Judge rules California's ban on assault weapons unconstitutional - Page 4

Manitou · #31 (**permalink**) 06-07-2021, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

drunk people caught don't get to drive cars anymore for a long time. And if they hurt someone they won't drive a car at all. Can we take their vehicle? You bet we can. And guns can and will be regulated. Put that in your baboon's butt and smoke it.

The drunks get their privileges taken away, but I have yet to see any authorities come to my house and tell me not to drive my car anymore because some dumbasses are driving while intoxicated. What have you been smoking up your baboon's butt?

Dog Man · #32 (**permalink**) 06-07-2021, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manitou

The drunks get their privileges taken away, but I have yet to see any authorities come to my house and tell me not to drive my car anymore because some dumbasses are driving while intoxicated. What have you been smoking up your baboon's butt?

Great point!

jimbo · #33 (**permalink**) 06-07-2021, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

One of your gun toting mommas just shot her 5 year old in the stomach because she thought she needed a gun on a bicycle and decided to shoot a dog and missed.
There's a lot of room for regulation with that crowd of brainwashed A-holes.
A LOT of room. I hope they "infringe" on her right quick like!
And anyone else SO stupid.
Hal;f the people who go out and buy guns today shouldn't have them and that's a fact, Mr con stitution.

If it's a fact, then you shouldn't have any trouble explaining.

Manitou · #34 (**permalink**) 06-07-2021, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Hal;f the people who go out and buy guns today shouldn't have them and that's a fact, Mr con stitution.

It's not for you or any other ass hole to decide, Miss Communist Manifesto.

Jeerleader · #35 (**permalink**) 06-08-2021, 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesrage

Hopefully the supreme court agrees with this judge's ruling.

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.

.

Jeerleader · #36 (**permalink**) 06-08-2021, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

states should be able to offer its citizens the freedom to have these laws in place.

State's lost that "freedom" because they wrote discriminatory laws that they enforced even in the face of federal civil rights legislation -- which made the 14th Amendment an imperative.

Now, there is no "Bill of Rights Free-Zone" in the USA.

jimbo · #37 (**permalink**) 06-08-2021, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesrage

Actually its handguns are popular with mass shooters, not so called assault weapons.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-types-used/

Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 145 different handguns being used in 97 incidents between 1982 and May 2021. These figures are calculated from a total of 124 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings.

Handguns are popular among mass shooters for the same reason they are popular among non criminals. They are easily carried and easily maneuvered

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.

Dog Man · #38 (**permalink**) 06-08-2021, 12:40 PM

[QUOTE=Manitou;1004815]It's not for you or any other ass hole to decide, Miss Communist Manifesto.[/QUOTE]

Dog Man · #39 (**permalink**) 06-08-2021, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbo

Handguns are popular among mass shooters for the same reason they are popular among non criminals. They are easily carried and easily maneuvered

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.

You could almost use a .22 at that distance. It might take a few well placed shots.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
Dog Man, GetAClue, jamesrage, Jeerleader

The Following User Says Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
Manitou

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
Dog Man, jamesrage

The Following User Says Thank You to Manitou For This Useful Post:
Dog Man

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
Dog Man, GetAClue, G_Link

The Following User Says Thank You to Jeerleader For This Useful Post:
GetAClue

The Following User Says Thank You to Dog Man For This Useful Post:
jimbo