all manner of hunting rifles, including bolt action models and others. The actual number of killings done with AR-15 style rifles is more likely in the dozens. If the Supreme Court chooses to hold to their own previously stated standards, the term “assault rifle” should be done away with entirely and these weapons should be looped in with the rest of the firearms in widespread, legal, safe use.

ed-ar15-tn


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

It’s red letter effing day at the Hot Air Ranch.

Jazz Shaw on February 6, 2016 at 3:54 PM

Which makes a lot of people think nonp is one of y’alls sock.

cozmo on February 6, 2016 at 4:19 PM

.Describing locally imposed restrictions in Massachusetts as threats to their constitutional rights, some gun owners have lined up behind a bill that would prevent municipalities from instituting their own ordinances around gun licensing.

http://wwlp.com/2016/02/01/gun-owners-seek-law-to-prevent-patchwork-of-local-ordinances/

IDontCair on February 6, 2016 at 4:34 PM

First, this stuff has nothing to do with guns. Or facts. It is all about power and controlling the power. As Mao stated, “All power derives from the barrel of a gun.” Therefore controlling who has the guns is of primary importance. Leftists/statists/communists/Democrats/progressives/fascists know this, whether or not they know they are merely echoing previous commies and are not aware that the thought didn’t originate with them or their mentors/leaders/editors/elite.

Second, because facts don’t matter here, I don’t plan on trying to argue or convince anyone who thinks they think or thinks they are following someone who thinks.

Third, if facts mattered then leftists (who always jump at the chance to “educate” us fools about how wrong we are about gays/Muslims/LGBTQBSBDLMNOP/Kardashianism) would be shoving this into our public schools. Because of the fact that facts don’t matter, they are merely screaming about how scary guns are, an argument which ends debate and calls for emotional responses.

Fourth, they won’t listen to reason (see third then second) and therefore they really actually won’t quit. If they are in the Dem party, they will continue to try this gun grabbing and losing elections over it, but will not “learn” anything, no matter how many degrees their elites/leaders/mentors have.

DublOh7 on February 6, 2016 at 4:39 PM

Authorities: Police officer who was shot while serving warrant in the coastal town of Seaside, Oregon, has died – AP

IDontCair on February 6, 2016 at 5:07 PM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:00 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:07 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:13 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:14 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:22 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:28 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:48 AM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:53 AM

.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHARHARHARHOHOHO
HOHOHOHOHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHAWHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…………….(Oh LORD … I gotta catch my BREATH…)…………. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHOHOHOHOHO
HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

listens2glenn on February 6, 2016 at 5:17 PM

“Sawed offs” were banned because they could be concealed under an overcoat or long jacket. It had nothing to do with lethality.

Another Drew on February 6, 2016 at 2:49 PM

Based on what I was reading (and I’m pretty certain I didn’t mention lethality) they were banned because they were attempting to close any hole between rifles/shotguns and pistols, since they were trying to ban pistols, too. When the pistols didn’t get banned (just the sub-machine guns), the “sawed-off” bit stayed in. Hence today’s modern stupidity, where I can build a pistol for an AR round, but I can’t cut down an AR to pistol size.

Thank you all for straightening me out about x51 vs x54R. I think I would stick to that .308 round for sharing ammunition during the zombie apocalypse, then. And the info on CMMG for a x39 weapon. My “if money were no object and I were planning for the apocalypse” list has been updated appropriately.

GWB on February 6, 2016 at 5:20 PM

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016

For crying out loud, AP, if you insist on wearing that ridiculous getup, it needs to be a little more convincing.

First off, the pasties go in front.

You still need to shave your legs when wearing stockings. Otherwise those fence posts you call legs end up looking like ZZ Top robbing a liquor store.

The platinum blond wig doesn’t fool anyone when your razor stubble isn’t.

That beer gut threatening to rupture that bustier is the stuff of nightmares.

CurtZHP on February 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM

It would interesting to know, of all of the suicides by gun, how many were folks who had been failed by social, health, financial and community policies created by or managed by Democrats. How many of those suicides are “death by Democrat”, with a gun.

Skip2014 on February 6, 2016 at 5:24 PM

play any modern day shooter, even the realistic ones like arma or battlefield…see if you can get any kills with a shotty beyond 10 ft (clue: you can’t)
nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM
He’s basing his opinions on video games. Can you get any more clueless?
Here’s a free clue: I routinely target shoot, with a 20g Mossberg, at ranges in excess of fifty feet. And that’s using #7 shot target ammo. With #3 buckshot, or slugshells, my effective range triples, at least.
Rusty Bill on February 6, 2016 at 9:49 AM

What a maroon

No wonder the useful idiot can be so ginned by he masters

Mr Soames on February 6, 2016 at 5:48 PM

how bout this, you give me a glock and I give you a skeet gun and we stand 30 yards apart and have a shootoff…let’s see whos standing shall we?
nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:34 AM

The masters at useful idiot central told him he was smart, smart like Fredo smart

Mr Soames on February 6, 2016 at 5:55 PM

It has been reported that most, if not all of the modern mass killers, were Democrats or raised in a Democratic family. So, if true, are we to restrict Democrat’s access to firearms, rather than all citizens, if mass killings are the latest criteria put forth by the gun control advocates to restrict firearms ownership. Just saying.

amr on February 6, 2016 at 6:16 PM

thats an idiotic question that I will not entertain

do you think the muslim rapists should be allowed to carry guns?

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:13 AM

Do you even stop to read what you type prior to posting? What an idiotic question, but par for the course from a moonbat…

By the way, have you ever been diagnosed with brain damage?

tanked59 on February 6, 2016 at 6:18 PM

play any modern day shooter, even the realistic ones like arma or battlefield…see if you can get any kills with a shotty beyond 10 ft (clue: you can’t)
nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

WTF, did this actually happen?

jhffmn on February 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM

Do you think women being raped by muslim gangs in Europe should be allowed to carry weapons?

darwin on February 6, 2016 at 9:10 AM

thats an idiotic question that I will not entertain

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:13 AM

So you’re against women protecting themselves from the epidemic of muslim rape.

darwin on February 6, 2016 at 9:16 AM

Pretty much sums up the sickness of progressive thinking.

Ricard on February 6, 2016 at 6:46 PM

RL on February 6, 2016 at 10:33 AM

For a good all-around weapon I have a Marlin lever action 45-70. It doesn’t look “scary” but it’ll kill damn near anything, vest or not. With the Hornady ammo (LeverRevolution) the recoil is a bit harsh but the accurate range extends to 300 yards; i.e. a 325 grain HP at 2050 fps at the muzzle is nothing to be trifled with.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 6:48 PM

i know when we went to school (rural) back in the day, we were taught the difference between laws and rights. does that not apply anymore or do the squishes just get away with running the gov’t the way they see fit? rights aren’t sposed to be amended, right?

datrashman on February 6, 2016 at 6:50 PM

CurtZHP on February 6, 2016 at 5:23 PM

Funny, I would have been laughing harder if I wasn’t trying so hard not to visualize.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 6:50 PM

WTF, did this actually happen?

jhffmn on February 6, 2016 at 6:44 PM

Yep. I was there when he said it.

Blew sodie out my nose.

IDontCair on February 6, 2016 at 6:52 PM

play any modern day shooter, even the realistic ones like arma or battlefield…see if you can get any kills with a shotty beyond 10 ft (clue: you can’t)

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:40 AM

Still hung up on the skeet gun thingy?
At 10 yards a 12 gauge with #6 shot can sever a 3″ tree trunk. On a human this would probably penetrate and exit at about the same wound diameter.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 6:55 PM

RL on February 6, 2016 at 10:33 AM

For a good all-around weapon I have a Marlin lever action 45-70. It doesn’t look “scary” but it’ll kill damn near anything, vest or not. With the Hornady ammo (LeverRevolution) the recoil is a bit harsh but the accurate range extends to 300 yards; i.e. a 325 grain HP at 2050 fps at the muzzle is nothing to be trifled with.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 6:48 PM

Hey mad a well placed shot with any center fire is still pretty harsh. if you think a 45/70 has recoil try this 50/110 out

datrashman on February 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM

Mess with nonp’s mind.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaQ0AH4VIAAdlib.jpg

IDontCair on February 6, 2016 at 7:03 PM

The left will never let the facts get in the way of their goal.

nikophil on February 6, 2016 at 7:06 PM

I’m not a sock…I’m so sick of being accused of being one.

nonpartisan on December 31, 2015 at 9:16 AM

fossten on February 6, 2016 at 7:23 PM

For a good all-around weapon I have a Marlin lever action 45-70. It doesn’t look “scary” but it’ll kill damn near anything, vest or not. With the Hornady ammo (LeverRevolution) the recoil is a bit harsh but the accurate range extends to 300 yards; i.e. a 325 grain HP at 2050 fps at the muzzle is nothing to be trifled with.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 6:48 PM

Those lever guns are a lot of fun to shoot – I got a Henry .357 Magnum. I’d like to get a .45 LC model for the same ammo as my S&W Governor. Only problem with them is reloading that tube magazine takes awhile.

dentarthurdent on February 6, 2016 at 7:35 PM

Mess with nonp’s mind.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaQ0AH4VIAAdlib.jpg

IDontCair on February 6, 2016 at 7:03 PM

It would just get confused and tell every body to put a lime in the Coriolis, it’s the way the Mexican’s drink cerveza.

HonestLib on February 6, 2016 at 7:36 PM

I’m not a Richard…I’m so sick of being accused of being called Dick.

nonpartisan on December 31, 2015 at 9:16 AM

fossten on February 6, 2016 at 7:23 PM

Just a helping hand.

HonestLib on February 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

Ed posts a pic of himself shooting an AR = Look at me

Sapwolf posts a pic of his rifle = Banned (by Ed)

Gohawgs on February 6, 2016 at 7:42 PM

Just a helping hand.

HonestLib on February 6, 2016 at 7:38 PM

I’ll bet nonp thinks lil smokies are yuuuuge……

dentarthurdent on February 6, 2016 at 7:49 PM

still trying to see how bird hunters get the birds to come to within 10 feet of them……

dmacleo on February 6, 2016 at 8:40 PM

RL on February 6, 2016 at 10:33 AM

For a good all-around weapon I have a Marlin lever action 45-70. It doesn’t look “scary” but it’ll kill damn near anything, vest or not. With the Hornady ammo (LeverRevolution) the recoil is a bit harsh but the accurate range extends to 300 yards; i.e. a 325 grain HP at 2050 fps at the muzzle is nothing to be trifled with.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 6:48 PM

Hey mad a well placed shot with any center fire is still pretty harsh. if you think a 45/70 has recoil try this 50/110 out

datrashman on February 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM

Good points. However, I held the the 1894 and the heavier “heavier built” 1895’s. Decided I’ll likely never be able to use the comparatively insignificant improvement of a 45/70 at a range in which I [and most of us] can accurately function. Ammo from .44 is economical and usable in both the 1894 and hand guns [against grizzlies] and rifle, which provides useful velocities comparable to 45/70 and above to “non-cutting-edge-non-experts”. You can carry 9 rounds in a .44, 4-to-5 [have forgotten the exact count] in a 45/70.

If I were to think I’d want or need a .50 and the range/power, I’d still look first at a Win 300 Mag [Weatherby, probably], then a .338 Lapua Magnum for handling, then something like a Barret…

RL on February 6, 2016 at 9:49 PM

nonpartisan ALWAYS brings the funny to the gun threads. This one is a modern classic!

Serious Drivel on February 6, 2016 at 10:15 PM

The left will never let the facts get in the way of their goal.
.
nikophil on February 6, 2016 at 7:06 PM

.
That’s right … and behold, their goal.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2016 at 10:25 PM

acetylene420 on February 6, 2016 at 12:25 PM

Let’s start with the maximal argument. Would you allow private ownership of nuclear weapons?

I think the argument which is the winning one isn’t “I need to defend myself from the Government”, but “I need to defend myself from the same guys the police do.”

The first will never find purchase from any portion of the Government, but the second already has in a multitude of places.

The moment one State issues a license to carry a particular firearm, all states must recognize that license; that’s the basic argument in Loving v. Virginia. The moment one State allows its policemen to carry an AR15 is the day in which its citizens ought to gain that right too. Citizens should not be restricted in their ability to defend themselves vice the police. That’s not yet law, but it’s a reasonable position to hold.

unclesmrgol on February 6, 2016 at 11:06 PM

Those lever guns are a lot of fun to shoot – I got a Henry .357 Magnum. I’d like to get a .45 LC model for the same ammo as my S&W Governor. Only problem with them is reloading that tube magazine takes awhile.

dentarthurdent on February 6, 2016 at 7:35 PM

I’m still kicking myself for getting rid of an IMI timberwolf. It was a pump action 357 rifle with a 10-round tubular mag. If you can find one now the price is upwards of $900.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 11:48 PM

Hey mad a well placed shot with any center fire is still pretty harsh. if you think a 45/70 has recoil try this 50/110 out

datrashman on February 6, 2016 at 6:56 PM

With the Hornady ammo at 3000 foot-pounds the recoil is slightly greater than a 300 Win Mag. After about 10 shots at the range I’m ready to shoot something else for awhile.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 11:51 PM

why shouldn’t I be allowed to own a rocket launcher or grenade or tank? Will someomes possession of an RPG somehow suddenly cause them to start killing people even though ownership of any firearm from a .22LR to .50BMG does not? It’s such an idiotic notion to assume someone is responsible enough to own any type of firearm but somehow a “rocket launcher” will turn them into a raging homicidal maniac.
.
acetylene420 on February 6, 2016 at 12:25 PM

.
I don’t believe owning a “rocket launcher (with rockets), grenades, a tank”, or a fully automatic rifle/machine gun will “cause them anyone to start killing people” or “turn them into a raging homicidal maniac.”

But they are weapons, whose projectiles (in the case of rockets, grenades, and cannon shells from a tank, that would be shrapnel) cannot be deployed with the same control and accuracy, that a bullet from a semi-auto rifle, carbine, or handgun can.

That’s why I support STATE (as opposed to Federal) regulation of such weapons. The individual states should “license” people to own weaponry of that grade, and capability.

But NOT semi-auto rifles, carbines, or handguns that shoot individual bullets, one-at-a-time.
Magazine size/capacity, and ammunition should also not be regulated, with the possible exception of “exploding” bullets, or bullets made to carry chemical poisons, or bio-warfare substances.

listens2glenn on February 6, 2016 at 11:52 PM

If I were to think I’d want or need a .50 and the range/power, I’d still look first at a Win 300 Mag [Weatherby, probably], then a .338 Lapua Magnum for handling, then something like a Barret…

RL on February 6, 2016 at 9:49 PM

Most of the people with those guns are hobby shooters or wannabe snipers; the rest of us don’t have any practical “need or want” for them. I can take down any North American game animal with that 45-70; the only real downside is it’s lack of capability for long range shooting.
Ca has already banned 50 BMG on some pretext about crime. They also banned 1911 style pistols (as well as my Springfield and M&P) for safety since they lack a magazine safety.

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 11:59 PM

skeet guns lack range…their killing power diminishes at the range where they’re used for shooting skeet

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:28 AM

Can you explain the difference between a Remington 1100 20ga skeet gun and a Remington 1100 20ga rabbit gun?

And do you know what buckshot is?

soundingboard on February 7, 2016 at 12:53 AM

mad scientist on February 6, 2016 at 11:59 PM

KALIFORNIA….they don’t need no steenking Constitution.
III/0317

Sgt Stryker on February 7, 2016 at 1:01 AM

6.8 SPC. Cold dead hands.

claudius on February 7, 2016 at 1:51 AM

The moment one State allows its policemen to carry an AR15 is the day in which its citizens ought to gain that right too. Citizens should not be restricted in their ability to defend themselves vice the police.

unclesmrgol on February 6, 2016 at 11:06 PM

Turn that on its head: The moment the state restricts its free citizens from owning or using a weapon is the day that all of its agents should be restricted from its use. Because all those agents are nothing more than our fellow citizens.
“The police are nothing more than fellow citizens paid to do full-time what every citizen should be doing, anyway.”
That way, you’re starting from freedom and equality, rather than elitism and lack of freedom.

GWB on February 7, 2016 at 7:23 AM

It has been reported that most, if not all of the modern mass killers, were Democrats or raised in a Democratic family. So, if true, are we to restrict Democrat’s access to firearms, rather than all citizens, if mass killings are the latest criteria put forth by the gun control advocates to restrict firearms ownership. Just saying.
amr on February 6, 2016 at 6:16 PM

Now factor in the blacks production of gun violence while voting 90%+ communist and it really shines a light

Mr Soames on February 7, 2016 at 8:58 AM

Based on what I was reading (and I’m pretty certain I didn’t mention lethality) they were banned because they were attempting to close any hole between rifles/shotguns and pistols, since they were trying to ban pistols, too. When the pistols didn’t get banned (just the sub-machine guns), the “sawed-off” bit stayed in. Hence today’s modern stupidity, where I can build a pistol for an AR round, but I can’t cut down an AR to pistol size.

Thank you all for straightening me out about x51 vs x54R. I think I would stick to that .308 round for sharing ammunition during the zombie apocalypse, then. And the info on CMMG for a x39 weapon. My “if money were no object and I were planning for the apocalypse” list has been updated appropriately.

GWB on February 6, 2016 at 5:20 PM

No, not quite. The judge who decided Miller was a proponent of the New Deal and put on the bench by Roosevelt after he left congress where he helped push the New Deal through. The judge thought that pistols should be covered by the NFA and were not for “hunting or home defense”, just for killing. I know, it doesn’t make any sense.

Before he became a judge, Ragon represented the Fifth District of Arkansas in Congress from 1923 to 1933.111 As a congressman, he was a vocal advocate of federal gun control. In 1924, Ragon introduced an unsuccessful bill prohibiting the importation of guns in violation of state law,112 and vigorously supported another bill prohibiting the mailing of most pistols, which eventually passed in 1927.113

Basically, Ragon wanted to prohibit firearms used by criminals, including pistols.114 “I want to say that I am unequivocally opposed to pistols in any connection whatever. If you want something in the home for defense, there is the shotgun and the rifle, but a pistol is primarily for the purpose of killing somebody.”115 And he specifically dismissed Second Amendment objections to federal gun control. “I cannot see that violence to the Constitution which my friend from Texas sees in this bill.”116 If Arkansas could prohibit pistols, so could the United States.117

Here is how this thing got through the SC…no one showed up to argue for gun rights advocates. The lawyer who represented Miller didn’t go and argue the case because he did it pro bono and Miller had died. So, he pretty much blew it off.

But on March 28, Gutensohn replied by telegram: “Suggest case be submitted on Appellants brief. Unable to obtain any money from clients to be present and argue case = Paul E Gutensohn.”133 He was probably relieved to be rid of Miller and Layton.

On March 30, 1939, seven justices of the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Miller. Chief Justice Hughes was ill,134 and the newly appointed Justice Douglas was not confirmed until April 4. Gordon Dean represented the United States and no one represented Miller or Layton.135 Two days later, Gutensohn finally received four copies of the government’s brief.136

The decision came quickly. On May 15, 1939, Justice James Clark McReynolds “drawled from the bench: ‘We construe the amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.’”137 The unanimous vote was 8-0, as Justice Douglas was recused.

The federal government, in their argument, said that “criminals” were not allowed these weapons, and that is who they were targeting.

the Second Amendment “does not, we submit, guarantee to the criminal the right to maintain and utilize arms which are particularly adaptable to his purposes.”130

I guess we are all criminals then.

As to the sawed-off shotgun and Tommy gun, they were widely used in the war effort during WWII. But no one argued for the 2A, so we are where we are.

Patriot Vet on February 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM

Patriot Vet on February 7, 2016 at 12:59 PM

Well, that’s different information from the source I saw (wish I could find it, again) – and not necessarily conflicting. Also very interesting. The totalitarians have been around a LONG time.

GWB on February 7, 2016 at 1:32 PM

Well, that’s different information from the source I saw (wish I could find it, again) – and not necessarily conflicting. Also very interesting. The totalitarians have been around a LONG time.

GWB on February 7, 2016 at 1:32 PM

Just google “miller second amendment” and you can find quite a bit on the case. It’s amazing that it has been this long with no one arguing that these guns are in use by the military/militia.

Personally, I could care less for a fully automatic rifle. Wastes ammo.

Patriot Vet on February 7, 2016 at 2:19 PM

It baffles me why there hasn’t been a lawsuit filed asking why, if marriage licenses and drivers licenses issued by states have to be legal in all states then why aren’t concealed carry permits valid in all 50 states.

deimos on February 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM

deimos on February 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM

.
Because out-of-staters with guns are far more SCARY, than anyone from anywhere who’s married or driving. That’s all it is … FEAR.

Hey liberals … suck on this :

Fear No Art GUNS

listens2glenn on February 7, 2016 at 9:20 PM

Let’s also not forget that – IIRC – Connecticut already had it’s own assault weapons ban that mirrored the 1994 federal law in place at the time of the Sandy Hook shooting. I’m not sure what CT has done since to strengthen that, but the weapon used at Sandy Hook was already in compliance with the assault weapon ban in place in CT at that time.

Kind of a big deal, wouldn’t you think ? The legal issue is that there is nothing in particular that makes a semi-auto AR-15 or AK-47 any more dangerous than other weapons. They just “look” and “seem” scary. The fact is, they are very difficult to conceal, and so it’s not surprising that they are not used very often in criminal shootings.

deadrody on February 8, 2016 at 7:27 AM

It baffles me why there hasn’t been a lawsuit filed asking why, if marriage licenses and drivers licenses issued by states have to be legal in all states then why aren’t concealed carry permits valid in all 50 states.

deimos on February 7, 2016 at 8:18 PM

It baffles me why otherwise conservative posters believe the state should have the power to license or “permit” a constitutional right. Where in the second amendment does it say “unless the state disapproves”?

runawayyyy on February 8, 2016 at 10:15 AM

Most likely it won’t get to the SCOTUS for years, if ever. First there’ll be an enbank hearing, after waiting months and months. Then it’ll be remanded to the lower courts for some reason – and more months, then back to the Appeals court again with more months and months of waiting, and then it will be on the SCOTUS’ “maybe we’ll look at this” list for another intolerable period of time. And finally, they’ll just ignore it altogether.

There’s no such thing as “swift” in the justice system.

rspock on February 8, 2016 at 12:25 PM

so you’re for Muslim rapists being able to force women under the threat of a firearm?

nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:22 AM

Well, no, I’m for rapists being in jail. For raping people.

Seriously, does he even think before typing?

The Schaef on February 8, 2016 at 1:02 PM

so you’re for Muslim rapists being able to force women under the threat of a firearm?
.
nonpartisan on February 6, 2016 at 9:22 AM

.
Well, no, I’m for rapists being in jail. For raping people.

Seriously, does he even think before typing?
.
The Schaef on February 8, 2016 at 1:02 PM

.
Even IF … we spot him (or her) a minor “benefit-of-the-doubt”, and assume the “Muslim rapist” is a first-time offender, our whole premise is that EVERYONE should be able to “carry”. Not just men.

The average girl/woman is more “equal”, if herself and her assailant are both armed with handguns, than if they were both disarmed.

Most women are not as athletically fit, or as well trained as Ronda Rousey, or Holly Holmes.

Ronda’s radio interview, during which she recounts the “movie theater incident” … funny :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_8kFf0R4zc

listens2glenn on February 8, 2016 at 4:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3