Monday, December 7, 2015

"SCOTUS Rejects Challenge to Semi-Auto and Magazine Ban."

The function of the militia, defined as “all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense [and] bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time,” was — and is — to field citizen soldiers. And these citizens bore arms that were suitable for that purpose, “ordinary military equipment” intended to be taken into “common defense” battles. The militia did not assemble on the green bearing clubs and spears. They came with the intent to match and best a professional military threat. That’s the inheritance those who would rule don’t want the people even finding out about, let alone claiming.


rexxhead said...

Thank goodness we elected all those Republicans who could then nominate right-thinking candidates for the Supreme Court.



Anonymous said...

This will be something many do not want to hear much less face. Tough. Suck it up and face it.

SCOUTS rejected hearing this case because there was a deal made between the NRA and Democrats - the deal was they get the wicked state preemption and the bans in place STAY even though they themselves violate the proclaimed premise of state preemption.

SCOUTS here is out and out saying it will not uphold even the plainest of day issues when put to it. BACKROOM Deals carry more power than the constitution. This refusal leaves in place a direct violation of Heller. It flies in the face of McDonald.

The bright side? SCOTT'S is going to have more broad and more consequential cases presented in the next two years.....cases that if they duck might just be Lexington and concord significance.

KUETSA said...

Welcome to America:

"It's constitutionally unworkable to keep Muslims out of the country."


It's OK to effectively repeal the second amendment by reinterpreting it to mean politicians can ban semi-automatic rifles and standard capacity magazines limiting citizens to non-threatening low capacity sporting arms.

In everyday routine:

An armed citizenry can not be terrorized. When envisioning a terrorist attack during the course of your routine, you have a plan to respond that has the possibility of succeeding. It is a healthier place to be mentally, and a safer place to be physically. You can be attacked, but not terrorized.

An unarmed citizenry fears the thought of a terrorist attack. You may never be attacked, but you live in fear of an attack constantly. You have no recourse if an attack occurs, you are a constant potential hostage and victim, constantly terrorized.

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can we ever let anyone put us in that position!

Militarizing law enforcement departments does NOTHING for the victims at the shooting scene that officers are responding to. It serves to protect the lives of responding officers and enhance THEIR ability to survive the fight, if the terrorists are still on scene.

Every situation that creates a need to further militarize law enforcement units for THEIR survivability in a terrorist attack, MUST be seen as a need to REMOVE RESTRICTIONS on citizens firearms rights, to increase OUR survivability in a terrorist attack.

CITIZENS CAUGHT IN A TERRORIST ATTACK MUST HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO BE THEIR OWN FIRST RESPONDERS. By the time the SECOND RESPONDERS GET THERE, many of them will likely be dead or held hostage by an enemy that likes to behead hostages.

Anonymous said...

Supreme Court Denies Gun Case on Chicago-Area ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

Anonymous said...

No surprise as I believe many of them are being blackmailed. And then of course there's Kagan, who under normal conditions in America would be selling bloomers wholesale on Delancy street on the Lower East Side. And what a remarkable coincidence she has a shortened version of the name Kaganovich, Joseph Stalin's old side-kick responsible for much of the starvation in Ukraine in the 1930's

Anonymous said...

Supremes On Hearing ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban: No Thanks…

Anonymous said...

Gun stocks rally after Obama’s prime-time address on terrorism

Anonymous said...

San Jose: Rep. Honda announces bill to ban civilians from military-grade body armor

Anonymous said...

Man America were you set up, Obama just banned assault weapons without passing a single law!



Washington (AFP) - The US Supreme Court appeared on Monday to back lawmakers who want to restrict the type of guns such as semi-automatic assault weapons used in recent mass shootings.

Related Stories

Justices reject challenge to local assault weapons ban Associated Press
Supreme Court effectively upholds local assault weapon ban Christian Science Monitor
Supreme Court denies assault weapons ban challenge National Constitution Center
Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Challenge to City's Assault Weapons Ban Yahoo News
[$$] Supreme Court Lets Stand Local Law Banning Semiautomatic Guns The Wall Street Journal
In a 7-2 vote, the high court's justices refused to take up a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The court's move is a small victory for activists against the spread of such guns, which can potentially kill many people in a short period of time.

"By rejecting this case, today the Supreme Court sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we've seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center and Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

Just last week, a husband and wife who authorities say had been radicalized for "quite some time" cut down 14 people and wounded another 21 in San Bernardino, California using legally purchased semi-automatic rifles.

Pediatrician Arie Friedman and the pro-gun Illinois State Rifle Association filed suit, saying his Second Amendment rights to bear arms under the US Constitution had been violated by the city of Highland Park's ban.

Friedman took his challenge to the Supreme Court after losing in lower courts.

Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissent, said they would have taken up the challenge.

"Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles," Thomas wrote in a six-page dissent.

"The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting."

The justices have shied from weighing in on state and local disputes on gun rights in recent years.

Anonymous said...

This decision is contrary to US v. Miller (1939). I don't like Miller, especially how the collective rights crowd claim it as their proof. But at the case's very core the "test" to decide if the Second Amendment covers a given arm is it's "suitability" for military use. So how pray tell can an M-forgery not be of military use. How can a magazine complying with STANAG 4179 not be of military use?

Now how a sawed off shot gun was not of military use is a mystery to me, and I believe a couple of those justices were around for the Great War. I just hope Mr. Robert's knows what he is doing.

Longbow said...

They don't care. They are exercising power. Allowing you the free exercise of your natural rights, limits their exercise of arbitrary power. Why would they do that?

SheeDog said... many still think we will prevail on second amendment issues in the courts? The time is upon us....

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be poetic justice if the banners celebrated this only to find out that semi automatics aren't protected because they aren't suitable for military use and that now all semis must be traded in for select fire weapons? And they gotta appropriate money to pay first the gun trade ins?

Anonymous said...

I despise judges and kangaroo courts verily. I don't need, want any black robe in my life. Telling me what I can own or not. As far as Dannel Malloy and Sodomite Mike "Red KGB" Mike Lawlor they can kiss my WASP ass. You want what I own try and take them. Collectivist toady mother fuckers. I am not afraid to die. I won't go quietly into you're collectivist nightmare. Behind enemy lines Ct.