US Appeals Court: Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment

[HK91-762mm]

   

" a law made in response to the massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012."

By definition, that is a reactionary law, and reactionary law is bad law.

Also, military weapons is the whole point of the 2nd. It is not there to hunt, it is there for protection and that includes protection against the government. It even makes that point quite clear, the militia refers to we the people, not the army. It is important that we be armed well enough to fight the government if ever need that, that is the whole point of the 2nd. Rebellion is not pretty but sometimes it is necessary, and even the threat of rebellion can make the government think twice about its actions. Take away that threat and it has nothing to fear from the people.

  I Take back everything bad I have ever said about you !!!!  It has never been said better !!  WTG  !!

[D2D]

Darkflower does have it right on the Second Amendment!

[1965hawks]

D2D: Again 1965hawks confuses an appeals court with the US Supreme Court! He seems to have forgotten who has the final say!What part of the US Constitution allows the 4th Circuit Court to overrule the Supreme Court?

D2D is arguing as if the SCOTUS has overturned the lower court's decision. D2D needs to take a seat and shut the fuck up.

latkiss: What's an assault weapon?

What's a red herring, latkiss?

LOL

D2D: The Fourth Circuit claims no one has the right to own any firearm.

No, D2D. What the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals did was  base its ruling on the decision handed down by the SCOTUS in the landmark case DC v. Heller, the decision in which Justice Antonin Scalia said that dangerous and unusual weapons could be banned.

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/?_r=0

don't-blameme: Is shehawks also saying we can buy a military M-16 over the counter now?

don't-blameme,

Who is shehawks and when did shehawks make that claim in this discussion?

[1965hawks]

To: darkflower, HK91-762mm, and D2D

Explain how a law enacted in response to a horrific event or action--with the purpose and intent of reducing the probability of that action or event happening again--is "bad law?"

[D2D]

1965hawks, SCOTUS overruled this court years ago!

The court is not following precedent!

The Fourth Circuit hasn't the authority to overrule the US Supreme Court's Heller decision!

In ruling that all military capable weapons can be banned they are ruling all weapons can be banned!

It was a stupid and unconstitutional ruling!

[jst-the-fax]

How does Hellen v DC and McDonald v Chicago impact this Courts ruling? Lastly...I believe the Clinton Crime Family would have appointed Supreme Court Justices that would have ruled the entire Second Amendment unconstitutional!

[darkflower]

Reactionary law is bad because it is reactionary, it is written in a climate of hysteria and plays to emotion.

[sweetwater5s9]

The original Heller case involved a ban on handguns in the District of Columbia, which the court struck down. The reasoning, in its briefest form, was as follows:

    The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

Handguns are a class of weapons that are commonly used.   When you get down to specifics, some of the easier cases for finding unconstitutionality is the assault weapons ban, which bans a weapon in common use, which is the phrase that Heller used to describe the weapons that are protected by the Second Amendment.

There’s hardly a weapon that’s in more common use than the AR-15 so-called assault weapon. I say so-called, because we all know this is a made-up category. They don’t fire any faster than a constitutionally protected handgun fires, and it’s typically less lethal than a handgun.

Many of the lower courts are engaged in what you might call civil disobedience against Heller and McDonald.  Do not rely on courts to protect the Second Amendment. The courts did not protect the right to keep and bear arms until 2006, and yet nevertheless we had such a right, and that right we had as a result of political action.

Mytheos Holt served for
U.S. Senator John Barrasso (R-WY).

[HK91-762mm]

Explain how a law enacted in response to a horrific event or action--with the purpose and intent of reducing the probability of that action or event happening again--is "bad law?"

Its the same shit as would be if we banned College students from owning cars because some muzzie took his car and drove over a Bunch of students on the side walk--Then ban Knives because he went all jahadi chopping up the rest!! and cars are not constitutionally protected ==Many Times someone uses a constitutionally protected right to harm others and we dont try and take that right away from all people !!!

Only Gun Rights  !!

--OBTW--Did you catch who was just Inaugurated as President ??  The NRA supported candidate! 

[1965hawks]

To: HK91-762mm, chuck_curtis, anchoragedan,D2D, don't-blameme, darkflower, lakitss, jst-the-fax, and sweewater5s9

in re: Assault weapons not protected by Second Amendment.

Opponents of a ban on the kinds of military-style weapons often used in spree killings – most recently in San Bernardino – often say that denying civilians the right to own such guns would violate their Second Amendment rights, or that it is not possible in any case to define such weapons in law.

https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/?_r=0

[Dan]

They're wrong but you can't explain why they're wrong.

Yes I can.  The framers explicitly designed the second amendment to protect the rights of Americans to own top of the line military grade weapons so they could help defend the country during time of war.

When the 4th Circuit says weapons that can be used in war are not protected by the 2nd amendment, they are flying in the face of the facts.

[Dan]

Opponents of a ban on the kinds of military-style weapons often used in spree killings – most recently in San Bernardino – often say that denying civilians the right to own such guns would violate their Second Amendment rights, or that it is not possible in any case to define such weapons in law.

And ...?