The 2nd and 9th circuits have both upheld ammo restrictions in the past year. You can stomp your feet and insist its all clear, but from my vantage point you are in a precarious position.
If the singular purpose of a gun is to kill
- Thread starter TJ8869
- Start date
The type of ammunition used for the various calibers, mm's and gauges of weapons speaks more to the specific intent of the gun than the gun itself. Hollow points and 00 buckshot are intended to maim/kill the target, etc..
I think you should explain what those "ammo restrictions" were. The devil is in the details, you know.
'Cause we are bad shots. And it keeps the ammo companies in business. Next question, please....make it a bit tougher.
Specifically, the 9th Circuit applied only to SF law restricting hollow point ammunition. The 2nd circuit did not approve any restrictions on sale or ownership of ammunition, only magazine capacity.
Guns are not for killing; they are supposed to be used for sexual pleasure.
Actually it is still 5-4. Decisions don't change when a Justice dies. Can you show us when ammo was ever not protected?
You gave me the recent case based on recent precedent and two circuit courts just last year upheld ammo restrictions. Of course the decision doesn't change with a death, that's not what I'm communicating. I'm saying that the court today would deliver a 4/4 decision. So its entirely possible by this time next year my interpretation of the constitution will be correct and you will be wrong. This issue is on very shaky ground.
Has this ruling been announced yet? If it hasn't, Scalia's vote can be thrown out.
The SCOTUS may not even take up another case for 70 years. Heller V DC will not fall in a year. Obama also will never get an appointment in this year and Trump could easily have 2 appointments shortly after taking office.
It could work out that way, it could be very different. So long as the circuit courts are upholding ammo restrictions, that puts your position in peril. Either we live in a world that accepts the lower court restrictions which favors my view or the issue goes back to SCOTUS for review which means it all hinges on who gets to nominate the next judge. Either way, not very firm ground.
Except that you are not being honest here. The only court that upheld any kind of "ammo restriction" was the 9th, and it was very limited to a certain type of hollow point ammunition in a SF city ordinance. It was nothing even remotely close to any kind of ammunition ban. I am confident that the majority of the Circuits would rule the other way on this issue.
You mischaracterize the 2nd Circuit decision. It did nothing more than uphold a limit on magazine capacity, with some exceptions, and did not in any way restrict or limit types of ammunition, or the ownership or purchase of ammunition.
Also, you apparently don't know how the Supreme Court works. Look at Roe. These type of precedents rarely are overturned, and the court cannot simply do it on its own. There has to be a specific case that comes before the court that would involve a specific issue. It is highly, highly unlikely that Heller is going to be overturned. Did you forget that even President Obama has acknowledged that the 2nd confers an individual right?
You're mischaracterizing. I'm not calling for a bullet ban. I'm pointing out that we can get gun control by focusing on ammo. Thats an argument the courts are accepting. Of course i know how SCOTUS works, that's why I brought up the circuit court cases which could necessitate SCOTUS revisiting the issue in the future with a court more likely to view the 2nd as I do. The biggest error you make is in thinking you're on solid ground when that ground is evenly divided at the moment and was only established a few years ago.
Please explain how you will accomplish "gun control by focusing on ammunition" given the current rulings. And no, the courts are not "accepting" the argument that ammo restrictions are the acceptable method to achieve gun control. You have 1 very liberal Circuit that approved a very narrow restriction of 1 specific ammunition that will not advance "gun control" in any way.
Moreover, you entire premise if faulty. If the SCOTUS were to revisit Heller, and somehow determine that the 2nd does not confer an individual right, then there would be no need for these backdoor approaches to gun control. So, it is really a meaningless point.
Yes that is gun control just as magazine limits is gun control. How you can argue otherwise escapes me. All I need is one ruling but I have 2 just from last year. You don't appear to know how the game works. The reason these backdoor rulings are important is because it allows us to either get around or challenge Heller. The argument I made was that your position on guns is in peril. You claimed it was strong. Given that your position is being undermined by the lower courts and your higher court bulwark is missing a key guardian, I think I've made my point.
