Another Judge who has no idea what they are talking about..thoughts?

[natef]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...s-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/

I cant see this doing anything but being overturned and this judge looking like a complete idiot but what are your thoughts and how do you see this playing out if its not overturned?

Read More

 

[1337BaldEagle]

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/court...s-and-unusual-not-protected-by-2nd-amendment/

I cant see this doing anything but being overturned and this judge looking like a complete idiot but what are your thoughts and how do you see this playing out if its not overturned?

I really don't see how it wouldn't be overturned if it had the chance of appeal.

Heller is so grossly obvious in meaning if you have ever read it.

Further "Common use" is a term that shows up twice in their verdict. It is not exclusive toward "who" is using the firearm.

Is the AR-15 "commonly used" by police?
The answer is, yes.

Is the AR-15 platform "commonly used" by our military?
The answer is, yes.

Is it a choice for many others who hunt, sport, or enjoy having it for self defense?
The answer is, yes.


In short, there is not test under which the AR platform (any semiauto platform for that matter) would fail being in "common use."

Hopefully an appeal will be granted.


Eagle

 

[scrandall01215]

This judge along with many others is so wacked out. If you look at her you can see she is a lib. She has that sterio typical look!

 

[tiggers97]

I agree, this judge does not understand firearms. But reading thru the decision, and from what else I've read about how the plaintiffs made their arguments, vs the State; It didn't sound like they did their homework. If they don't do their homework in the appeal and make a stronger case, then it's going to fail again.

As for overturning it:

From the US vs Miller decision last century. I wonder when someone is going to leverage this court decision:
"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

Right there: "assault weapons" are protected under the 2nd amendment. I think the anti-s might be able to push back with some type of extra regulation on being able to own one. But outright ban? No.

 

[Gunguy45]

Exactly what you'd expect from an East Coast Ultra-lib judge. I don't know why anyone is surprised at this.

That she made that statement in the ruling speaks VOLUMES for poor showing by the people trying to defend 2A. As usual in these forums (courts) "Our" side does an abysmal job of simply demonstrating functionality of firearms side by side.

 

[The Heretic]

A judge that totally buys into the BS of the anti-gunners.

Totally doesn't know the history and purpose of the Second Amendment.

Totally clueless about what an "Assault Weapon" is (outside a legal definition, there is no such thing).

Overturned? Given the current SCOTUS, maybe - if they hear it.

 

[Stomper]

Two words and a conjunction: Tar & Feathers

 

[timac]

Cat Snacker!

 

[Stomper]

Cat Snacker!

With spotless carpets.

 

[NoProhibition]

So a class of firearms that is extremely popular among civilians yet is used in under 2% or so of all firearm homicides isn't protected in that judges view?



I would think this will be overturned at some point. In the meantime, this is a site I recommend sharing to inform people about the issue: http://assaultweapon.info