AWB Challenge Filed in Massachusetts

[iH8DemLibz]

We're on our own, Fellas, and no one is going to help us.

The Left, the courts, and a good many Republicans will celebrate the day we become worm dirt.

 

[Kharn]

This "judge " was appointed by Regan

Senate "blue slips" gave senators a lot of power in selecting appointees.

 

[buellsfurn]

again where is the NRA

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Let there be no doubt, domestic enemies of our constitution can and do wear robes and uniforms. They may take the same oath to support and defend the constitution but they most certainly will not.

 

[govwontletmebuycoolguns]

"Weapons that are most useful in military service, as Justice Scalia later observed, fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment and may be banned."

The People were supposed to be the military. That got lost somewhere along the way.

 

[Occam]

The People were supposed to be the military. That got lost somewhere along the way.

More to the point, the founders realized that there was not going to be a wonderful new republic in this new land ... without some sort of standing military, despite their initial hopes to the contrary. So they wrote the 2A to make sure that nobody in government ever used the existence of a standing military as an excuse to deprive the people (individual citizens) from keeping and bearing their own arms. Hence the phrasing.

 

[ComeGet]

the worst part is where he says

Ar15 and its large cap magazines (he didn't say clip 2 points) were not in the original meaning of the 2nd amendment.


******** , will he say that the Internet was not the original intent of the 1st amendment

When the Second Amendment was written, the citizens--the People--owned the exact same arms as the "military" of their time.

Present day citizens should be able to own the exact same arms as the military of our time.

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

It really is a sad state we're in when a federal judge can blatantly, through incompetence or intention, misinterpret a SCOTUS decision to suit his own political agenda.

I assume this would need to go through the federal appeals process before it could be brought to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, the left and those who are disinterested will accept as fact that ARs are not protected by the 2A.

Complete and total ********.

In a case like this where their ruling is so blatantly disregarded is there a mechanism whereby SCOTUS can intervene directly and immediately to overturn this decision?

 

[wabbit]

It really is a sad state we're in when a federal judge can blatantly, through incompetence or intention, misinterpret a SCOTUS decision to suit his own political agenda.

I assume this would need to go through the federal appeals process before it could be brought to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, the left and those who are disinterested will accept as fact that ARs are not protected by the 2A.

Complete and total ********.

In a case like this where their ruling is so blatantly disregarded is there a mechanism whereby SCOTUS can intervene directly and immediately to overturn this decision?

We have to keep the faith and stay in for the long haul. This isn't the end of the struggle to protect the Bill of Rights.
Remember when the gun banners said the 2nd Amendment was a collective right reserved for the armed forces and not an individual right, thereby justifying gun bans? Heller put an end to that, and the 2nd is recognized as an individual right.

Now the gun banners are taking up the B.S. put out by Feinstein, Bloomberg, and Soros crowd after the Heller decision when they said the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets in existence at the time of the Constitution's writing. They're saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to 'military' style weapons, and they're wrong. It will take time, but this federal court decision will be overturned.

 

[krucam]

We have to keep the faith and stay in for the long haul. This isn't the end of the struggle to protect the Bill of Rights.
Remember when the gun banners said the 2nd Amendment was a collective right reserved for the armed forces and not an individual right, thereby justifying gun bans? Heller put an end to that, and the 2nd is recognized as an individual right.

Now the gun banners are taking up the B.S. put out by Feinstein, Bloomberg, and Soros crowd after the Heller decision when they said the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets in existence at the time of the Constitution's writing. They're saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to 'military' style weapons, and they're wrong. It will take time, but this federal court decision will be overturned.

I used to be optimistic as well...

 

[babalou]

why is it..

It really is a sad state we're in when a federal judge can blatantly, through incompetence or intention, misinterpret a SCOTUS decision to suit his own political agenda.

I assume this would need to go through the federal appeals process before it could be brought to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, the left and those who are disinterested will accept as fact that ARs are not protected by the 2A.

Complete and total ********.

In a case like this where their ruling is so blatantly disregarded is there a mechanism whereby SCOTUS can intervene directly and immediately to overturn this decision?

why does it seem that when a Lib judge makes a ruling, it immediately goes into affect until some appeal, yet when a conservative judge makes a ruling, it is immediately deemed wrong and it is stricken?

 

[HaveBlue]

why does it seem that when a Lib judge makes a ruling, it immediately goes into affect until some appeal, yet when a conservative judge makes a ruling, it is immediately deemed wrong and it is stricken?

I’ve asked the same question before.

 

[press1280]

It really is a sad state we're in when a federal judge can blatantly, through incompetence or intention, misinterpret a SCOTUS decision to suit his own political agenda.

I assume this would need to go through the federal appeals process before it could be brought to SCOTUS. Meanwhile, the left and those who are disinterested will accept as fact that ARs are not protected by the 2A.

Complete and total ********.

In a case like this where their ruling is so blatantly disregarded is there a mechanism whereby SCOTUS can intervene directly and immediately to overturn this decision?

Plaintiffs can appeal directly to SCOTUS but there's almost no chance they take it before the appeals court does.
And if the appeals court rules against us we'll get another "cert denied" From SCOTUS

 

[rascal]

why does it seem that when a Lib judge makes a ruling, it immediately goes into affect until some appeal, yet when a conservative judge makes a ruling, it is immediately deemed wrong and it is stricken?

The judge in this case is a Reagan appointment.

You would not know it from the way the Stalinist "youth crusade" is spun but support for "assault rifle bans" goes UP with age. A very large majority of over 65-year-olds, including a lot of independents and Republicans support bans, and support goes down among younger cohorts. Support for assault rifle ban is lowest among the 20-30 year-old cohort.

Older people are the most likely to oppose registration of firearms; while younger people people more likely to oppose bans (handgun bans, mag bans, "assault weapons" bans).


The other main trend that is important to understand is that support for additional gun control and gun bans is on a general decline -- but has huge (10, even 20 points) up spikes during media coverage of any shooting.

If you look at 40 year trends, 30 year, 20, ten even five you see declines in support for additional substantive gun control. BUT a number of the media polling is contracted say wihting days or a couple of weeks after a major event during the spike and the media can headline it with "most Americans support registration/assault rifle ban/ magazine capacity limits...." etc

 

[wolfwood]

What I don't get is how a Reagan appointee ruled for gun control on the Due Process claim when his colleague in the court who is a Obama appointee ruled in favor of a gun store and the NSSF on the EXACT same legal question three weeks ago in finding the store survives a 12b6 motion

 

[teratos]

the worst part is where he says

Ar15 and its large cap magazines (he didn't say clip 2 points) were not in the original meaning of the 2nd amendment.

I agree with him. The 2A should not apply to semi-auto rifles with large cap magazines.

The 2A applies to select-fire rifles with standard capacity magazines.

 

[GlocksAndPatriots]

We have to keep the faith and stay in for the long haul. This isn't the end of the struggle to protect the Bill of Rights.
Remember when the gun banners said the 2nd Amendment was a collective right reserved for the armed forces and not an individual right, thereby justifying gun bans? Heller put an end to that, and the 2nd is recognized as an individual right.

Now the gun banners are taking up the B.S. put out by Feinstein, Bloomberg, and Soros crowd after the Heller decision when they said the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets in existence at the time of the Constitution's writing. They're saying the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to 'military' style weapons, and they're wrong. It will take time, but this federal court decision will be overturned.

Yes, recognized as an individual right, in theory. But an individual right which can be infringed upon with no evidence beyond the government wanting to do so. Whether intentionally or through complacency, the Supreme Court made a ruling with no teeth.

 

[2ndMDRebel]

What I don't get is how a Reagan appointee ruled for gun control on the Due Process claim when his colleague in the court who is a Obama appointee ruled in favor of a gun store and the NSSF on the EXACT same legal question three weeks ago in finding the store survives a 12b6 motion

Weirder is President Trump, the great supporter of the 2A, dictated to the DoJ/ATF that they outlaw bump stocks by bastardizing the machine gun definition while President Obama allowed the acceptance of bump stocks as legal by the ATF correctly interpreting the machine gun definition. Its bizzaro-land out there I tell ya.

 

[Occam]

The difference is that when Obama was in, the gun grabbers already had in office the best they knew they could hope for in the way of an executive and judge-nominator most likely to leverage events to their advantage as they occurred. So the shrill, lying activists stayed on the down-low, and didn't give him a lot of crap he couldn't pass, because that would have made him and them look bad. Whereas now, they have someone they hate in office, and he's got what's usually a losing mid-term coming up, and the need to defang, as best he can, those same shrill liars who are NOT currently keeping quiet, so that the huge portion of low-information voters can't be fed the narrative that he wasn't willing to do anything, blah blah.

If Trump hadn't acted to lump bump stocks in with MGs, he'd have been handing the already much too influential lying shriekers more valuable ammo in a season when we can usually expect to lose the legislature. It's not pretty, but it's reality.

 

[NoMoreTreadingOnUs]

Yes, recognized as an individual right, in theory. But an individual right which can be infringed upon with no evidence beyond the government wanting to do so. Whether intentionally or through complacency, the Supreme Court made a ruling with no teeth.

I think the rulings (Heller and McDonald) had plenty of teeth, but for some reason the current SCOTUS refuses to enforce. No difference in the end.