Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree28Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 28th, 2017, 06:44 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 168
SCOTUS refuses to hear 2A case

Quote:
Today the Supreme Court let stand the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Kolbe v. Hogan that semi-automatic rifles are not constitutionally protected “arms,” and in doing so declared the Second Amendment guarantees only a second-class right.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/322fe4d...-amend.-by.htm

Maybe SCOTUS recognizes that certain weapons can be regulated via the state as the 1689 EBoR states: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689
Thanks from skews13 and Camelot
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 04:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/322fe4d...-amend.-by.htm

Maybe SCOTUS recognizes that certain weapons can be regulated via the state as the 1689 EBoR states: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law".
Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689


Damn straight. Assault weapons are weapons of war. Period.
Thanks from Camelot and Endtherepublic
Clara007 is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 01:44 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Virginia
Posts: 180
From the original source: SCOTUS Guts 2nd Amend. By Refusing To Hear Semi-Auto Ban Case

Quote:
Yet the Supreme Court denied review in Kolbe without comment, although not even two years ago, when the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from the Seventh Circuit’s assault-rifle-ban decision, Justice Clarence Thomas issued a dissent and publicly criticized his fellow justices for denying the petition for review: “The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions.”

This time around, though, Thomas uttered not a word. Nor did his fellow justices. Frankly, from a legal perspective, it makes no sense. Kolbe’s disregard for Supreme Court precedent far surpassed that seen in the Seventh Circuit’s Friedman decision. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Kolbe also established a further split in the circuits concerning the appropriate standard for judging laws under the Second Amendment. Normally, the Supreme Court would hear an appeal in such circumstances, if only to clarify the controlling standard.
That sounds creepy. I wonder if Scalia's controversial death has the SCOTUS justices fearing for their lives.

Hopefully Trump will look into this and do something to remediate this.
Thanks from discollector
Neil is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 05:50 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Endtherepublic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: earth
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Damn straight. Assault weapons are weapons of war. Period.
Now we have more work to do. We have to redefine virtually every firearm as a weapon of war. We have to eliminate the right to carry or own or possess a firearm by any private citizen. This was a good day for us Clara.
Endtherepublic is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 07:16 PM   #5
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,418
Oh goody, another debate about the mythical assault rifle.


Statists gunna state.
Sabcat is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 08:05 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Endtherepublic View Post
Now we have more work to do. We have to redefine virtually every firearm as a weapon of war. We have to eliminate the right to carry or own or possess a firearm by any private citizen. This was a good day for us Clara.
Um, NO. While States can ban some firearms and weapons, they can not ban them all, it would be a violation of our rights to do such.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 29th, 2017, 08:09 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Damn straight. Assault weapons are weapons of war. Period.
Define an assault weapon. If its simply based on looks and not its usage as an actual assault weapon, then it isn't an assault weapon.
Thanks from Jimmyb
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 04:13 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
Define an assault weapon. If its simply based on looks and not its usage as an actual assault weapon, then it isn't an assault weapon.

Rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
Clara007 is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 07:39 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In a House
Posts: 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clara007 View Post
Rapid-fire, magazine-fed automatic rifle designed for infantry use.
So semi-automatic magazine fed variants are OK? They may look the part, yet they are limited in their fire rates.
TreeDoc is offline  
Old November 30th, 2017, 08:47 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
Clara007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeDoc View Post
So semi-automatic magazine fed variants are OK? They may look the part, yet they are limited in their fire rates.


Here's my thing. It's something I like to call "reasonable" or "rational". The RW is convinced that the Democratic Party wants to take ALL their guns away, so ya'll better run to that corner gun/ammo shop and stockpile whatever you can get.
At least this was the mindset during the Obama admin. Gun and ammo sales skyrocketed.
AND what happened? Nothing.

There's nothing wrong with guns or rifles for sport--for hunting--for protection. I'm all for it. But if those guns allow rapid fire of 100 rounds in 56 seconds? Or more?? For sport? Or protection? NO. Because to me that is unreasonable.
Clara007 is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
case, hear, refuses, scotus



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Contraception Case skews13 Current Events 4 June 28th, 2016 01:25 PM
SCOTUS To Hear ex-Goverenor McDonnell Appeal excalibur Current Events 0 January 15th, 2016 07:40 PM
S C To Hear Abortion Case That Could Erode Roe v. Wade RNG Current Events 10 November 13th, 2015 04:08 PM
Court to hear protests at soldiers' funerals case CNN Current Events 84 March 9th, 2010 07:29 AM
SCOTUS refuses to hear gay book case tristanrobin Gay and Lesbian Rights 16 October 17th, 2008 03:31 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.