Federal Court Upholds Assault Weapons Ban.

So no basis in fact (any fact), and shakey basis in law... but it makes people "feel" better.
That ought to scare the [expletive voluntarily deleted] out of folks. <Wow>
 
I've always thought it very unlikely the Supreme Court would get into things like magazine capacity. That's why resort to the ballot box is often more effective than resort to the courts.
 
I'm surprised we got this from Easterbrook.

He's straining by revisiting Miller and the militia interpretation. He's claiming that a ban on "assault weapons" is copacetic because handguns are available (barely) as an alternative. He also makes the misstep of claiming the 2nd Amendment "creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments. [p. 11]"
 
If 'perceived risk' is a valid argument, then tattooed people, skateboarders, and people who drive cargo vans near elementary schools had better look out, cause they're next.
 
If 'perceived risk' is a valid argument, then tattooed people, skateboarders, and people who drive cargo vans near elementary schools had better look out, cause they're next.
Click to expand...

My guess is, this is heading down the Open carry Road and even the Concealed Carry road.

If there is a "perceived risk" for simply owning a firearm, there most certainly will be and even greater "perceived risk" if one were to actually carry that firearm.
 
Go figure that they would rule this way. Just because they are protected by armed officers, C.S.O.s, metal detectors at public entrances public paid for electronic security at their homes. while they sit there and spew such nonsense.
 
Wow

Hey everyone, been out of the loop for a while. Wow, Judge Easterbrook ruling is a joke. I'm not a lawyer, but there is a lot of falty logic, incorrect use of terminology, historical errors and poor arguments, not to mention flat out factual errors. For example: He talks about the issues in the Millers ruling, which is a joke, because in that SCOTUS opinion it didn't rule that short barreled shotguns where not of use to the Militia should the Militia be called upon to service, and the reason they didn't is simple. It's because Short Barreled Shortguns(SBS) had been used by the Army and Marines. Justice Frankfurter was a JAG officer and Justice Black was a Captain in the 81st Field Artillery, they both served in WWI and they knew that SBS were used in trench warfare, guarding prisoners, and room clearing. So thats a factual lie. Then Easterbrook opines that Heller said that machine guns would have failed under the 2nd A challenge, however all the SCOTUS said was that those prohibitions of full autos were "presumed constitutional" because they weren't there to answer that question. That doesn't mean they "are" constitutional. On page 4 the Judge makes a huge factual error. He says that a UZI is called a "submachine gun" because it is small and easy to manuver. Well NO. Its classification is due to it being a fully automatic weapon that fires a pistol round. Then he says that the M16s and AKs are also Submachine guns. Well, I think I see why he recieved a low "qualified/not qualified " rating by the American Bar Association prior to his conformation. I could go on and on but whats the use. Maybe he suffers from Agraphia or dysgraphia.
 
This appears to be yet another federal judge who feels that as long as you and I have access to some kind of gun, our 2nd Amendment is protected.

5 foot long, muzzle loading flintlocks, preferred, provided they have a trigger lock to protect the children!
:rolleyes:

I believe the Miller ruling was a masterstroke of pass the buck reasoning.
I'm I reading it right (and that's the rub) it appears that they only ruled on the gun in the case (actually correctly, given the reasoning they used), and not short barreled (shot)guns in general or in total. They said "this court has been given no evidence", and they hadn't been given any.

The rest of the Fed took this to mean they were restrictable, and the that court, and none since ever corrected them.
 
wow........someone missed the point of the 2nd A
He also makes the misstep of claiming the 2nd Amendment "creates individual rights that can be asserted against state and local governments."
Click to expand...
as an eithh grade girl would say.....uh, DUH!!
 
Tom Servo said:
I'm surprised we got this from Easterbrook.

He's straining by revisiting Miller and the militia interpretation.
Click to expand...
Considering that Heller and McDonald pretty thoroughly eviscerated Miller I'm surprised he would have even mentioned it. Miller says that the RKBA is based on a group right related to service in a militia. Heller and McDonald clearly say that the RKBA is an individual right that is not dependent on service in a militia.
 
Miller was pretty much eviscerated in the oral arguments [pdf] for Heller. It was the gorilla in the living room, and even Kennedy and Ginsburg found problems with it:

JUSTICE KENNEDY: It seems to me that Miller, as we're discussing it now, and the whole idea that the militia clause has a major effect in interpreting the operative clause is both overinclusive and underinclusive. I would have to agree with Justice Ginsburg that a machine gun is probably more related to the militia now than a pistol is. But that — that seems to me to be allowing the militia clause to make no sense out of the operative clause in present-day circumstances.

MR. GURA: Your Honor, even within the militia understanding, the understanding of the militia was always that people would bring whatever they had with them in civilian life. So if a machine gun, even though it may be a wonderful —

JUSTICE KENNEDY: My point is: Why is that of any real relevance to the situation that faces the homeowner today?

MR. GURA: It's only of relevance if the Court wishes to continue reading the militia clause as informing the type of weapon which is protected.

JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, you're being faithful to Miller. I suggest that Miller may be deficient. [p. 62]
Click to expand...
 
From the ruling:

“Unlike the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Highland Park’s ordinance leaves residents with many selfdefense options.”

Agree with it or not, this is nonetheless the essence of current Second Amendment jurisprudence, that as long as a jurisdiction affords its residents access to some type of firearm for lawful self-defense – handguns in particular – the prohibition of other types of firearms will be upheld as Constitutional.
 
“
Unlike the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Highland Park’s ordinance leaves residents with many selfdefense options.”

Agree with it or not, this is nonetheless the essence of current Second Amendment jurisprudence, that as long as a jurisdiction affords its residents access to some type of firearm for lawful self-defense – handguns in particular – the prohibition of other types of firearms will be upheld as Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Federal courts almost routinely uphold assault weapons bans.
 
JDC1244- If this is so, what about the statement in Heller:
"It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms (i. e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense [****32] weapon. "

And this section:

"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. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modem developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause [*628] and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right. "

In both statements in the Heller ruling, would seem to run counter to such an argument, wouldn't it?
 
Such decisions have quoted the gun world statements that you don't need extra rounds, extra mags, the average encounter is only 3 rounds, blah, blah.

You can find such here in a current thread on carrying an extra mag. You can find folks stating they would rather carry 8 in a 1911 for ultimate 45 ACP stopping power as compared to a weak 17 round 9mm Glock.

These 'practical' usage arguments are double edged swords for all in the debate.

The modern sporting rifle mantra for the AR begs for mag limits as who needs to hunt with a 30 round mag - heard on Morning Joe.
 
"The modern sporting rifle mantra for the AR begs for mag limits as who needs to hunt with a 30 round mag - heard on Morning Joe."

But, Joe, what limitation on hunting... Oh, forget it. :mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top