Justices mull appeal of Chicago suburb's assault weapons ban

[LuckyNed]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...rbs-assault-weapons-ban/ar-AAfyShS?li=AAa0dzB


"To limit self-defense to only those methods acceptable to the government" creates an "enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government — a result directly contrary to our Constitution and to our political tradition," Manion wrote.

Twenty-four states and other gun-rights groups are supporting the appeal at the Supreme Court.

The justices' refusal to say more about gun rights has allowed, even encouraged, federal judges to take a narrow view of the meaning of the Second Amendment, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said on behalf of the states. "It is time for this court to intervene."

If the supreme court decides to hear this case it will end very, very badly for the anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups.

 

[dgordo]

Weird considering scalia's opinion in Heller.

 

[NoleandDawg]

Good.

 

[moral_victory]

Finally I could strap heat and be safe in Portillos.

One combo with hot peppers, and some freedom fries please.

 

[LuckyNed]

Finally I could strap heat and be safe in Portillos.

One combo with hot peppers, and some freedom fries please.

If the supreme court decides to hear this case it will end very, very badly for the anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups.

 

[moral_victory]

If the supreme court decides to hear this case it will end very, very badly for the anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups.

If the supreme court decides to hear this case it will end very, very badly for the anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups.

 

[moral_victory]

If the supreme court decides to hear this case it will end very, very badly for the anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups.

 

[LuckyNed]

 

[Gimmered]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...rbs-assault-weapons-ban/ar-AAfyShS?li=AAa0dzB


"To limit self-defense to only those methods acceptable to the government" creates an "enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government — a result directly contrary to our Constitution and to our political tradition," Manion wrote.

Twenty-four states and other gun-rights groups are supporting the appeal at the Supreme Court.

The justices' refusal to say more about gun rights has allowed, even encouraged, federal judges to take a narrow view of the meaning of the Second Amendment, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said on behalf of the states. "It is time for this court to intervene."

If the supreme court decides to hear this case it will end very, very badly for the anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups.

Maybe, the NRA fought hard to keep DC V Heller out of the Supreme Court because of the makeup of the Court. It turned out very much in the NRA's favor after it went through. I am anxious to have it heard, but I bet they punt it down the road.

 

[GarryO37]

 

[naturalmwa]

Finally a meat thread.

 

[Gimmered]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ju...rbs-assault-weapons-ban/ar-AAfyShS?li=AAa0dzB


"To limit self-defense to only those methods acceptable to the government" creates an "enormous transfer of authority from the citizens of this country to the government — a result directly contrary to our Constitution and to our political tradition," Manion wrote.

Twenty-four states and other gun-rights groups are supporting the appeal at the Supreme Court.

The justices' refusal to say more about gun rights has allowed, even encouraged, federal judges to take a narrow view of the meaning of the Second Amendment, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said on behalf of the states. "It is time for this court to intervene."

If the supreme court decides to hear this case it will end very, very badly for the anti-gun, anti-second amendment groups.

After digging deeper into DC V Heller as well as US V Miller and the fact that the SCOTUS cited Miller in it's Heller decision you are probably right.

In the Miller case the Court decided since no evidence was presented to show that short barrel shot guns have a military purpose they could in fact be banned. They actually serve a military purpose but the fact that Miller was dead when the case was heard and no one presented this evidence is likely the only reason the 1934 NFA has even stood.

What the SCOTUS did decide in Heller was that people have the right to keep arms for self defense outside of a militia. That banning a whole class of weapons such as handguns is unconstitutional. That requiring trigger locks would render them useless in self defense and is unconstitutional.

They also decided that these rights can be restricted. That people cannot have any weapon they want where ever they want. That concealed carry as well as carrying in sensitive places is not protected. That felons as well as mentally ill people can be restricted, and transfers can be regulated.

It is very likely that banning magazines that are standard issue in the military would be ruled unconstitutional as they would have a purpose in a militia. Likewise with AR-15s, possibly even M-16s, although, their use outside a militia could likely be regulated.