I know, I know... BearingArms.com, but the reason I bring it to /k/ is because of previous rulings such as the D.C. gun ban and the inevitability of that ruling having an impact in such shitty places like NYC, Cali, and Chicago.
Is this finally the last nail in the coffin for anti-gunners? What say you /k/ommandos?
It's not going to cause a civil war. If the US has lived through one AWB without one, it can live through another.
The fact that the Supreme Court is taking this long to decide what to do suggests that they may actually hear this case.
Friedman vs Highland Park regarding the constitutionality of an assault weapons ban on the grounds that DC vs Heller sets precedent that common arms for self defense and militia use cannot be banned.
The US population is less complacent now than it was 20 years ago. I, as well as every law enforcement agency in the country, can guarantee you that people will die if another AWB is enacted. It may not become a Civil War mk.2 semi-auto boogaloo; but it will definitely spark an insurgency. And that's what the American government fears the most.
Don't kid yourself, what has really changed is that gun owners have become far more politically active. It's one thing to take a case to the Supreme Court and lobby representatives. It's another to disobey the law and shoot anyone that tries to enforce it.
I only think people would resist to the point of shooting people is if they were actively confiscating guns or prosecuting for ownership of them.
Does anyone have the stats where only like 1% of NY registered their weapons by the deadline. We are talking massive non-compliance, even in the liberal states. If the government overplays their cards, massive backlash will occur.
When the ATF starts cranking its no knock warrants to the fucking extreme, all it will take is one INCIDENT where one of the guys on the team pulls the trigger on a child.
The child will become a martyr, people will be outraged and gunowners will not only have to fear for their HOBBY but the safety of their children.
Most wouldn't care if this wasn't the issue.
>where one of the guys on the team pulls the trigger on a child.
further proof that having guns in your home is deadly for your family
>what has really changed is that gun owners have become far more politically active
A decade's worth of being dehumanized and attacked by the media and the state will fucking do that to you.
If common arms for self defense and militia use can't be banned, why are select fire m16s banned? Along with the AKM its probably one of the most common used militia guns used by sandmen in the middle east, and we give that shit to our syrian rebels
Or is it just "common arms" in a sense that the nugget is probably the most mass produced gun in the world so it can't be banned
>banned because uncommon
>uncommon because banned
>NSA is revealed to be spying on literally everyone
>IRS is attacking conservative groups and Lois Lerner is let off the hook by the justice department
>The ATF is running guns to Mexico and Eric Holder lied about it under oath, but nobody is punished
Yeah, but an AWB will spark an IRA esque insurgency. Sure thing, bud.
no, there isn't going to be nothing of that sort except maybe 1 or 2 isolated incidents.
The only way for there to be actual armed response on a major scale is if the media is on our side and blasts coverage of government forcefully taking shit. They do this for 24/7, and I promise you there will be an easier political climate for the general population to sympathize with the gunowners.
But that's not gonna happen. The media will blanket up everything and carry on as if nothing is happening or pull the "___ celebrity scandal of the decade!" and cover up anything related to gunowners.
Thankfully, all these police brutality coverage goes hand-in-hand with racial equality and the liberal left eats that shit up.
>pediatrician Arie S. Friedman
>mfw sometimes they aren't the problem
Well Stalin had a great solution to this problem, by erasing those people from history. So I guess it will be a person like him that succeeds in the end if anyone. Natural selection is such a bitch.
That headline alone invalidates that entire website even if I pretend everything that came out of BearingArms was on par with Reuters restraint and journalistic prowess.
>If the court declines to hear the case and lets these unconstitutional bans stand, they will send the nation on a nearly inevitable path towards another civil war.
For fucks sake that is not what denying certiorari fucking means or does. Denying cert is not a de facto holding of the prior appellate court as the law of the land, it just means "we only accept like 80 of these things a year and prioritized other things".
Granted, the should accept cert, because as much as I can respect the expansion of gun rights Heller resulted in, it was a Scalia opinion, and Scalia opinions are known for two things (1) horrible vagueness (2) pulling things from ones ass but pretending it's being an "originalist".
Heller is a horrible opinion because of the dichotomy of the Constitutional protection of "weapons 'in common use'" and the lack of protection of weapons that are 'dangerous and unusual'.
What the fuck is "common use"? That U.S. district court seems to things that roughly 2-3% ownership isn't common enough, but is it "dangerous and unusual" when by even more drastic ratios that sort of weapon is hardly used in crimes compared to the 'quintessential handgun'?
Does a weapon have to be either one or the other? What the fuck constitutes a not "dangerous" firearm? Under what logic is the binary "it's either common or unusual" with no grey area sensible if that is really what the opinion is.
So many opinions in the past weight infringements of constitutional rights on the basis of a compelling interest, which should have been the case in Heller. Logically apply that the theoretical (or non-existent/proven) benefit they were getting by banning these guns in the home was not worth the infringement.
But Heller had to be a clusterfuck instead when applied to anything that isn't handguns.
Again, blame Scalia for creating that catch-22.
It's like the opposite problem with obscenity. Since allegedly "obscene" materials get consumed enough, they aren't considered that much of a violation of contemporary community standards, and thus are still protected.
Heller is the "Miller test" of gun rights.
Of all the god awful reasoning in the dissents, the Justice Stevens dissent actually brought light to this problem. He specifically mentioned the parodox here and how it would be technically constitutional under Heller for the State to not ban, but just regulate "common use" arms just enough to eventually dwindle their numbers and then ban, or the need to ban new types of guns before they get popular or else the State acquiesced their right to do so. That it flies in the face of the origionalism that Scalia purports to champion: what is Constitutional tomorrow should not change based off of mere legislative or administrative acts today.
The actual opinion only says weapons "in common use", and its heavily implied that this is only in reference to all lawful possession by civilians at large.
But Heller didn't necessarily overrule US v. Miller. If you want to make that argument, pull a Scalia and say that the state can't ban or arbitrarily/capriciously regulate either weapons in common use OR weapons that could have reasonable modern militia/infantry utility.
And responses like that are why you like to keep taking it in the ass, the right to bear arms wasn't so you can lose them in boating accidents. it is to stand up for retarded bullshit such as this the more you let them the more they will take.
So just curious. Lets say this case is heard, and by some ungodly stroke of luck we carry the day and win.
Does that mean all of California's laws, ordinances, restrictions, etc., end up completely nuked? And to that end, all of NY's, and Illinois', and everyone else? Is it automatic or does every law have to be challenged in a lesser court case?
Well here's the most succinct yet accurate summary I can give on how the Seventh Circuit applied Heller to this case:
>One, In determining whether a regulation banning certain firearms is valid under the Second Amendment, a court must ask whether the regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or weapons that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, and whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.
On this, weapons "at the time of ratification" was a really *really* broad label under Heller which basically classified all non-automatic concealable handguns and all non-automatic concealable long-arms as two "types" of firearms that existed both in 1791 and today.
>Second, States - which are in charge of militias - should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms, without violating the Second Amendment, so as to have such firearms available when the militia is called to duty.
>Third, a city ordinance generally prohibiting, as misdemeanor offense, the possession, sale, or manufacture of semi-automatic assault weapons [as generally classified/understood under '94 AWB logic, but with a "one feature" threshold instead of two] and large capacity magazines [as defined as 10 or more rounds] did not violate the Second Amendment;
And here is the kicker to that.
>although some of the banned weapons were commonly used for military and other defense functions [overruling the district court's summary judgement basis that "assault weapons" are not in "common use"], the ordinance still allowed city residents ample means to exercise the inherent right of self-defense, as it did not ban the possession of most pistols, revolvers, and long guns.
I'll have to continue this in a new reply as to why I think this holding won't stand if the Supreme Court grants cert, and on what specific grounds the Supreme Court would overrule.
Quoting the Seventh Circuit:
>"Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership. The Justices took note of some of the reasons, including ease of accessibility and use, that citizens might prefer handguns to long guns for self-defense. But Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers, as Highland Park's ordinance does, gives householders adequate means of defense.
This is not only what any of the majority justices in Heller would decry as a gross characterization of what was said, it's a blatant failure of inferring the logical contrapositive.
Heller specifically held that it was not sufficient that weapons like shotguns were "enough" to defend the ban on handguns. Basic logical inference "forecloses" the idea that you can just change the nouns or the ratios and apply the same reasoning that Heller explicitly rejected.
>Plaintiffs argue that the ordinance substantially restricts their options for armed self-defense. But that contention is undermined by their argument, in the same breath, that the ordinance serves no purpose, because (they say) criminals will just substitute permitted firearms functionally identical to the banned guns. If criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners. Unlike the District of Columbia's ban on handguns, Highland Park's ordinance leaves residents with many self-defense options.
This tautology swings both ways. If citizens have no compelling interest violated because of the ample alternatives, then the state has no compelling interest because of the criminals having ample alternatives. But "alternatives" have almost always only been a framework applied to limiting state action, not citizen rights, so applying the jurisprudence of nearly all 1st and 4th Amendment case law, this fact pattern weighs against the State.
Continued in one last post...
Quoting the Seventh Circuit:
>True enough, assault weapons can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles and less dangerous per shot than large-caliber pistols or revolvers. Householders too frightened or infirm to aim carefully may be able to wield them more effectively than the pistols James Bond preferred. But assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings? A ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park (where they are already rare), but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs."
Almost never has the Supreme Court defended a state action that impinged on Constitutional Liberties when on one hand you had a definite and ascertainable restriction of liberty and on the other you had only a theoretical chance of a possible benefit. Especially when that theoretical chance is itself contingent on other theoretical chances (i.e. even if there was a 100% chance of a mass shooting in the next few years in this area, its not ascertainable if the law would do any good). Only thing that comes to mind was Japaneses Internment during WWII (which is arguably irrelevant today) and maybe DUI checkpoints, the latter of which is not a forfeiture of a property interest.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court would likely then hold that, at the very least, an outright ban on *at least* the weapons themselves, not necessarily the magazines, is unconstitutional.
This would render any attempt at an "assault weapons ban" null as to the broad functionality of the weapon. The State would then have to resort to banning only those particular features or certain magazines.
The effect would be that the portion of any state law that categorically bans the functionality of a longarm being semi-automatic would be unenforceable.
So what I gather from this is, most of the standing laws will probably never go away, but anything on the national level won't ever happen IF this gets heard and IF it goes in the most pro-gun way possible?
No, it would bind each and every State, as well as the localities within each state as they are creatures-of-the-state, because none of the judges would ever be permitted to enforce that portion of the law.
Because the opinion would be a "clarification" of Heller, it would automatically be incorporated to the states under the 14th Amendment due to McDonald v. Chicago.
Even if those state laws never "go away" as statutory code, they could never be enforced.
And what I said wasn't the most pro-gun way possible. I gave you what I think is a restrained, conservative, and likely minimum result if the Supreme Court heard it again. Even justice Stevens, who was among the four justices who "double dissented" in Heller, would probably hold the way I said in light of nothing more than respecting stare decisis. Likely in a concurrence however to voice his disapproval of Heller but still applying it.
I doubt, but it's feasible, that the court would make a clear rulling on "assault magazines" as the Court tends to hate bright-line number values. Maybe they will find that 10+ magazines are part of the "common use" weapon but still leave an open question on whether that protection extends to 30 rounds, 60 rounds, or even 100 rounds.
It's highly unlikely that the court will go through the list of assault "features" and hold on the constitutionality of prohibiting various grips, stocks, and the like.
Cops are like Asians, in that Asians are "Schrodinger's White People" on questions of ethnic "privilege".
In the context of white gun owners, cops are victims, in the context of black people, cops are tyrants.
Nuffin happned. The most transparent administration in history dindu nuffin, and they won't show you proof because thas racis'.
>>IRS is attacking conservative groups
Wow, this is what teabaggers actually believe.
Turns out when you baww about taxes being illegal and then apply for tax exemption it doesn't take a fucking genius to realize something might be fishy.
Sorry to rain on your persecution complex, I'm sure the big evil gubment is really after you
> Turns out when you baww about taxes being illegal and then apply for tax exemption it doesn't take a fucking genius to realize something might be fishy
Except for when, y'know, you really hare a non-profit, and leftists demanding more taxes file for the same status and get it no problem, and that Lerner literally had fucking emails referring specifically to conservative groups.
I think maybe reddit is more your style, I'm sure they have plenty of places for socialist fucking bootlickers.
>Except for when, y'know, you really hare a non-profit
Oh gosh people actually have to prove they're non-profit, call the fucking media.
>Lerner literally had fucking emails referring specifically to conservative groups.
If you're a nigger nigging you get additional scrutiny from the cops, if you're a teabagger trying to get out taxes you're just nigging the IRS, so of course you get scrutiny.
btw you forgot to call me a statist too, since I know that's one of the other 4 words you have in your vocabulary.
I live in California, LA county. Every bit of internet traffic that i send and receive is being filtered by AT&T, sent to the NSA, and being cataloged based on what ever algorithm they use to determine how free someone is.
If i was from another place, without freedom, i would fight to attain it, and give my life to defend it if i must. A life not worth living is a life without freedom. Let them come with coffins and treachery, i won't comply with terrorists.
The FBI/ATF/NSA damage controls as hard as they fucking can because they understand that gun owners and the American public are more educated now more than ever and are capable of causing more harm than ever before possible to American infrastructure
>buh-buh y-you'll never d-do anything
The moment another AWB passes is the day that every two-bit police agency in the country is stared at through the reticule of a 4x acog knockoff.
>T-there won't be an insurgency
COINTELPRO hard as fuck all you want. But the evidence is clear; you'll lose. FBI agents will be peppered driving down the road. ATF agents will be ambushed during a raid. Local agencies will be torn apart and cop killers will rise in every community. You'll see an explosion of violent crime across the country. And some of it may even be organized; because there's guys like me out in the world who will lob a molotov into my closest power station and take pot-shots at transformers. And at that point; everyone in the area is now involved.
>Oh gosh people actually have to prove they're non-profit, call the fucking media.
It was confirmed that there was a disparate impact on conservative groups with constant and costly demands disproportionate to other groups despite the relative chances of abuse of the system.
>I want to change the tax law
>I BET YOU ARE A CRIMINAL EVADING TAX LAW
By your logic, you're fine with the ATF using info it gets from the NSA to investigate /k/ommando's because surely a logical inference of being for an expansion of gun rights is that they are currently possessing illegal firearms.
>Almost never has the Supreme Court defended a state action that impinged on Constitutional Liberties when on one hand you had a definite and ascertainable restriction of liberty and on the other you had only a theoretical chance of a possible benefit.
What about all the civil rights stuff?
It only took 3%
That's only if your let the communists win. There are humanitarian and contesting governments/organizations who would be hiring Americans to report news to them every day.
That was the ground they were held a legitimate limit of civil liberties.
There was a more finite, feasible, or greater scope of a benefit the state had a legitimate interest in, and usually it had a very minimal impact on others.
"Oh no I can't refuse the same service I would otherwise do but-for finding out the customer is gay" was considered insignificant. And there was a very clear and immediate ascertainable damage: the discriminated against parties.
"Oh no I have to surrender this property I inherited, which readily makes self defense easier for me, that was otherwise legal but now am a felon if I don't" is very significant. And if its a property interest within the home, it's at the maximum significance. The state on the otherhand in trying to defend that act only has "Well in the very very very very slight chance that there is a mass shooting in this park, and the very slight chance it's with a weapon that was possessed in these surrounding homes, there may or may not be a very slight chance that this law would be otherwise obeyed and then there may or may not be a slight chance the death toll would be less as a result"
I like you anon. Not even that guy. Have recipe for thermite if you don't already.