Semi-Automatic Killing Machines

[Ben]

From a US District Judge:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/07/26/judge-2nd-amendment-does-not-protect-semiautomatic-killing-machines/

So many things wrong with the thought process. I guarantee this judge is like so many other anti-gunners: they make up and perpetuate outright lies, and if you bother to correct them with how guns actually work, you're one of those gun nuts that throws technobabble around to cloud issues.

Trump can't replace some of these judges quick enough.

[Devonai]

So we have the NFA 1934 saying certain weapons are unsuitable for use in the militia, and this ruling saying AR-15s are military weapons and should be banned. 

[Jamisjockey]

So we have the NFA 1934 saying certain weapons are unsuitable for use in the militia, and this ruling saying AR-15s are military weapons and should be banned. 

Go home US Justice system...you're drunk...

[WLJ]

Stanton opined that a ban on M-16s can stand under scrutiny of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), because such guns are “outside the scope of the Second Amendment.” She then turned to a ban on AR-15s, saying, “Thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a ‘civilian rifle.’”

If it looks like a duck, walks like a squirrel, and woofs like a dog it must be a duck

[TommyGunn]

 

Ejumakated judges get it wrong so often it hurts.  
" .... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"Infringe" :  "to intrude into," or "to diminish."  Ref: OXFORD AMERICAN DICTIONARY.

"Shall not" is NOT a suggestion,  it's an imperative, an absolute.

But, uh, .... Kalifornya.  Land of the fruits and the nuts.

[Hawkmoon]

If it looks like a duck, walks like a squirrel, and woofs like a dog it must be a duck judge.

FIFY

[Hawkmoon]

CRPA sought a summary judgement against the “assault weapons” ban on behalf of Plaintiff Steven Rupp. But Stanton rejected the summary judgement request, characterizing “semiautomatic rifles with non-fixed magazines” as “killing machines” which “are essentially indistinguishable from M-16s.”

They are essentially indistinguishable except that they're different.

This is exactly the same as saying that Judge Stanton is "indistinguishable" from Ruth Bader Ginsberg because both are female and both are judges.

[dogmush]

CA Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who argued that “[a]ssault rifles may be banned because they are, like the M-16, ‘weapons that are most useful in military service’; and ‘they are also not “in common use” for lawful purposes like self-defense.’”

I'm not sure hanging ones AWB on the notion that AR 15's are uncommon is the best long term strategy,  but I kinda like that they are doing it.

[Pb]

Americans have a right to own military killing machines.  That is exactly why the Second Amendment was written.

Tech Coxe wrote my favorite gun rights quote about this very thing:

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[Perd Hapley]

Americans have a right to own military killing machines.  That is exactly why the Second Amendment was written.

Thank you. That's why it has a militia clause; not a hunting clause, or even a revolver for self defense clause.

[Hawkmoon]

Thank you. That's why it has a militia clause; not a hunting clause, or even a revolver for self defense clause.

I thought they omitted the revolver clause because revolvers hadn't been invented yet. That's why they can ban them ... the Second Amendment was about smooth-bore muskets and Brown Besses. (Just like the First Amendment only applies to newspapers printed on manual printing presses using type carved out of blocks of wood.)

[grampster]

I still am amazed how so many so called educated people, and even judges, still do not have a clue about what the 2A says.  Maybe its message is so simplen and clear the educated mind just can't grasp the clarity and simplicity of it.  In my view any law having to do with regulation firearms is unconstitutional and I wish we had a SCOTUS with the courage and simple understanding to put the argument to rest and nullify all gun laws once and for all.  There is no nuance in the 2A.  There should be none with attempts to nullify the 2A as well.

[Hawkmoon]

In my view any law having to do with regulation firearms is unconstitutional and I wish we had a SCOTUS with the courage and simple understanding to put the argument to rest and nullify all gun laws once and for all.  There is no nuance in the 2A.

I agree. Regulate = infringe. Ergo, regulation (reasonable or not) is off the table with respect to the 2A.

I know attorneys-- good ones, who are pro-gun-- who don't get that. One of them has told me more than twice that, since historically other Constitutional rights have been subject to "reasonable" regulation, therefore the Second Amendment must also be subject to reasonable regulation.

We have had to agree to disagree.

[Pb]

I tend to look at the laws that were around in the founding era to decide if a law would be appropriate.

In the founding era, there were prohibitions on some people owning guns- some non-citizen groups (slaves, Indians).

During the revolutionary war, some loyalist were disarmed during the duration of the war.

So it is my opinion that some prohibited person categories are probably constitutional.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that there were zero restrictions on others from owning any gun, or carrying openly or concealed throughout the original states.

Bans on CC did not start being enacted until the 1813 (open carry without a permit was considered ok).

[230RN]

Well, time for me to post the Preamble to the Bill Of Rights again:


On December 15, 1791, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, later known as the Bill of Rights, were ratified.

The Preamble to the Bill Of Rights, which expresses the reason they were added, follows:

------------------------------------

Congress OF THE United States

begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday

the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

And then follows those ten Amendments, which were duly ratified.  Bolding mine, and worth repeating...

in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added

Ayup.

Terry, 230RN

[TommyGunn]

That worked well ..... 

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

McHenry’s notes were first published in The American Historical Review, vol. 11, 1906, and the anecdote on p. 618 reads: “A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

[Yes, I know the punctuation is worse than awful. It's a quotation of a quotation -- whaddaya expect?]

[MechAg94]

I still am amazed how so many so called educated people, and even judges, still do not have a clue about what the 2A says.  Maybe its message is so simplen and clear the educated mind just can't grasp the clarity and simplicity of it.  In my view any law having to do with regulation firearms is unconstitutional and I wish we had a SCOTUS with the courage and simple understanding to put the argument to rest and nullify all gun laws once and for all.  There is no nuance in the 2A.  There should be none with attempts to nullify the 2A as well.

IMO, they know exactly what it says.  They have just made up their minds that guns are bad and don't want to let anything like the Constitution stand in the way.

[grampster]

I agree. Regulate = infringe. Ergo, regulation (reasonable or not) is off the table with respect to the 2A.

I know attorneys-- good ones, who are pro-gun-- who don't get that. One of them has told me more than twice that, since historically other Constitutional rights have been subject to "reasonable" regulation, therefore the Second Amendment must also be subject to reasonable regulation.

We have had to agree to disagree.

My response to your attorney friends would be this:  "Which of any Constitutional rights that have been subject to "reasonable" regulation had the word "shall not be infringed" written in them?"

[Hawkmoon]

My response to your attorney friends would be this:  "Which of any Constitutional rights that have been subject to "reasonable" regulation had the word "shall not be infringed" written in them?"

Already tried that.

Crickets.

[Perd Hapley]

I thought they omitted the revolver clause because revolvers hadn't been invented yet. That's why they can ban them ... the Second Amendment was about smooth-bore muskets and Brown Besses. (Just like the First Amendment only applies to newspapers printed on manual printing presses using type carved out of blocks of wood.)

 Wouldn't they have been using metal type? If I remember correctly, Gutenberg's breakthrough was in developing metal type, which was much more practical than the wooden type used by previous presses (such as those used by the Chinese).

[Hawkmoon]

Wouldn't they have been using metal type? If I remember correctly, Gutenberg's breakthrough was in developing metal type, which was much more practical than the wooden type used by previous presses (such as those used by the Chinese).

Wikipedia says you are correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutenberg_Bible

I thought Gutenberg's innovation was movable type, but I thought it was carved from wood blocks.