Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: "It’s Time For The Supreme Court To Make States Stop Ignoring The Second Amendment"

  1. #1
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    5,776

    "It’s Time For The Supreme Court To Make States Stop Ignoring The Second Amendment"

    Interesting read.


    https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/31...3dk9zXX6uOFu1c

    It’s Time For The Supreme Court To Make States Stop Ignoring The Second Amendment
    New York City is far from the only government with unconstitutional gun control laws on the books. Nearly every court in the nation has ignored Heller and McDonald.

  2. #2
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    10,427
    It sure would be nice to live in a country governed by a constitution that obeyed.

    It also would be nice to see those in power who violate that document as well as their oath to uphold it, have a long term engagement with guys and gals named "Bubba".

  3. #3
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    14,701
    Quote Originally Posted by tank_monkey View Post


    Yeah it would be nice if the states were required to honor the US Constitution.

    Now, look at some of the hilarious (or sick) parts of the last court decision UPHOLDING the unconstitutional NY "safe" act (from https://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NY...Decision.pdf):

    We hold that the core provisions of the New York and
    Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault
    weapons and large‐capacity magazines do not violate the Second
    Amendment
    The record reveals that defendants have tailored the
    legislation at issue to address these particularly hazardous weapons.
    The dangers posed by some of the military‐style features prohibited
    by the statutes—such as grenade launchers and silencers—are
    manifest and incontrovertible.
    But NY ALREADY does not allow any NFA items, so what's the point?

    We therefore conclude that New York and Connecticut have
    adequately established a substantial relationship between the
    prohibition of both semiautomatic assault weapons and large‐
    capacity magazines and the important—indeed, compelling—state
    interest in controlling crime.
    These prohibitions survive
    intermediate scrutiny.
    The law will not have any impact on criminals, and since when does "state interest" over-ride the US Constitution???

    As for the other enumerated military‐style features—such as the flash suppressor,
    protruding grip, and barrel shrouds—New York and Connecticut have determined,
    as did the U.S. Congress, that the “net effect of these military combat features is
    a capability for lethality—more wounds, more serious, in more victims—far beyond
    that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns.” Indeed,
    plaintiffs explicitly contend that these features improve a firearm’s “accuracy,”
    “comfort,” and “utility.” This circumlocution is, as Chief Judge Skretny observed,
    a milder way of saying that these features make the weapons more deadly.
    Ah, so a "comfortable" firearm is more dangerous than an uncomfortable one? Hell, why not then ban comfortable running shoes? They may make it easier for a criminal to run away from the scene of a crime.


    And, of course, the most idiotic thing is that right after the "safe" act was passed, people started making "NY compliant" AR-15 rifles which, although looking hideous, fired the same round from the same barrel and can kill just as easily as a "real" AR-15.

    So, the mere physical appearance of the firearm makes it safe or not? What kind of drugs are they on?

    I think the simple solution to this whole problem is to change the rifle's name. Call it an AR-14 or AR-16. Surely THOSE will be safer than the AR-15...

  4. #4
    Administrator imanaknut's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Indiana, a state that is trying to remain free.
    Posts
    10,427
    Yep, George Bush the First full on rant about the physical appearance of a firearm could determine if it is used for evil. That is what led to the Norinco MAK-90 and others with that wonderful Bush-hole stock that made the evil Norinco 56S suddenly angelic.

  5. #5
    Senior Member tank_monkey's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Kalifornia
    Posts
    5,776
    Quote Originally Posted by imanaknut View Post
    Yep, George Bush the First full on rant about the physical appearance of a firearm could determine if it is used for evil. That is what led to the Norinco MAK-90 and others with that wonderful Bush-hole stock that made the evil Norinco 56S suddenly angelic.
    Um No. Bush the elder wasn't technically an anti gun zealot. Quit comparing him to guys like CLINTON, who actually went out of their WAY to fuck with gun owners. Bush Senior was under INTENSE pressure by the media and Congress to do something after the media had a melt down over the Stockton Schoolyard Shooting. He didn't rant about evil gun features. Quit being a douche about it. Bush caved to pressure to ban imports, so he was weak, but quit describing him as a psychopath who hated guns. He wasn't. Technically it was the ATF who figured out how to twist the 'sporting purpose' clause of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to ban anything they deemed 'unsporting'. The ATF already DID THAT with the AUG by 1987. The AUG and other bullpups were banned from import BEFORE the Stockton School Shooting of 1989. People tend to FORGET THAT.

    Strangely enough, when manufacturers made weird little changes like what STEYR did with the USR (thumbhole stock, no flash hider, etc.) then the ATF relented and allowed emasculated guns like that into the country.

    But the sporting purpose clause was NOT put into GCA 68 by anti Gun Democrats or RINOS on Capitol hill. It was put in by SHORT SIGHTED American gun manufacturers like Remington, Smith & Wesson, Colt, etc. in a lame attempt to ban import of inexpensive handguns into the country. That's WHY the Walther PPK was blocked and new made models had to be the longer PPKS so that it's frame length would allow it to be imported.

    As per the assault weapon import ban of 89 goes, there's a lot of blame to go around. But to insult Bush the Senior as being an anti gun zealot, is just a stupid thing to do.
    Last edited by tank_monkey; 06-04-2019 at 11:20 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member JTHunter's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    3,175
    Quote Originally Posted by tank_monkey View Post
    Interesting read.

    [URL="https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/31/time-supreme-court-make-states-stop-ignoring-second-amendment/?fbclid=IwAR1-gK4wkVyJLIvPoeSpjG4QjoZNSIQ8bwi1s62KH_O9i3dk9zXX6u OFu1c"]
    An "interesting read" is right. It makes me wonder when (and IF) the SC will ever put the brakes on these various circuits (esp. the 9th !!).
    “I have little patience with people who take the Bill of Rights for granted. The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is every American’s guarantee of freedom.” - - President Harry S. Truman, “Years of Trial and Hope”

  7. #7
    Team GunsNet Bronze 10/2014

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    tennessee
    Posts
    461
    congress and the voters can put the brakes on the circuit courts. we just need legislators with the balls to start it in motion.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •