Ruling upholds Massachusetts’ ban on AR-15s

wjackcooper · May 30, 2020

Saw this on the web re Church ruling:

“The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.”

This is scary, the outcome of the 10 2A cases pending before the SC may be entirely up to Roberts.

Regards
Jack

jcutonilli · May 30, 2020

rob said:
I really don't like the phrase "common use". It implies that they can ban a weapon before it is in common use. Once banned, it will never be in "common use".

The Thompson submachine gun is one example. If it wasn't banned I bet it would be very common. Same goes for the M16, and other select fire variants of the ar-15. If they were not banned, the semi-auto only ar15 as we know it today would not exist.

Rob

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

I am not sure you understand what "common use" means. Concealed carry was not considered common use but I would argue today it is. You are trying to attach a numerical argument to something that does not necessarily need one. High numbers generally are indicative of common use, but it does not mean it is the only consideration. I would argue it means are there legitimate societal uses.

Machine guns are not commonly used in everyday society, but they are commonly used in military situations. Since everyone is considered part of the militia you could argue outright bans would violate the right, but regulations restricting their use are not necessarily violations of the right.

DanGuy48 · May 30, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Saw this on the web re Church ruling:

“The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.”

This is scary, the outcome of the 10 2A cases pending before the SC may be entirely up to Roberts.

Regards
Jack

I had that exact thought when I saw that, even posted as much on another forum. Who thinks they’re just going to leave a lot (too much) up to the states?

Vile Shadow · May 30, 2020

Another judge that must think the 2A must only apply to hunting or shootin at flyin orange disks

whistlersmother · May 31, 2020

Sling Blade said:
Another judge that must think the 2A must only apply to hunting or shootin at flyin orange disks

Why would they vote any different? The court will vote to uphold the citizens' rights to limit or eliminate its power? No way. It's in the court's best interest to limit the 2A.

wjackcooper · May 31, 2020

Jcutonilli wrote:

“I am not sure you understand what "common use" means.”

Might want to take a look:*

As rob points out (post #17) the term “common use” can be problematic. By the way, common use refers to firearms, not methods of carry.

*https://harvardlpr.com/online-artic...es-and-the-limits-of-the-common-use-standard/
https://reason.com/2020/02/12/what-arms-are-common/#comments (Scroll up)

Regards
Jack

pcfixer · May 31, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Jcutonilli wrote:

“I am not sure you understand what "common use" means.”

Might want to take a look:*

As rob points out (post #17) the term “common use” can be problematic. By the way, common use refers to firearms, not methods of carry.

*https://harvardlpr.com/online-artic...es-and-the-limits-of-the-common-use-standard/
https://reason.com/2020/02/12/what-arms-are-common/#comments (Scroll up)

Regards
Jack

Any arm that is "common" cannot be "unusual." Therefore, such an arm cannot be "dangerous and unusual."

teratos · May 31, 2020

pcfixer said:
Any arm that is "common" cannot be "unusual." Therefore, such an arm cannot be "dangerous and unusual."

All arms should be dangerous, otherwise they would not be arms...

rockstarr · May 31, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Saw this on the web re Church ruling:

“The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.”

This is scary, the outcome of the 10 2A cases pending before the SC may be entirely up to Roberts.

Regards
Jack

I think when Kennedy retired, Roberts decided he was going to become the courts attention queen. Every case where he would have likely voted with us years ago, he now wants to portray himself as a swing vote.

jcutonilli · May 31, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Jcutonilli wrote:

“I am not sure you understand what "common use" means.”

Might want to take a look:*

As rob points out (post #17) the term “common use” can be problematic. By the way, common use refers to firearms, not methods of carry.

*https://harvardlpr.com/online-artic...es-and-the-limits-of-the-common-use-standard/
https://reason.com/2020/02/12/what-arms-are-common/#comments (Scroll up)

Regards
Jack

You don't seem to know either.

Use can be a verb "take, hold, or deploy (something) as a means of accomplishing a purpose or achieving a result;" or it can be a noun "the action of using something or the state of being used for some purpose." In either case it refers to an action for some purpose.

Common use directs the purpose to be common. This can mean prevalent or it can refer to belonging to or affecting the public.

Firearms are inanimate objects that do not perform any actions in and of themselves and cannot be considered common use because of this.

teratos said:
All arms should be dangerous, otherwise they would not be arms...

All arms can be dangerous, but they are not dangerous by themselves. The danger is created when someone uses in a way the will likely cause some kind of injury. The typical police use of arms is not considered dangerous, although a knee used the wrong way certainly can be.

DanGuy48 · Jun 2, 2020

Going back to The SCOTUS decision on freedom to worship and Roberts mentioned earlier, his viewpoint has me very concerned. As I’ve said, IANAL but it seems to me a lot of his reasoning here (below link) could be shifted easily to 2A cases. Why was he so eager to get his 2cents on this decision? I feel like he is setting us up for a fall.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...-liberty-that-chief-justice-roberts-strangled

“That opinion is an eye-opener. Roberts accords the right to worship no deference by virtue of its being a fundamental liberty expressly protected by the First Amendment.”
...
““Our Constitution principally entrusts the safety and the health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the States to guard and protect. ... When those officials undertake to act in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties, their latitude must be especially broad. Where those broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing by an unelected federal judiciary, which lacks the background, competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to the people.” [Citations and internal quotations omitted.]”

Isn’t this basically the same “public safety” argument we hear about the RKBA? It isn’t even public safety, it is the perception, the illusion, of public safety.

wjackcooper · Jun 4, 2020

Juctonilli wrote:

“You don't seem to know either.” Post #30

Holy smoke!

Most here understand that in a 2A context “in common use” refers to a supposedly constitutionally protected type, or category of firearms* . . . and that “carry” entails entirely different, although related, uncertainties including time, place, manner & permit restrictions.**

Wondering what was unclear about teratos’s post?

Regards
Jack

*“To the question “what is protected under the Second Amendment?”, Heller answers: those firearms in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.” p. 3
https://harvardlpr.com/online-artic...es-and-the-limits-of-the-common-use-standard/

**” “Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions for Firearms . . . .”
See generally:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=byuplr

wjackcooper · Jun 4, 2020

DanGuy wrote, post # 31:

“ t is the perception, the illusion, of public safety.”

Roberts is articulating an interest balancing (public health v 1A) approach. We can only hope he does not wiggle out of the balancing ban in Heller.

Noting the phrase “medical and scientific uncertainties”, gun “violence” studies can also be said to have not produced any certain scientific agreement. When interest balancing is in play bias takes control and those Justices and Judges so inclined will find an ostensible reason to defer to the politicians, or so it appears to me.

Regards
Jack

jcutonilli · Jun 6, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Juctonilli wrote:

“You don't seem to know either.” Post #30

Holy smoke!

Most here understand that in a 2A context “in common use” refers to a supposedly constitutionally protected type, or category of firearms* . . . and that “carry” entails entirely different, although related, uncertainties including time, place, manner & permit restrictions.**

Wondering what was unclear about teratos’s post?

Regards
Jack

*“To the question “what is protected under the Second Amendment?”, Heller answers: those firearms in “common use for lawful purposes like self-defense.” p. 3
https://harvardlpr.com/online-artic...es-and-the-limits-of-the-common-use-standard/

**” “Time, Place, and Manner Restrictions for Firearms . . . .”
See generally:
https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1250&context=byuplr

Are you saying that there are self-defense firearms and not self-defense firearms? It seems to me that any firearm could be used for self-defense. Self-defense is not something intrinsic to the firearm, it reflects an action that you perform with the firearm, which is why the term "use" is used. Manner is another related term because it reflect a "way in which a thing is done" or an action. Carry is an action that you perform on the firearm, and is considered a use of the firearm.

The problem with teratos’s post is that he implied that arms are dangerous. I simply pointed out that

All arms can be dangerous, but they are not dangerous by themselves. The danger is created when someone uses in a way the will likely cause some kind of injury. The typical police use of arms is not considered dangerous, although a knee used the wrong way certainly can be.

it gets back to use, which you seem to have a problem with.

wjackcooper · Jun 6, 2020

jcutonilli,

Sorry, obviously I can’t be of help.

Regards
Jack

777GSOTB · Jun 8, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Saw this on the web re Church ruling:

“The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority.”

This is scary, the outcome of the 10 2A cases pending before the SC may be entirely up to Roberts.

Regards
Jack

In no way did that ruling affect an INDIVIDUALS ability to worship their god, as the teachings are all in the bible...Good reasoning as stated by Roberts. I will admit though, most holyrollers depend upon the warm and fuzzy false teachings they get in church gatherings from their preacher, to fulfill their religious teachings.

Oh,...and they won't be taking any of those cases because they weren't developed correctly. Has nothing to do with Roberts. Though, there may be a very slight chance on the AWB case out of Illinois making it in.

wjackcooper · Jun 9, 2020

Whatever the merits & outcome of this particular 1A case . . . the cause for concern is that Roberts (whose support for text, history & tradition may be questionable) joining with those who, using interest balancing in a 2A case, will rule that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.

Regards
Jack

777GSOTB · Jun 11, 2020

wjackcooper said:
Whatever the merits & outcome of this particular 1A case . . . the cause for concern is that Roberts (whose support for text, history & tradition may be questionable) joining with those who, using interest balancing in a 2A case, will rule that the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean.

Regards
Jack

Based on what? His not towing the party line in the health care act case? It all involves taxation. Taxation that everyone has SIGNED into when they went and got a SSN. Group think just doesn't want to understand how it's going down.

And until someone gets arrested for open carrying a firearm without a permit, you won't see them taking a licensed concealed carry case anytime soon. They could have taken the Peruta case to do that. You should ask yourself this question. Why hasn't ANY gun group taken just ONE open carry without a license case to the SCOTUS since 2008?

Oh, and let me post this up again for the umpteenth time...In case you don't understand that when you go and get a concealed carry license, you are paying a LICENSE TAX.

MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

"It is claimed, however, that the ultimate question in determining the constitutionality of this license tax is whether the state has given something for which it can ask a return. That principle has wide applicability. State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174, and cases cited. But it is quite irrelevant here. This tax is not a charge for the enjoyment of a privilege or benefit bestowed by the state. The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the Federal Constitution."

"It is contended, however, that the fact that the license tax can suppress or control this activity is unimportant [319 U.S. 105, 113] if it does not do so. But that is to disregard the nature of this tax. It is a license tax – a flat tax imposed on the exercise of a privilege granted by the Bill of Rights. A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution."

"The tax imposed by the City of Jeannette is a flat license tax, the payment of which is a condition of the exercise of these constitutional privileges. The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment."

TheOriginalMexicanBob · Jun 11, 2020

777GSOTB said:
Based on what? His not towing the party line in the health care act case? It all involves taxation.

The flaw in Chief Justice Robert's turning Obamacare into a tax was twofold...whether it was a tax wasn't at issue with the case...it was his decision that turned it into a tax. The other is that all revenues (taxes) must originate in the House of Representatives according to the Constitution. The issue being argued had originated in the Senate. Based upon any reasonably objective reading of the Constitution the idea of the ACA being a tax is contrary to the Constitution. But...the SCOTUS decided otherwise based upon the flawed reasoning of the Chief Justice.

As Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1819..."The power to tax involves the power to destroy." Very prescient words and history has borne that out.

ironhead7544 · Jun 13, 2020

In United States v. Miller, SCOTUS ruled that only militia weapons were covered by the 2nd.

Ruling upholds Massachusetts’ ban on AR-15s

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

...

Peace through strength

Active Member

Ultimate Member

My hair is amazing

Major Deplorable

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics