Supreme court refuses to hear Chicago assault weapon ban

[PiratePast40]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us...e-to-assault-weapon-ban/ar-AAg7cOi?li=BBnbfcL

By cowardly refusing the hear the case, the justices have effectively given Bloomberg backed groups like Ceasefire and Everytown, the green light to push their agenda. Let's hope we're not the first to feel their boot heels on our throats.

Read More

 

[etrain16]

Not surprising from this court. Now imagine what will happen to the makeup of the SCOTUS if Hillary wins. Several justices are on their last legs. We cannot allow Bernie or Hillary to make those appointments. We'd really be screwed then.

 

[Charliehorse]

Doesn't Roberts choose which cases to hear?

Now rather than continuing a consistency of 2A after two solid rulings, there will be more patchwork local laws - smells like a setup to bust people and turn them into felons.
One locale legal, next one BOOM! in jail, weapons confiscated, and now you're a felon with no further 2A rights.

 

[PiratePast40]

I believe that it's four of the nine that must vote to hear a case. The article only mentioned Thomas and Scalia as voting for hearing the case. Not sure about Roberts decision, but on the surface, it appears he sided with the others.

My concern is that this gives the antis more traction to pass more BS laws.

 

[ob1]

Doesn't Roberts choose which cases to hear?

Now rather than continuing a consistency of 2A after two solid rulings, there will be more patchwork local laws - smells like a setup to bust people and turn them into felons.
One locale legal, next one BOOM! in jail, weapons confiscated, and now you're a felon with no further 2A rights.

Roberts ??? You mean the guy who gave us bummercare ???

 

[Charliehorse]

Roberts ??? You mean the guy who gave us bummercare ???

Yeah - that POS Roberts. Rather then referring the case back to Congress to write a law clarifying if it was a fine or a tax, he LEGISLATED FROM THE BENCH and decided to call it a tax. SMH

 

[RicInOR]

<broken link removed>

I am also waiting on Eugene to weigh in.



edit:
* Eugene Volkh - the constitutional lawyer - not the city.

 

[PaulB47]

Actually, gun owners got far more from the Supremes with Heller and McDonald than we reasonably could have expected. It is in the nature of the ruling class to desire unarmed peasants, and the Supremes are a part of the ruling class.

Now imagine what will happen to the makeup of the SCOTUS if Hillary wins.

Oh, please. Just any old R will do, right? R presidents never picked a bogus judge?

Bearing arms does not depend on presidents or courts or congress. It depends on us. People who would turn their guns in just on the say-so of a court or congress or president, are worse than useless to us. They should sell their guns right now to others, who have more resolve.

 

[ob1]

So here we have the opening credits to...

"The Fall of the American way of Life ".

It's obvious now there will be no quarter given from the left-wing, we might as well have tanks rolling at the front door. And for but a pathetic few, it seems it will happen with little more than a whimper. We all find ourselves in the incremental boiling pot with that proverbial frog, errrr ribit. But this time the difference is , we will be seeing this happen during an election and Obama's exit dance.

It does surprise me though, that we haven't seen that much in the way of mass protests, and by that I don't mean a few dozen gun owners at the steps of the State Capital, but much larger numbers arriving from each state in busses, at the steps of the SCOTUS. Something Obama, Congress Democrats, and the media can't dismiss so easily.
This would obviously take considerable financial support to successfully organize. No, not from the NRA...Et All , the deafening silence heard during SB- 941 has convinced me that they either are incapable or unwilling to do little more than send Christmas presents to Congress Republicans.

IMO...That financial support needs to start coming directly from the firearms industry. After all they are getting a windfall from the increased panic sales and they are co-passenger's on the Titanic with the rest of us.

 

[nammac]

Hell, I'd pay my own way to join a million or several million firearms owners in D.C. To set the SCOTUS, the POTUS and congress straight...

Let them know we are here, we are not going away and we will not tolerate further erosion of our Second Amendment rights...

 

[Goosebrown]

The longer this gets put off the better. There'll be more semi autos out there every year and most states won't ban them. That is important because when they do decide this they are going to weigh "in common use"

It sucks but time is on our side legally.

 

[etrain16]

Actually, gun owners got far more from the Supremes with Heller and McDonald than we reasonably could have expected. It is in the nature of the ruling class to desire unarmed peasants, and the Supremes are a part of the ruling class.



Oh, please. Just any old R will do, right? R presidents never picked a bogus judge?

Bearing arms does not depend on presidents or courts or congress. It depends on us. People who would turn their guns in just on the say-so of a court or congress or president, are worse than useless to us. They should sell their guns right now to others, who have more resolve.

First of all, I didn't say any old R will do - so please don't put words in my mouth. Second, I never said that it wasn't possible for an R to make a bad appointment, strike two on your assumptions.

We know with certainty what Hillary would do, what an R would do would depend on who it is. As it appears now, I don't think we have to be afraid of RINOs like Bush or Christie, so we should be able to reasonably expect a more conservative candidate.

The fact of the matter, if it escaped your analysis, is that we have no control over the court, what it does or the appointments, so yes, it matters who goes in there. Hillary is the most likely D candidate, so I'll use her as the best example. She has made it abundantly and apologetically clear what she would do with gun laws if she's elected - that is a fact. Any R, and at this point even an R like Jeb or Christie, would still be a better choice.

And yes, it's still on the citizens to fight for those rights. But honestly, do you see any inkling of some kind of new revolution even growing? Unless you got a HUGE number of people, all on the same page, across the country, you've got nothing. And that leaves us back in the hands of the politicians again.

A vote for Hillary will be a vote in favor of gun control, period. Rationalize it any way they want, but if they cast their vote that direction, they will share in what comes next.

 

[etrain16]

It does surprise me though, that we haven't seen that much in the way of mass protests, and by that I don't mean a few dozen gun owners at the steps of the State Capital, but much larger numbers arriving from each state in busses, at the steps of the SCOTUS. Something Obama, Congress Democrats, and the media can't dismiss so easily.
This would obviously take considerable financial support to successfully organize. No, not from the NRA...Et All , the deafening silence heard during SB- 941 has convinced me that they either are incapable or unwilling to do little more than send Christmas presents to Congress Republicans.

I think there are a few reasons we aren't seeing massive protests. First, I think many gun owners are simply law-abiding citizens that hold down jobs, take care of their families and their communities and don't have the spare time to go to every little protest gathering. Second, at least with respect to SB941, many didn't even know about it, and many still don't. And of those that do, many didn't care, why? Because they don't do private sales, so why would they care? Third, unfortunately, some gun owners are on the side of more gun control, something we see in the damn commercials that ran recently. Fourth, some simply don't care, they'll go whatever way the wind blows. Fifth, too many people like to say they "don't get political" and don't want to get involved, even in the discussion - it's sickening, but unfortunately all too common.

The people commenting on here are a relatively small percentage of the gun owners in this state. Where are the rest? Who is informing them of the legislation? Why aren't they on here, involved on a regular basis?

Heck, if there are over 100,000,000 gun owners in this country, why do we only have one reasonably large advocacy group, the NRA, and they only have 5,000,000 members. I don't know the membership levels of GOA, the SAF, OFF or others, but I doubt it's close to the NRA's numbers. Where are the other 95,000,000? Why aren't they doing something more? I imagine if someone can solve that riddle, we might actually be able to get something done.

In the meantime, we have pro-gun folks that won't belong to the NRA because they don't like getting postcards and emails. Really? Spam? That's the #1 reason some folks won't support the single most influential pro-gun group in the country? I would think our rights are more important than a little spam, but not everyone agrees.

 

[SporkBoy]

<broken link removed>

I am also waiting on Eugene to weigh in.



edit:
* Eugene Volkh - the constitutional lawyer - not the city.

Here pre-emptively already did ...
http://volokh.com/2012/12/18/why-ba...diminish-the-deaths-caused-by-mass-shootings/

See the first hyperlink to an even earlier mess. I say mess because what's wrong with strict scrutiny?

 

[PaulB47]

A vote for Hillary will be a vote in favor of gun control, period.

Funny, I thought it was a vote in favor of Revolution. And even more gun sales than Obama managed.

A vote for any R candidate is a vote in favor of more baloney-slicing.

I can't understand why anyone can look at what R presidents and Congress have done in the past (even what NRA has done!) and still look at these guys as saviors. They are still going to lie to gun owners to get their vote. They are still members of the ruling class.

Anyway most of those guys are neocon madmen, lusting for more war. There are more issues than just guns.

We are not voting our way out of our troubles, folks. The economy is going to crash no matter who is president. I'm done with voting.

"Don't vote. It only encourages them."

 

[PiratePast40]

Funny, I thought it was a vote in favor of Revolution. And even more gun sales than Obama managed.

A vote for any R candidate is a vote in favor of more baloney-slicing.

I can't understand why anyone can look at what R presidents and Congress have done in the past (even what NRA has done!) and still look at these guys as saviors. They are still going to lie to gun owners to get their vote. They are still members of the ruling class.

Anyway most of those guys are neocon madmen, lusting for more war. There are more issues than just guns.

We are not voting our way out of our troubles, folks. The economy is going to crash no matter who is president. I'm done with voting.

"Don't vote. It only encourages them."

Glad to hear that you're not voting.

 

[Caveman Jim]

Funny, I thought it was a vote in favor of Revolution. And even more gun sales than Obama managed.

A vote for any R candidate is a vote in favor of more baloney-slicing.

I can't understand why anyone can look at what R presidents and Congress have done in the past (even what NRA has done!) and still look at these guys as saviors. They are still going to lie to gun owners to get their vote. They are still members of the ruling class.

Anyway most of those guys are neocon madmen, lusting for more war. There are more issues than just guns.

We are not voting our way out of our troubles, folks. The economy is going to crash no matter who is president. I'm done with voting.

"Don't vote. It only encourages them."

If you don't vote then you have no business complaining.

 

[etrain16]

Funny, I thought it was a vote in favor of Revolution. And even more gun sales than Obama managed.

A vote for any R candidate is a vote in favor of more baloney-slicing.

I can't understand why anyone can look at what R presidents and Congress have done in the past (even what NRA has done!) and still look at these guys as saviors. They are still going to lie to gun owners to get their vote. They are still members of the ruling class.

Anyway most of those guys are neocon madmen, lusting for more war. There are more issues than just guns.

We are not voting our way out of our troubles, folks. The economy is going to crash no matter who is president. I'm done with voting.

"Don't vote. It only encourages them."

If you are really concerned about your rights, you would be voting. Failing to vote, just because neither side is "perfect" is really just a lame way to pretend you're doing the right thing.

I have NEVER stated the R's were saviors, in fact, I left the R party some time back because of my dislike for much of what they do. But, and this is a huge qualification, Hillary has promised she will come after our guns if she's elected - the R's (save for maybe Jeb or Christy) are smart enough to leave them alone.

So, if you insist on not voting to protect our rights, then I will count you with those that support gun control. Thanks for not standing up for our rights. Maybe it's time to move on - people that have your attitude are part of the problem.

I think it's about time for a 'dislike' button on this forum

 

[WasrNwarpaint]

I think it's about time for a 'dislike' button on this forum

agreed...... sure would save time with the dullards

 

[PiratePast40]

I think it's about time for a 'dislike' button on this forum

agreed...... sure would save time with the dullards

Click on their avatar. Ignore is on the upper right hand corner.