HiBC said:I agree,bad timing.
And I understand what I am about to say will make no difference.
Its technical gun stuff that does not hold up well to raw emotion.
The weapon firing full auto did not sound like an M-16 or M-4.
My ear is not well calibrated to full auto weapons,but my guess is a M-249 SAW.
If "The weapon" refers to the shooter in Las Vegas, he had ten (10) AR-15s, with 100-round magazines and most (or all) of the rifles were equipped with bump-fire stocks. In addition to the uber-capacity magzines, he had an additional 5,000 rounds of loose ammo in the room.
I didn't know any info had been released yet. Do you have a source?
"We have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage," Judge Robert King wrote for the majority. The appeals court voted 10-4 to uphold the ban.
Glenn E Meyer said:So we can repeat the following:
1. Heller wasn't a pancea despite the gush of love after it.
Glenn E Meyer said:It had some big negatives.
Glenn E Meyer said:2. SCOTUS has no interest at present in expanding gun rights or getting rid of the draconian laws in some states. The risk is that state AWBs will continue.
Glenn E Meyer said:3. Congress and the President, despite their bait and switch election rhetoric, have no real interest in gun rights. They only use them as selling points for votes. In fact, having some states with bans enables them to raise the issue to get the gun world all hot and bothered. The NRA magazines heaped inordinate praise on Trump and themselves after the election. Behaviorally, nothing much has been achieved on fundamental issues.
Perhaps the most noteworthy denials came in two cases involving gun rights: Kolbe v. Hogan, a challenge to Maryland’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines, passed in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school; and Norman v. Florida, a challenge to the state’s ban on the open carrying of guns in public. In both cases, the lower courts had upheld the states’ bans, so today’s rulings leave those decisions in place. Unlike last June, when Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented from the court’s denial of review in Peruta v. California, in which the justices had been asked to decide whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense, today’s denials were not accompanied by any public comments from the justices.
In my opinion which is worth absolutely nothing, now is not the time.
I've always been convinced that there could be three appointees if this president serves a second term, but nothing says that I'm right.
Just a feeling, and there has already been one.
Seems to me it may be wise to wait a bit before taking on anything of real consequence.
Psychedelic Bang said:That's assuming Trump care's for the 2nd Amendment. Remains to be seen imho
Trump's position on the Second Amendment isn't the issue. It's his inclination to appoint judges and Justices with a more "originalist" perspective and the ability of Congressional leadership to get those appointments ratified.
I don't really believe that there is much to assume when it comes to Trump, but who knows... you and I both could wind up looking like a**es PB.
1. Heller wasn't a pancea despite the gush of love after it. It had some big negatives.
2. SCOTUS has no interest at present in expanding gun rights or getting rid of the draconian laws in some states. The risk is that state AWBs will continue.
ATN said:Does it really matter though that SCOTUS declared the 2nd Amendment as an individual right when the lower courts uphold almost any state gun regulation and the SCOTUS doesn't take up these cases?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/justices-reject-gun-rights-appeals-51407151
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-carry-appeals-rejected-by-u-s-supreme-court
From the original decision under appeal:
Not being expert and our can chime in, it looks like SCOTUS turned a Maryland ban on EBRs and a open carry case.
So we can repeat the following:
1. Heller wasn't a pancea despite the gush of love after it. It had some big negatives.
2. SCOTUS has no interest at present in expanding gun rights or getting rid of the draconian laws in some states. The risk is that state AWBs will continue.
3. Congress and the President, despite their bait and switch election rhetoric, have no real interest in gun rights. They only use them as selling points for votes. In fact, having some states with bans enables them to raise the issue to get the gun world all hot and bothered. The NRA magazines heaped inordinate praise on Trump and themselves after the election. Behaviorally, nothing much has been achieved on fundamental issues.
That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” —which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. See 554 U.S. at 627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards “M-16 rifles and the like”).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.
“Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”
“Although one founding-era thesaurus limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source stated that all firearms constituted “arms.”
DC v Heller, pages 7-8