This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
SCOTUS' "Assault Weapons Ban" Decision Looms
With the latest swarm of mass shootings still in the headlines, and of course the ubiquitous call for gun control/prohibition, the Supreme Court's decision this week on whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons seems more critical than ever. As NBC News notes, if the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states; but declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere.
The U.S. Supreme Court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear a challenge to a suburban Chicago law banning firearms commonly known as assault weapons.
If the court agrees to hear the case, it would cast a shadow over similar bans in seven states. But declining to take it up would boost efforts to impose such bans elsewhere, at a time of renewed interest in gun regulation after recent mass shootings.
Gun rights advocates are challenging a 2013 law passed in Highland Park, Illinois, that bans the sale, purchase, or possession of semi-automatic weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds in a single ammunition clip or magazine. In passing the law, city officials cited the 2012 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut and a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado.
The ban also lists certain specific rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.
Central to the dispute is the Supreme Court's 2008 ruling that, for the first time, said the Constitution's Second Amendment provides an individual right to own a handgun for self-defense.
While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be restricted.
The firearms banned by the Highland Park ordinance may be common, the appeals court said. But it added that "assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate. Why else are they the weapons of choice in mass shootings?"
The opinion, written by Judge Frank Easterbrook, a Ronald Reagan appointee, said that "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."
The Illinois State Rifle Association, which is challenging the law's constitutionality, says the weapons are in no way unusual. The AR-15, the group says, is the best-selling rifle type in the nation.
In a friend of court brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case, lawyers for 24 states say the weapons banned by the Highland Park ordinance are not only commonly used, but are also protected by state laws that forbid local communities to restrict them.
A ruling striking down the city ordinance would undercut similar bans in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, and in Chicago and surrounding cities.
- 21002 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


Arm the terrorists, disarm the populace, this is change we can believe in.....
This SCOTUS supports gays and other unwantables. As legal gun owners, prepared to get sodomized.
Not sure about the rest of you, but to me the 2nd amendment seems pretty clear.
Maybe I am just a hopeless romantic?
pods
Rest assured, the result will be the most illogical and statist one. They will take up the case, and rule in favor of the law.
You heard it here first.
"Come and take them"
Obama is the most deadly assault weapon of today. Ban him...
Good Luck
Just today I submitted paperwork to my attorney to finalize an NFA trust. Once completed, I'm heading to my local gun dealer to buy several silencers. They will then send my Form 4, the trust, and my $200 tax check to the BATFE. In 6-8 months when one of the 10 BATFE inspectors finally gets around to approving and applying the tax stamp to my form, I can pick up my silencers. All of this is assuming BO hasn't banned guns outright.
And gun control laws don't turn criminals into law abiding citizens. They do, however, turn gun-owning law-abiding citizens into criminals
Suppressors.
Yes, I just figured I'd use the popular culture term for those that don't know what a suppressor is...
The only assault weapon I can see, or more accurately, hear, is the sound of Obama's voice, torturing my eardrums.
Admittedly, the longer I live within this madness, the more dangerous I feel I have become. Don't bother eliminating my guns, eliminate ME.
Oldwood: You have answered exactly what they will do.
I disagree. They will take it up and rule against these laws. They are clearly unconstitutional.
Obama care was also unconstitutional and the SC would have ruled it as such if it was not declared a tax, analogous to Social Security. Thank you judge roberts.
You're on.
Marbury v Madison, Obamacare, gay marriage, abortion, Dredd Scott, Allowing Social Security and other Ponzi Schemes as "Constitional", Calling Civil Rights unconstititional in 1875...
These people make it up as they go along. They are a disgrace to reason and logic.
It's interesting that you cite Marbury v. Madison, which states in the final paragraph:
"...that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void;"
http://www.constitution.org/ussc/005-137a.htm
Clearly a law that violates the 2nd amendment is repugnant and therefore void.
Repugnant: "That which is contrary to what is stated before, or insensible. A repugnant condition is void."
-Blacks Law Dictionary"
That's what *I* want to see, but usually it's the polar opposite... call me a cynic...
wait, I thought of an even worse outcome. Takes up the case, rules in favor of the law, then basically applies that law to the entire US, and provides a list of all the scary black rifles and high cap magazines that will be right out banned :)
This tells you something. They don't have to ban them, just call it a tax and anything is legal.
Did you read the fine print on the back? No, you did not.
The worst thing about all of this is that it forces me to say Hamilton was right.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa84.htm
SOB, Hamilton was exactly right about this one.
Have you ever heard someone say "There is no right to privacy (as example)?" That is EXACTLY Hamilton's point. By including a "bill of rights" we went out of our way to state protections in areas where the general government had no business being there. And they even included the 9th and 10th amendments in it as well. This conflated the purpose of the whole document.
Still didn't work, and here we sit today.
pods
Damn... you're good.
If you guys are waiting for the Supreme Court, which is a branch of the government, to vote to limit the powers of the government(I.e. The supremes themselves) over its people, don't hold your breath. Name one single ruling in recent memory that has gone the way that favors the average US citizen.....
Not I Carl. I have just chosen to not submit to their authority anymore.
Pretty close to buying that Math guy's cabin in the mountains.
pods
Same here. One room cabin with a sleeping loft on five acres adjoining Federal forest property in the mountains of Colorado. I can start my manifesto in earnest at that point.
The only problem (if you can call it a problem) is that I might have to become single to make the move.
Citizens United had the word "Citizens" in the title. . . Does that count?
Now everyone can feel like Iran - no defence weapons, sign here or we will do X/Y
Yup. And once this path has been taken, it is all about abuses/interpretation of language. That is where we are now. Perversion upon perversion. Funny though that it really just leads to chaos. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction per se.
If you read a little bit about how and why the second ammendment is worded the way it is, it becomes clar that federalists and anti-federalists alike didn't really envision the US having a standing army.
afford a colorable pretext
Why yes, they have made the entire thing colorable haven't they. So much so that my kids get to color on it at the restaurant because it is just a quaint part of history at this point. Either way screw Hamilton.
I still think some of them knew what was coming and wanted to be absolutely sure there would be no misunderstandings. "Shall not be infringed" cannot possibly be misinterpreted. Yet, here we sit, as you say...
I lean more and more to the viewpoint that the constitution was the usurpation. The Articles of Confederation was the only freedom Americans ever saw. The moment power centralized it was over.
Many hold that same view of the Articles versus the Constitution. It shocked me at first, but the more I read, it is a plausible argument.
pods
The sad truth is that liberties will always have to be fought for. Our founders did us a disservice by creating as good a document as they did, allowing us the delusion of liberty as a birth right, and not something requiring constant diligence and sacrifice. They did warn us however, but warnings are NEVER heeded. Few are willing to pay that price today, especially when they believe it should be free.
the 9th amendment is supposed to be the unenumerated rights "catch all", as a compromise to the Federalists who opposed a Bill of Rights to begin with...
Respectfully Pods I think you are wrong on this. You yourself are surprised to side with Hamilton.
Never Side With Hamilton!
He was essentially responding to what Patrick Henry had said in the Virginia house prior to that states ratification of the Constitution- I think Henry would have agreed with you and Mr 10spot- that these things should not have to be specifically listed and added as a Bill of Rights. He gave a speech outlining exactly why he felt this was necessary that I;ll type in if need be.
Paraphrasing he said- that allowing the nation to depend on the goodness of its leaders was to expect what has never existed. I think he said that the rights should not have to be listed but that in reality they better be, because what ever was not clearly prohibited was going to happen.
You are right in principle, but I think Henry pushed so hard because he felt without enumerated rights... they would never exist at all.
Hamilton was a federalist. He suspected that the Bill of Rights would serve as a constraint of the state he wished to construct. That is why he argued against it. Remember that a good politician can invite you to hell in such a way that you look forward to the trip.
Don't ask me because as far as I'm concerned human should be able to defend himself using whatever the tyrant is deploying against him and his family.
I think reporters should be forced to hand write their stories using a quill and ink well since freely running ones mouth is the root cause of most murders.
While I share your view, we're clearly in a post-constitutional phase right now. That shit's all out the window. The sooner you accept that the sooner you can act on your newfound understanding.
What I've found consistently in life-threatening situations is your ability to flip that switch in your mind and overcome the existential "wow I can't believe this is really happening" perceptual stumbling block, the sooner you're able to respond.
This continued grasping for constitutionality in all things is precisely such a stumbling block. Congress, the courts, the prez... the tripartite of government have all signaled the constitution is toilet paper to them.
There are no laws. Act accordingly.
There is no SCOTUS...It was destroyed with the other two branches years ago...What remains is merely a mockery of The American Republic and its branches of government.
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they understand?
Like to see them come and take mine.........SCOTUS makes a great target.
Murican guberment should give every murican a gun then we watch them all blow each other's heads off - MURICA fuck ya. - one fucked up nation under God - God loves guns and loves it when muricans unload on each other - RAM tough - please don't take ma guns mr. Guberment their more important to me than air I swear - CHEVY - dang If I dont's buy ONE more gun real soon dey will alls be gone and I won't have as many as billybob -FORD- chicks n cars n the Third World War mutha fucks - MURICA - wheres ma dang confederate flag - COLT
SCROTUS?
No it's your mom - now put down your Xbox remote and put your pants back on
Will the 'constitutional' lawyers in the house please present this one fact to the SCOTUSs (or scrotums in my book) "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, if we have a right to 'pistols' for self defense, then they have already established the fact that 'militia' is out the door and means citizens. So, taking a dictionary from 1770-1790 time frame, read the definition of Arms. Case closed.
*Arms-weapons of offense*
This is about citizens owning the same weapons as the government can have, up to and including tanks, missiles, etc. to maintain a FREE STATE (that means from external aggressors or internal tyrrants).
Does it look scary? Then it's an assault weapon. And lets face facts, they all look scary to a statist. You know what comes next.
So many 'good' things coming out of Chicago and the Supremes. Oh, the anticipation....
Banning nailguns?
Would hate to see the full auto version...
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Paslode-CF325-Lithium-Ion-Cordless-Framing-Nailer-Combo-with-Free-Fuel-Nail-Pack-9998/204370142?cm_mmc=Shopping%7cBase&gclid=CN_txtvEvcgCFUkYHwodjuMLBQ&gclsrc=aw.ds
Personaly I do not have an Assault Weapon, I have a PDW, Personal Defense Weapon. There is a difference.
Oh and as far as a hearing the case of banning assualt weapons,,,, THERE IS NO DEBATE!
Funny thing is, mine looks just like an assault weapon, but it's actually an anti-assault weapon. How do they tell them apart?
By who's carrying it.
With their frightening shoulder things that go up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U
Maybe we can para-drop Chicago gang bangers into Syria to help with Obama's strategy...as soon as we figure out what the strategy is.
Buy whatever you can, as much as you can, while you still can.
Serial Downvoter in our midst.
I know right. They are adorable in the way they wage their private little crusades to change the world one Downvote at a time. I just imagine them doing a pigeon strut back and forth in front of their computer after down-voting a page and can't help but smile.
Attention Kmart shoppers Redneck in Isle 4
*aisle*
Government troll....it seems. Dissing the entire thread because it's about guns.
The standard issue infantry main battle weapon in the 1780s was a single shot muzzleloader musket. The Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment with the idea in mind that the average citizen should be able to have a weapon comparable to that main battle weapon. After all, this is what would be necessary for the unorganized militia to put up any reasonable defense against a modern army invasion.
Today, the standard issue main battle weapon is an M-16 (or AR-15) or an AK-47. The Founders wrote the 2nd Amendment with the idea...
Yes. The idea was - the citizenry was at least as well armed as the police, government, and military.
No, the idea was - the citizenry WERE the police, government and military. That's why they bothered to add the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
There was not to be a standing army (of any size and strength, at least); the police were not to be mercenaries from outside the community, and the government was to be of, by, and for the people. There wasn't going to be any "Us vs. Them."
That was the idea, anyway.
You do not "secure a free state" from common criminals, which is the role of a policeman. It was understood that we required defense from an organized state that would likely arise from within our borders, not without. That organization would be the Government, in all its vestiges. If citizens, properly armed and trained in defense and offense, at their own leisure and expense, choose to "organize" in resistance to the oppressive state, who can say that is outside of our constitution? The fact that those who would contest us in the field are PAID to do so by this government should be proof enough that they fit EXACTLY the understanding of the founders concerns.
While I believe it will never happen, to argue the intent of the constitution when it is so clearly stated and supported by other writings of the time, is silly. A true progressive would never waste time arguing constitutional intent. They would simply impose THEIR wisdom upon us as modernity, and the as of yet undiscovered "will of the people" mandate they claim to possess. Freedom and liberty are just another empty term used by crying children who don't want to clean their room.
DO WHAT DADDY SAYS!!!
... Post Office, USDA, and Dept of Education too ....
EPA is heavily armed too.
They would be easily thwarted though.
"Stand back you EPA mother fuckers or the sage grouse gets it."
Good think I have 2 barrels (12,500 rounds each) of M855s... Those will only go up in value out west here.
Loose lips sink ships.
Exactly, 'Arms' from the 2nd states this fact. Any idiot can look in a dictionary from the period and see that 'Arms' means weapons of offense....meaning not defense, but offense. This means tanks, bazookas, full-automatic weapons, etc,etc. The citizens should be able to own them all with the responsibility if they use them inappropriately they can be punished.
I can't stand people who read the constituion as a 'living document'. That is BS. It was written to be specific and only sheep think differently.
Bring it on you dumb fucks - ban guns in Illinois altogether, and watch the murder rate skyrocket, because it is already the most regulated state for guns.
And that has worked so well so far....................
Chicago is on track for a couple thousand gun deaths so far this year alone.
Way to go Rahm, making America safe, one dead black life matters not at a time.
Chicago is on track for around 500 this year, around 3000 wounded.
http://heyjackass.com/
Illinois is the land of the sheep, total sheepdom. So many of the classic liberal lines still hold a lot of weight here. Nice people here in the 'burbs, but clearly servents of the government.
""assault weapons with large-capacity magazines can fire more shots, faster, and thus can be more dangerous in the aggregate."
That's mostly ivory tower intellectual bullshit. The difference between, say, a 15 round magazine and a 30 doesn't have much effect on the overall rate of fire in the real world in a semi-automatic rifle. It just makes you carry twice as many magazines.
A shooter who concentrates on "shot placement" doesn't need more ammo, because they make every shot count.
A "pray and spray" shooter will never have enough ammo...
I became a good shot for the same reason most kids did.
Cause ammo ain't free!
pods
What you call spray and pray, the entire muslim world calls "inshallah"
spray and pray was my nickname in high school
Closely related to one of the old standby teen birth control techniques.
Pull and shoot.
That's because they believe it is the bullet that kills, not the one who pulls the trigger. Sound familiar? The bullet hits whatever god wills it to hit. People have commented today about Iran's new tested missile and its general lack of accuracy. I assume their missile ideology aligns with their gun ideology whereas, they pull the launch trigger and the missile hits whatever is gods will.
Then why do they scream "allah snackbar" all the time?
The only way I go for ANY restrictions on arms is for the MIC/Military to have the same restrictions. Yes, take away their tanks, full-autos, semi-autos, planes, etc. The military must only have the same arms as everyday citizens. Let's see what they say about those restrictions and keeping the country safe.
Libatards in action.
If we just remove people's defenses a little more, crime should fall.
The thing about the SCOTUS is that logic is no longer necessary once one is confirmed.
#BlackGunsMatter
Oh hell yeah...LOL
I agree. The idea that you can judge a gun by it's look alone is appalling and racist. 'Look at that gun, it's black, there fore it must be violent' check your privilege.....
An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". By definition an assault rifle is cabable of selective fire from semi-auto to full-auto. The press just keeps calling them assault rifles.
And 'the press' cares about telling anything other than their master's narrative when?
Funny, all of the select fire rifles any of the federal agents have are called "personal defense weapons". Maybe we can just rename our black rifles, and all will be good? Right?
#blackriflesmatter
This government is a joke. POTUS and his cabinet, SCOTUS and their alcoholics, the Senate, the House all serve corporate interests. A weapons ban is a joke and will only serve to exascerbate the levels of crime. Check out the real crime stats in Australia or the UK, Obozos favorite civilized nations to compare/contrast the US to. FACT: Crime is up everywhere guns are illegal or have been restricted. In Australia, armed robbery is up over 400% since the government spent $500 million taxpayer dollars to remove weapons from the hands of law abiding citizens. Guess who didn't take advantage of the cash for guns trade? Correct! It was the criminal element of their society.
But you won't hear this from the liberal media neither here (in the USSA) nor in the UK or Australia.
Rahm was installed for dark dark reasons as Chicago mayor.
His father was a mass murdering terrorist.
His one brother was an author of Obummer Care. Fucking the goyem that way.
His other brother is a hollyweird agent. Helping program the goyem into the dysfunction one sees on most faces these days.
Rahm has a mission. A dark one for sure. But there is hope.
His choice for public school president has been indicted for corruption. Rahm's office refuses to disclose emails. Let's hope this school president goes into protective custody and offers up Rahm and the rest of the zio-brigade.
So they might "ban" my ca 1602 blunderbuss? Huh? Well, fuck them, I will just make another one out of a length of pipe and a whittled down log. Then I can grind a common metal file into a bayonet and attach it with some sturdy clamps.
I nominate Barack Obama for all time best gun salesman.
BO is just trying to prevent this years retail slump.
The eCONomy is barely sucking wind.
When liberals give a pass to a blatant racist like Louis Farrakhan when he advertises for a rally with the theme "Justice or Else", and says that the "else" implies armed insurrection, and yet they take strong exception when Dr. Ben Carson says that fewer Jews would have died in the Nazi slaughter had they had a means of self defense, then we know that liberals object to private ownership only when those who hold them might impede the Liberal Agenda.
Please, I am tired of waiting to get the party started. It's no longer a surprise party so may as well show up early ;)
With a changing Demographic it is merely a matter of time until the Supreme Court is as anti-2nd Amendment as Mexican and Chinese "Americans" are, according to polls.
This was all due to the LEGAL immigration which occurred with the 1965 change in our immigration law, signed into law by LBJ at Ellis Island on Oct 3 1965.
See Dr Kevin MacDonald's chapter on immigration
Scumbags like Paul Ryan made it possible, sold out to the Tribe.
Paul Ryan ‘Terrifying,’ ‘Open Borders Seeps Out Of Every Pore Of His Being’
Jews and Jewish organizations lead the gun control campaign
One only needs to read about what the Jew did to Russia in the early 20th century to have a full understanding of what will happen here...
http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres9/DikyJewsRus.pdf
@ ILLILLILLI
Simply mind-boggling! And it is, indeed, once they are fully and totally in control, which they are very close to being, THEN they will do their genocide of the Whites.
Posting xenophobic views online in Germany could cost you your job & child 28 Sep, 2015
Tribal member Anetta Kahane in Germany saying MASS IMMIGRATION of non-whites into Germany is a MUST:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuYKtwnzG7M
Stasi Roots of the German-Jewish “Anti-Racist” Left and Its Program of Destroying Ethnic Germany
STASI-veteran will Assist German Government in Facebook Censorship
After Obamacare and Citizens United how can anyone consider the Court to be just or sane or respectable.
Each of those cases are paramount to Dred Scott and we got them back to back in a matter of years.
Wait til they rule that TPP supplants the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The ban also lists certain specific rifles, including those resembling the AR-15 and AK-47 assault-style firearms.
So according to this wording, a BB gun could be banned. Hey, I have an idea. How about we convince people to turn in their weapons so they can be dropped in the middle of the desert in Syria, and hopefully "found by the right people."
Million black march took place this past weekend. What we heard from many of the black is a good reason for whites to stay well armed. Obama never mentions Chicago or Detroit or even Ferguson Mo. He's only interested when a White happens to be doing the shooting. If Trump gets elected and keeps his promise to deport gang members, that will do more to prevent mass shooting then any new gun laws obozo might want. What we need is less Gun free zones. How about asking the White house to disarm the secret service that are protecting Obozo. Afterall if there are no guns on the premises, shouldn't the white house be much safer.
UK urges, "Save a Life, Surrender Your Knife" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-28/knife-murders-spiking-after-gun...
Banning box cutters will not stop airplane hijackings.
Another moronic phrase in a supreme court decision-
"While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be restricted."
I was always of the opinion that weapons are quite dangerous.
Unusual? IOW, only mass-produced crap is protected.
There's a penumbra emanating from the BOR that covers this, no doubt.
A half-wit could read the Bill of Rights and understand them unlike the supreme court honorables.
Fuck! Does this mean we have to turn in our halberds?
No, it just means that you can't wire your halberd to the end of your firearm as a bayonette.
Your standard pistol such as a Beretta 92 can accept a 30 round magazine. Are they suggesting a ban on most pistols also?
It's not about logic....it's about the "feels".
If not this time probably the next. Bring It!!! The only thing betwenn us and a total third world dictatorship is the Second Amendment!!
ADL is disbanding guns for the next Kosher Jewish holocaust. Media expects 15 million this time around.
Fuck off ADL. Go back to Israel. Practice Christian culture.
The History of the ADL - 100 Years of Building a ...
Either way the ban guns folks win. Scotus seems more interested in creating laws than supporting the Constitution.
Technically, they are not [military] "Assault" rifles, as they lack the capability for switching from Semi-Automatic to AUTOMATIC (machine gun) mode.
The technically correct term might be TACTICAL RIFLES.
The politically correct term is whatever they want it to be for PR and Public Consumption.
If gun owners (as a group) won't take the US Government and its SMS shills to task on even the semantics, then what are the odds of doing anything that resembles "real push-back"?
The other PR campaign that guns owners need to ratchet up to 5,000 RPM (put your money where your mouth is), is to shift the Debate to the real issues, e.g.:
1. The Culture of Violence in the US (includes TV, movies, gaming)
2. Mental Health, and lack of Identification, Treatment or Incarceration of violent people -- especially in inner cities
3. PR campaign that provides a Pareto chart of Gun Murders vs. other unacceptable but preventable fatalities (car accidents, medical and prescription death, pool drownings of toddlers and small children...), and how other Western countries (Switzerland and Finland) also have high gun ownership rates, but much lower murder rates. Show the stats for what happens when you back out the murder rates in the inner cities (murders related to drugs and gangs).
4. Inadequate level or requirement for Gun Safety classes
5. More self-policing of the gun owners community, vis-a-vis points 1-4 above.
Ask not what the government can do to prevent mass shootings, ask what you can do to prevent it in your community (lest they do it for you). If you do nothing, you get everything you deserve.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - you boys and your BIG thoughts - your so easily controlled by the elites - you have NO power - you have NO rights - you have NO "constitution" - you have NO choice in anything. - now shut up and suck it up - your cuntry is NOT your country anymore - that ship sailed decades ago - WAKE UP
Lol weapon prohibition in a world where you can CNC MILL M4 in your backyard with 2000$ worth of equipment.
What are they going to do next? ban 3D cad software? ^^???
While it was a watershed ruling for gun rights, it also said "dangerous and unusual weapons" can be restricted.
Which is total BS. Back in the day, people had PRIVATE OWNED CANNONS...
VeriZION, schmucks
"Verizon Drops Outdoor & Sportsman Channels – Silencing Your Access to NRA Programs"
http://www.ammoland.com/2015/10/verizon-drops-outdoor-sportsman-channels...
Boehner will save us. Yes he will!
You can't have an assault weapons ban with out a machine shop ban and lathe ban and book ban.
Or is the plan just replace the population with people that can't read?
Barry should draft an executive order declaring a ban. Then its on for real.
Note how NBC emphasizes a quote of the court, that, incorrectly, points out the result* of the law as if it had something to whether law was Constitutional.
And America accepts this as good reporting and an acceptable legal ruling.
* "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." [Emphasis mine]
When will the Supreme thinkers review the Foreign Military Sales Loophole that US Congress has??
At issue:
- Foreign Sovereignty and the Rights of Foreign Countries and their neighbors to their own government systems, non-interference in their Elections, and non-interference in the outcomes of their civil wars, social unrest, and rebellions
- US & NATO Countries Signatures on Treaties that make war as a policy Illegal
- Treaty of 1928-1929 that Renounces War, RENUNCIATION OF WAR
- Air-Dropping Arms into Syria, Training El Salvador Freedom Fighters, Using Guatemala or Honduras as a Training Ground for Foreign Fighters is also a Question for Supreme Thinkers in Court, under Sedition of Foreign Countries, and Interfering with Democracy or sovereign countries
Didn't Like that?
When will the US Supreme Court Review the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, for where it is okay for Supreme Court to support a Radical, Huge, Central Government running a huge, expensive Super World Power Military and Intelligence Network... and attempting to control the world as an Empire??
There is no Empire in the US Constitution!!
Let's look at Supreme Court Review, GAO Review, And Federal Agency Reviews of International Assistance Program:
Total—International Assistance Program Outlays 2014 = $49.37 Billion
Total—International Assistance Program Outlays 2013 = $48 Billion
Total—International Assistance Program Outlays 2000 = $25.7 Billion
Total—International Assistance Program Outlays 1998 = $26 Billion
IAP Budget is like a Major Agency and Equal to DHS!!
Well lets see what else the Supreme Court should Investigate.
And the DOJ, FBI, GAO, CBO, SEC, FINRA, Army-Navy-Air Force Audit Agencies and Criminal Investigation Offices
- 1971, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Memo on Foundations
- 1972, BCCI Bank created
- 1972, Watergate Scandal, with ties to CIA
- 1973, Family Jewels Reports commissioned about CIA
- 1974, CIA Slapped with Investigations of Practices, they decide to Outsource & Subcontract (Church Committee, Nedzi Committee, Pike Committee
- 1975, Rockefeller Commission to investigate CIA Activities within the USA
- 1978, Soviet-Afghanistan War Starts
- 1979 Intelligence Finding Signed by Jimmy Carter, authorizes actions that led to CIA Secret War against USSR in Afghanistan and Created the Mujaheddin, Osama Bin Ladin, and Al Qaeda
But what about US-NATO-CIA Involvement in European Terror under Operation Gladio Style, Stay Behind Armies that planned and executed Terror Attacks?? Well there is at least one Swiss Doctorate Written about this and a BBC Documentary that few Americans have ever seen... but they exist as a body of Evidence... along with Operation Northwoods.
Sure, the Supreme Court should rule on Out of Control US Military and Covert operations and Intelligence Gathering... just as the Down Vote above has pointed out so eloquently.
- Too Bad we don't have Honest Brokers in DOJ, FBI, SEC, FINRA, FTC, GAO, CBO, FED, Treasury, OCC, FSOC, BCFP, CFTC, FDIC, FHFA, SIPC
Let's Investigate what is going on in Federal Politics, Globalism, UN type Agendas, Global Agendas, Hidden Agendas, Gift Giving, Career making, Self Promotion, Cronyism, ... Lobbying, PACs, Foundation, Interest Groups, Power Players in Washington DC such as Jews, Catholics, Religious Right, Progressive Left, Southern Poverty Law Center, Foreign Interest Groups, Foreign Employees and Residents, Wall Street, Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Chemical, Big Fossil Fuel, Big FIREs... whatever.
Supreme Court has an obligation to look at past laws, the effects of past laws, the funding to support past laws, the staffing to support past laws, the laws that were passed and ignored by the current president's admin... and much more.
Why don't we have a Wall on Mexico when it was funded?
Why do we criminalize our Young Males for drugs and alcohol?
Why do we fund War in foreign Countries against people that can never bomb, send missiles, send armies, navies, or air forces to strike CONUS or Alaska or Hawaii?
If the US Supreme Court wants Sovereignty for the USA, it has to recognize the Sovereignty of Foreign Countries!!
Pull you head our of your power seeking ass, Supremes!!
because everyone has a right to an assault weapon. Really? Do we really need everyone with access to a Kmart the ability to get a gun that can saw a person in half? Instead of putting up BS about the 2nd amendment why don't you use yourself more productively and come up with some ideas that can actually be used to end the current madness of school shootings. Instead all I hear are these "only the terrorists wil have weapons". Well, guess the fuck what, they already do and are currently shooting up schools because gun proponents are too ridiculous and say shit like "its a slipper slope, if they ban these then they will ban everything.." Im guessing that you think that the kids at Sandy Hook should have been armed too? Get a grip, the terrorists have assault weapons and its YOUR FAULT for not supporting REASONABLE gun legislation!!!
Says the moron with Jesuit "education" and is unable to think outside of his indoctrination.
Hard to believe people like you exist outside of China. Then again, you are in CA, so close enough, I suppose.
Well let's hear your definition of Terms.
If a 22 Long Rifle shooting rifle is the definition of an Assault Rifle, then I would disagree.
Why don't you study on it, ask around, go to gun shops, shoot some guns, take a gun safety course, take a hunter safety course, and even try to have some fun learning.
Then... put out some bullet points on what an Assault Rifle is.
An AR15 is the bare minimum when you are getting bum rushed in an American city that resembles Mogadishu.
REASONABLE gun legislation!! HA!! Why don't we legislate guns supplied to proxy armies? I guess it's MY FAULT. Eat a dick you stupid hippie fuck. I guarantee you are in that 90% bracket. WTF are you doing on this site trolling anyway? Go back to rants & raves section on craigslist with like minded sheeple.
Reasonable gun legislation is repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
"Do we really need everyone with access to a Kmart the ability to get a gun that can saw a person in half?"
Is the one talking about shotguns or what?
For gawd sakes if guns are such a big issue to you at least learn the very basics of what they are and what they do. It may help to fire a couple at some point in your life. This can be done under controlled circumstances where nobody is at risk. If not actually gaining any real life experience with the issue at least do some research about it rather than repeating MSNBC talking points.
Long live the Wild West, mom, baseball, apple pie, and frontier justice.
You forgot to mention gas-powered lawn mowers, unregulated fireplaces, and American-built muscle cars.
SCOTUS and POTUS as well as Congress has absolutely no legitimate control over our human right to self-defense. The Constitution doesn't give us the right, it simply acknowledges it. They're wasting their time putting on a show for the crowd.
No kidding, statist tyrants and their minions demand that the population begin to disarm itself..... millions of gun owners laugh.
If they truly plan on banning weapons, why did they let the 1994 ban expire in 2004?
We do know that economy is near its end and they don't really give a shit about any of us.
Perhaps they want moar guns on the street to help them with their 90% population reduction?
Bottom line is that they DON'T GIVE a RAT'S ASS about ANY of us, so WHY would they want to BAN weapons?
They let the 1994 ban expire because they would have needed to vote to renew it.
Since the Congress in 2004 was Pelosi and Company, they had no interest in stirring up the same hornet's nest that first got them thrown out of power in 1995.
They love gun control, but they love their jobs even more. It's one of the maddening conundrums they face in trying to turn America into Europa West, which is their obvious intent.
Yeah, a handful of people including myself had to hear the latest talking points from the one blue team member that we have the unfortunate circumstance of having to be exposed to. As everybody looked as if they were they were trying to dispatch this confused individual with their glaring eyes I not so tactfully changed subject to africanized bees (LOL).
I exclaimed that I knew there was a nest near a popular hiking trail and that I was going to call it in. This individual then went on a tangent about how all creatures have their place in nature.... we all just sat there in a complete demoralized awe.
Save the invasive African killer bees! God help us.
That's pretty much The Axis of Evil for Constitutional rights in the US.
Following up on California's new motor voter bill which automatically enrolls all people getting drivers licenses as registered voters, even illegal aliens, I propose motor shooter legislation which automatically enrolls all people getting drivers licenses as registered to carry concealed.
For one thing, alot of you americans bitching about .gov taking away your guns wont do anything if the government decides to take away everyones guns, it will just do so. You wont do anything about it, I know you wont, the world knows you wont and you know you wont so lets just get that out of the way.
Secondly, for arguments sake if it people did decide to go up against the US government, which is highly unlikely, you will be outgunned and outmatched by a powerful internal army and proganda machine which will associate you with ISIS and NAZI rolled up in one, likely leading to a nationwide manhunt. How will you go up against the full might of predator drones from the US army if you decide to fight back, with just a modded down version of an m15, no military training andd likely no supporting combat equipment.
And now some of you guys are saying the army or marines would never shoot down its own americans, well it has done so MANY of times in the history of america.
So its pointless either way you look at it. So you can either give up your guns in peace or give up your gun with you in pieces.
1. You're an asshole, Even dead ass Winston Churchill says you're an asshole.
See look here:
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than live as slaves."- Winston Churchill
2. You're about to be proven very Effing Wrong.We were ready here.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2014/04/standoff-at-bundy-ranch-is-over-bu...
We damm well did something here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
3. Heres the punchline.
If we don't fight, its DAMM WELL NOT as you say
"you can either give up your guns in peace or give up your gun with you in pieces."
"
No asshole its, we all get to take our place on the JPFO Genocide chart
http://jpfo.org/pdf02/genocide-chart.pdf
4. So asshole, someone else said it more eloquently than me, but it bears repeating
"I once saw a movie where only the police and military had guns, it was called "Schindlers List""
5. and finally, did you know you're an asshole?
The gov decided to stand down because there were too many cameras around to witness the impending bloodbath that people on the side of the ranchers would have faced see WACO. Those guys at waco got steamrolled and cavalry hadnt even arrived as yet. Me being an asshole wont change what will happen, you guys are just one sandy hook or charlie hebo away from losing the second ammendment. And all that will happen this time is that you bitch about it on zerohedge as you will be likely fined or ostracized till your guns are collected and registered by the nearest gun amnesty programme.
Events at the Bundy Ranch in NV sez that you're blowing smoke at us.