![]() |
|
Register | FAQ | Donate | PW Store | PW Trivia | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
Gun Control/2nd Amendment Discuss Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional at the General Forum; Originally Posted by saltwn drunk people caught don't get to drive cars anymore for a long time. And if they ... |
![]() |
|
Share | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() Great point!
__________________
Political Correctness, is Fascism masquerading as manners - George Carlin. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
|
||||
![]() It's not for you or any other ass hole to decide, Miss Communist Manifesto.
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() There's no way this decision survives the 9th Circuit which is a good thing because the 9th gets so creative and ridiculous with their arguments, it is sure to fail at SCOTUS. Thing is, I think the Court wants to take smaller bites WRT the 2ndA and RKBA . . . If it was to take an assault weapon ban, especially one emanating from a state that does not have a right to arms provision in its state constitution, the decision would be ground-shaking. The upcoming NY carry case will be a bell-weather, informing us on the Court's sentiment on gun rights; if Thomas writes it it will be great for gun rights.
That said, this opinion was not all it could have been. While the judge appears (claims) to rely on Heller, he doesn't get to the meat of the constitutional protection that Heller re-affirmed. This judge relied on the "common use" prong of the protection criteria when in truth, Scalia only elevated "in common use" to invalidate the DC statutes on (mostly non-military) handguns and to save the NFA-34 from immediate challenge. Heller didn't dwell on the other protection criteria, it didn't need to, but they remain for later employment and this case this should have been it. For "assault weapons", the PRIMARY constitutional protection criteria is the "Miller rule" on military usefulness, not Miller's ancillary "in common use" standard. In the grand scheme of things this decision is a good thing but it could have been better. .
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Now, there is no "Bill of Rights Free-Zone" in the USA.
__________________
You can’t truly call yourself “peaceful” unless you are capable of great violence.
If you are incapable of violence, you are not peaceful, you are just harmless. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post: | ||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Most mass shootings are carried out within 20 feet. At that range it doesn't matter if it's a .38 special or .300 magnum. |
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post: | ||
|
||||
![]() [QUOTE=Manitou;1004815]It's not for you or any other ass hole to decide, Miss Communist Manifesto.[/QUOTE]
![]()
__________________
Political Correctness, is Fascism masquerading as manners - George Carlin. |
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]()
__________________
Political Correctness, is Fascism masquerading as manners - George Carlin. |
The Following User Says Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
Tags |
assault, ban, california, judge, rules, unconstitutional, weapons |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|