PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court declines to take up ban on assault weapons



Gypsy
12-07-2015, 03:23 PM
Supreme Court declines to take up ban on assault weapons
The Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons Monday, a move that will encourage gun-control advocates and could frustrate supporters of gun rights.

The city of Highland Park, Illinois, passed the ban in 2013 following a series of mass shooting incidents around the country. The law prohibits the sale, purchase and possession of semi-automatic firearms with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.


Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented from the denial of the case. Thomas wrote that several Courts of Appeals have upheld "categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes."
"Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court's attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. The arguments from the parties in the case reflect the deep divide nationwide between those who are pushing what they consider reasonable restrictions and others who think the lower courts are thumbing their nose at Supreme Court precedent by upholding certain restrictions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/scotus-declines-to-take-up-ban-on-assault-weapons/index.html

Thoughts?

Bo-4
12-07-2015, 03:31 PM
Thoughts?

Yeah, the assault weapon thing is a losing battle for now.

Preventing those on the no fly list from buying their assault weapons?

ENTIRELY possible and some bipartisan support.

exotix
12-07-2015, 03:35 PM
How much did Lapierre and the NRA pay 'em ?

Gypsy
12-07-2015, 03:35 PM
Thoughts?

Yeah, the assault weapon thing is a losing battle for now.

Preventing those on the no fly list from buying their assault weapons?

ENTIRELY possible and some bipartisan support.

The decision to not take up the case opens the door to more local governments to do the same.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 04:46 PM
I don't have a problem with it, the constitution is almost entirely a collection of limits on the federal government and as such I think local governments should have the ability to determine what is and is not in their community's best interests. If you don't like the laws of that community, move to another one.

Chris
12-07-2015, 04:52 PM
Thoughts? The term is meaningless.

Obama Wants to Ban 'Assault Weapons' but Does Not Know What They Are (https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/07/obama-wants-to-ban-assault-weapons-but-d)


In his speech last night, President Obama said the government should "make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino." In its front-page editorial on Saturday, The New York Times used stronger language, saying, "It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection." On the same day, New York Times columnist Gail Collins agreed that "assault weapons," which she said "seem to be the armament of choice for mass shootings," should be banned. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, concurs.

What exactly are these evil guns that are good for nothing but indiscriminate slaughter? Judging from their own words, Obama, the New York Times editorial board, Collins, and Clinton—like most people who support bans on so-called assault weapons—do not know what "assault weapons" are....

donttread
12-07-2015, 04:59 PM
Supreme Court declines to take up ban on assault weapons


The Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons Monday, a move that will encourage gun-control advocates and could frustrate supporters of gun rights.

The city of Highland Park, Illinois, passed the ban in 2013 following a series of mass shooting incidents around the country. The law prohibits the sale, purchase and possession of semi-automatic firearms with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.


Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented from the denial of the case. Thomas wrote that several Courts of Appeals have upheld "categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes."
"Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court's attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. The arguments from the parties in the case reflect the deep divide nationwide between those who are pushing what they consider reasonable restrictions and others who think the lower courts are thumbing their nose at Supreme Court precedent by upholding certain restrictions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/scotus-declines-to-take-up-ban-on-assault-weapons/index.html

Thoughts?

More proof that the USSC has become nothing more than Donkephant cowards

domer76
12-07-2015, 05:02 PM
More proof that the USSC has become nothing more than Donkephant cowards


yawn

Polecat
12-07-2015, 05:02 PM
Since Osama thinks average Americans are the enemy it makes perfect sense for him and the democrats to render us defenseless. Assault rifles should be fully understood and present in every home that has a responsible American patriot living in it. The no fly list is a meaningless database constructed by minimum wage douche bags and has no validity. How do you get put on this list? Who exactly gets to decide if you get put on this list? Is there any due process involved?

Chris
12-07-2015, 05:24 PM
Since Osama thinks average Americans are the enemy it makes perfect sense for him and the democrats to render us defenseless. Assault rifles should be fully understood and present in every home that has a responsible American patriot living in it. The no fly list is a meaningless database constructed by minimum wage douche bags and has no validity. How do you get put on this list? Who exactly gets to decide if you get put on this list? Is there any due process involved?

Hey, Polecat, how you doing?

donttread
12-07-2015, 05:26 PM
yawn

It's those yawns that have killed the BOR's

Cletus
12-07-2015, 05:29 PM
I don't have a problem with it, the constitution is almost entirely a collection of limits on the federal government and as such I think local governments should have the ability to determine what is and is not in their community's best interests. If you don't like the laws of that community, move to another one.

Do you understand the Incorporation Doctrine and how it applies here?

Using your reasoning, a community could say no Blacks or no no Homosexuals or no Christians, or no whatever they want to exclude.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 05:45 PM
Do you understand the Incorporation Doctrine and how it applies here?

Yes, I do. It's a concept I have some disagreements with.


Using your reasoning, a community could say no Blacks or no no Homosexuals or no Christians, or no whatever they want to exclude.

Yes, yes they could. And?

zelmo1234
12-07-2015, 05:50 PM
How much did Lapierre and the NRA pay 'em ?

Idiot! this was a win for your side.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 05:51 PM
Idiot! this was a win for your side.

He's a special one, isn't he?

leekohler2
12-07-2015, 05:51 PM
I don't have a problem with it, the constitution is almost entirely a collection of limits on the federal government and as such I think local governments should have the ability to determine what is and is not in their community's best interests. If you don't like the laws of that community, move to another one.

Sorry GA, that doesn't work for me, for the same reasons Cletus mentioned.

zelmo1234
12-07-2015, 05:53 PM
Sorry GA, that doesn't work for me, for the same reasons Cletus mentioned.

I can see that it would not. That is the Idea that the left likes of an all powerful and controlling Federal Government

But the nations was founded on States rights, and the freedom of the states to choose their own path. That is the federalism of which we were founded on.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 05:55 PM
Sorry GA, that doesn't work for me, for the same reasons Cletus mentioned.

Why? Explain your position.

Chris
12-07-2015, 05:57 PM
Do you understand the Incorporation Doctrine and how it applies here?

Using your reasoning, a community could say no Blacks or no no Homosexuals or no Christians, or no whatever they want to exclude.


Incorporation of rights, yes, not federal powers.

How could incorporation of the second's right to keep and bear arms be twisted into ban on some? --Rhetorical, the federal government knows no bounds.

Tahuyaman
12-07-2015, 06:00 PM
How much did Lapierre and the NRA pay 'em ?


Obviously not enough, or are you Looking at this from the wrong angle?

Never mind. You usually see things a 180 out from the rest of the world.

Tahuyaman
12-07-2015, 06:02 PM
I don't have a problem with it, the constitution is almost entirely a collection of limits on the federal government and as such I think local governments should have the ability to determine what is and is not in their community's best interests. If you don't like the laws of that community, move to another one.

So, the US Constitution does not apply to state, county or city government?

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 06:05 PM
So, the US Constitution does not apply to state, county or city government?

"Almost entirely" means there are parts that do not apply solely to the federal government, so...

Tahuyaman
12-07-2015, 06:07 PM
So..... What?

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 06:08 PM
So..... What?

So no, the constitution does not solely apply to the federal government.

It's pretty clear.

Subdermal
12-07-2015, 06:14 PM
I don't have a problem with it, the constitution is almost entirely a collection of limits on the federal government and as such I think local governments should have the ability to determine what is and is not in their community's best interests. If you don't like the laws of that community, move to another one.

Um...no.

The Bill of Rights codifies those UNIVERSAL rights of a CITIZEN, regardless in which State that they live. The Constitution - for fock's sake - was supposed to be a very narrow and specific -enumerated compilation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which EVERY State was supposed to acknowledge as the boundaries of allowable local restriction.

The other purpose of the Constitution - the intent of which overlaps - is to protect the people from an overarching Government.

To that end, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is there, written in plain black and white. What Highland Park has done is blatantly unConstitutional.

I also object to the term 'assault' weapon. Leftist clowns are attempting to call as many guns as possible 'assault weapons' as a clever way around the fact that they're acting in bad Constitutional faith.

If Highland Park wants to pass a law regarding the allowable height of the local lawns, they can: there is nothing specifically written in the Constitution that denies the locality the right to do so, and if the minority vote doesn't like it, they can find another community.

But violations of the Second Amendment IS NOT one of those issues.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 06:25 PM
Um...no.

The Bill of Rights codifies those UNIVERSAL rights of a CITIZEN, regardless in which State that they live. The Constitution - for fock's sake - was supposed to be a very narrow and specific -enumerated compilation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which EVERY State was supposed to acknowledge as the boundaries of allowable local restriction.

Yes, I am aware. If you'll re-read my post, you'll see I used the phrase "should have" before "the ability to determine what is and is not in their community's best interests." There's a reason for that. I choose my words deliberately for a reason.

Tahuyaman
12-07-2015, 06:29 PM
So no, the constitution does not solely apply to the federal government.

It's pretty clear.

The constitution puts restraints upon government. Period.

Subdermal
12-07-2015, 06:41 PM
Yes, I am aware. If you'll re-read my post, you'll see I used the phrase "should have" before "the ability to determine what is and is not in their community's best interests." There's a reason for that. I choose my words deliberately for a reason.

How the fock does you writing "should have" invalidate my criticism of your stance? No, they SHOULDN'T have unchecked ability to determine their own rules in their own community!

SHOULDN'T have. Capisce? SHOULDN'T. There are very specific things that they SHOULDN'T have the right to impose upon the citizens of that community. Know what those things are? They're listed in the Constitution!

So I submit that while you may be aware, you never engaged in an argument in defense of your stance; you only said that they should. No, they most certainly SHOULD NOT, or there would be no purpose for the focking CONSTITUTION.

Subdermal
12-07-2015, 06:43 PM
To destroy Green Arrow's assertion, one need only point out that if a community suddenly becomes majority Muslim, they SHOULD NOT have the right to override our judicial system and impose their own Sharia Court!

domer76
12-07-2015, 06:43 PM
It's those yawns that have killed the BOR's

yawn. sniff. scratch balls.

domer76
12-07-2015, 06:45 PM
I can see that it would not. That is the Idea that the left likes of an all powerful and controlling Federal Government

But the nations was founded on States rights, and the freedom of the states to choose their own path. That is the federalism of which we were founded on.

States rights went away a long time ago. Fast forward 150 years or so.

Subdermal
12-07-2015, 06:48 PM
Next we're going to see some dim bulb leftist saying something like States Rights are passe/unnecessary.

And probably call it 'progressive'.

domer76
12-07-2015, 06:52 PM
Next we're going to see some dim bulb leftist saying something like States Rights are passe/unnecessary.

And probably call it 'progressive'.

Nope. They merely don't exist

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 06:55 PM
How the fock does you writing "should have" invalidate my criticism of your stance? No, they SHOULDN'T have unchecked ability to determine their own rules in their own community!

Well, the portion of your criticism I quoted didn't seem to grasp what I said. I'm well aware of the purpose of the constitution and BoR and what it says about communities and their rights, however I disagree. I believe that communities should have the right to decide what is and is not in the best interests of their communities regardless. You coming back with "well that's not what the constitution allows" is irrelevant. I never said it did allow that and I don't particularly care if it does.

Also, either write "fuck" or don't, censoring yourself is childish.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 06:55 PM
To destroy Green Arrow's assertion, one need only point out that if a community suddenly becomes majority Muslim, they SHOULD NOT have the right to override our judicial system and impose their own Sharia Court!

Why not?

Tahuyaman
12-07-2015, 06:59 PM
Why not?

Because it's unconstitutional.

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 07:00 PM
Because it's unconstitutional.

So was Prohibition, until it wasn't (and then was again).

Tahuyaman
12-07-2015, 07:12 PM
So was Prohibition, until it wasn't (and then was again).

are you suggesting that a community establishing sharia law is allowable?

Green Arrow
12-07-2015, 07:16 PM
are you suggesting that a community establishing sharia law is allowable?

Nope.

Peter1469
12-07-2015, 08:00 PM
How much did Lapierre and the NRA pay 'em ?

Why would you ask that question? Do you understand the OP?

Peter1469
12-07-2015, 08:05 PM
In the last 2nd Amendment case, it said that the 2nd can be regulated. This decision to not hear this case verifies that earlier statement. And it goes further by allowing what many consider unreasonable regulation.


Supreme Court declines to take up ban on assault weapons


The Supreme Court declined to take up a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on assault weapons Monday, a move that will encourage gun-control advocates and could frustrate supporters of gun rights.

The city of Highland Park, Illinois, passed the ban in 2013 following a series of mass shooting incidents around the country. The law prohibits the sale, purchase and possession of semi-automatic firearms with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.


Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, dissented from the denial of the case. Thomas wrote that several Courts of Appeals have upheld "categorical bans on firearms that millions of Americans commonly own for lawful purposes."
"Because noncompliance with our Second Amendment precedents warrants this Court's attention as much as any of our precedents, I would grant certiorari in this case," Thomas wrote. The arguments from the parties in the case reflect the deep divide nationwide between those who are pushing what they consider reasonable restrictions and others who think the lower courts are thumbing their nose at Supreme Court precedent by upholding certain restrictions.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/07/politics/scotus-declines-to-take-up-ban-on-assault-weapons/index.html

Thoughts?

exotix
12-07-2015, 08:18 PM
http://i68.tinypic.com/2v820qh.jpg

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/donald-trump-forgets-muslim-champions-during-obama-criticism-n475306


https://thegrio.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/trump-ali-2.jpg?w=640

http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_50/1329681/151207-trump-ali-jpo-351a_8384dc4598fa9075467ab1a952e7af2f.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg

Don
12-07-2015, 08:19 PM
Um...no.

The Bill of Rights codifies those UNIVERSAL rights of a CITIZEN, regardless in which State that they live. The Constitution - for fock's sake - was supposed to be a very narrow and specific -enumerated compilation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which EVERY State was supposed to acknowledge as the boundaries of allowable local restriction.

The other purpose of the Constitution - the intent of which overlaps - is to protect the people from an overarching Government.

To that end, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is there, written in plain black and white. What Highland Park has done is blatantly unConstitutional.

I also object to the term 'assault' weapon. Leftist clowns are attempting to call as many guns as possible 'assault weapons' as a clever way around the fact that they're acting in bad Constitutional faith.

If Highland Park wants to pass a law regarding the allowable height of the local lawns, they can: there is nothing specifically written in the Constitution that denies the locality the right to do so, and if the minority vote doesn't like it, they can find another community.

But violations of the Second Amendment IS NOT one of those issues.

http://z3.ifrm.com/17/153/0/p522057/11scnd2.jpg.png

Gypsy
12-07-2015, 08:37 PM
Um...no.

The Bill of Rights codifies those UNIVERSAL rights of a CITIZEN, regardless in which State that they live. The Constitution - for fock's sake - was supposed to be a very narrow and specific -enumerated compilation of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS which EVERY State was supposed to acknowledge as the boundaries of allowable local restriction.

The other purpose of the Constitution - the intent of which overlaps - is to protect the people from an overarching Government.

To that end, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is there, written in plain black and white. What Highland Park has done is blatantly unConstitutional.

I also object to the term 'assault' weapon. Leftist clowns are attempting to call as many guns as possible 'assault weapons' as a clever way around the fact that they're acting in bad Constitutional faith.

If Highland Park wants to pass a law regarding the allowable height of the local lawns, they can: there is nothing specifically written in the Constitution that denies the locality the right to do so, and if the minority vote doesn't like it, they can find another community.

But violations of the Second Amendment IS NOT one of those issues.


So when Kennesaw, Ga made it gun ownership mandatory, that was Constitutional?

Matty
12-07-2015, 08:39 PM
So when Kennesaw, Ga made it gun ownership mandatory, that was Constitutional?


Good, now you understand why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Gypsy
12-07-2015, 08:39 PM
In the last 2nd Amendment case, it said that the 2nd can be regulated. This decision to not hear this case verifies that earlier statement. And it goes further by allowing what many consider unreasonable regulation.

Welcome back!

Gypsy
12-07-2015, 08:40 PM
Good, now you understand why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

My comment was addressed to Subdermal. Thank you anyway.

Chris
12-07-2015, 08:44 PM
So when Kennesaw, Ga made it gun ownership mandatory, that was Constitutional?

I'd say not, because you should be free to exercise your rights are you choose.

Matty
12-07-2015, 08:54 PM
My comment was addressed to Subdermal. Thank you anyway.


Open forum. PM is for private messages. You are welcome.

Gypsy
12-07-2015, 08:59 PM
Open forum. PM is for private messages. You are welcome.

lol smh

Matty
12-07-2015, 09:03 PM
The truth shall set you free.

Ethereal
12-07-2015, 10:36 PM
States rights went away a long time ago. Fast forward 150 years or so.

*looks at the constitution*

Yup, Tenth Amendment is still there. Care to try again?

Ethereal
12-07-2015, 10:41 PM
If states rights went away a long time ago, then someone should tell the people of Colorado, because they legalized marijuana in direct opposition to federal prohibition. Apparently, they didn't get domer's memo.

Cthulhu
12-07-2015, 10:46 PM
How much did Lapierre and the NRA pay 'em ?
Lapierre called me, he told me to tell you to stop sending him nude photos.

Apparently you're not his type.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Don
12-08-2015, 12:53 AM
"States rights went away a long time ago." Maybe states rights have been ignored by some for a long time doesn't mean they don't exist and if the states have no rights then neither do the people. The fact is the federal government has limited powers granted to them by the peoples of the states. All rights not enumerated are left with the states and the people. The rights of the people can only be abrogated by the states or central government if the people cease to be vigilant. When they forget that government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

ThaiBoxer
12-08-2015, 01:04 AM
Nobody needs an AK-47

ThaiBoxer
12-08-2015, 01:07 AM
Good, now you understand why Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Your fellow Republicant John Roberts doesn't think so

Cletus
12-08-2015, 01:14 AM
Roberts compromised his integrity in order to prevent HIS Court from going down in history as the one that blocked Obamacare. It was a shameful act.

donttread
12-08-2015, 05:25 PM
States rights went away a long time ago. Fast forward 150 years or so.

And this is the lack of Constitutional education those of us that do understand have to put up with

Cthulhu
12-08-2015, 08:49 PM
Nobody needs an AK-47
You're actually right.

Nobody needs guns... Until they need one *right now*.

Kinda like vaccines. You don't need them until the disease comes to your doorstep.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Captain Obvious
12-08-2015, 08:50 PM
Nobody needs an AK-47

Your government agrees

ThaiBoxer
12-08-2015, 11:39 PM
You're actually right.

Nobody needs guns... Until they need one *right now*.

Kinda like vaccines. You don't need them until the disease comes to your doorstep.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

There is never a practical purpose for a gun like that, period.

Cthulhu
12-09-2015, 12:19 AM
There is never a practical purpose for a gun like that, period.
13684

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

ThaiBoxer
12-09-2015, 12:20 AM
13684

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Did she need an assault rifle?

No.

gamewell45
12-09-2015, 12:24 AM
Since Osama thinks average Americans are the enemy it makes perfect sense for him and the democrats to render us defenseless. Assault rifles should be fully understood and present in every home that has a responsible American patriot living in it. The no fly list is a meaningless database constructed by minimum wage douche bags and has no validity. How do you get put on this list? Who exactly gets to decide if you get put on this list? Is there any due process involved?

Hey Polecat; I got news for you, Osama died back in 2011.:rollseyes:

Cthulhu
12-09-2015, 12:24 AM
Did she need an assault rifle?

No.
No. But she did - 13685

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

Ethereal
12-09-2015, 12:24 AM
Nobody needs an AK-47

Nobody needs a yellow Camaro either.

ThaiBoxer
12-09-2015, 12:31 AM
Nobody needs a yellow Camaro either.

Yellow Camaros aren't designed with the specific purpose to murder people.

Ethereal
12-09-2015, 12:59 AM
Yellow Camaros aren't designed with the specific purpose to murder people.

Irrelevant. A Camaro is more likely to kill someone than an AK-47 is and nobody needs one, so, according to your own logic, they should be banned as well.