Supreme Court to Decide this Week to Hear Two Gun Control Cases

[jackrv]

They just decided to NOT hear the case, so the ban is left standing.

 

[pdx210]

The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans passed in Connecticut and New York today. By not hearing the case they are allowing state /city laws exist that violate the 2nd amendment.


Supreme Court turns down assault weapons cases (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/20/supreme-court-guns-assault-weapons-connecticut-new-york/86133004/)

 

[deadeye]

Most likely it would end up in a tie vote (only 8 judges currently) which just ends up upholding the lower courts ruling. This is why it is important who is nominated for the 9th seat as they will most likely be the deciding factor on a lot of rulings like Scalia was.

 

[U8395279]

Well, this pretty much paves the way for the AR-15 and similar rifles to be banned. It has now been determined that the Constitution does not protect our right to own such firearms.

Say so long to your rifles. Best thing for everyone to do is to sell their rifles and high cap magazines now, while they are still worth something.

 

[Stomper]

No compliance.

 

[Nocaster]

It's a good thing they denied cert. If they took it up, there would be at least a 50% chance we would wind up with a decision that would permit some level of AWB. This way it is still a question in the minds of gun banners and ambivalent politicians.

With Bloomberg's recent legislative successes, a decision that is even mildly favorable to them would be a huge boost to the whole gun control agenda and their fundraising. All the politician rats would start wondering about what else they could get away with legislatively to get their paws on some of that Bloomberg money.

We need notHillary to appoint some conservative justices.

 

[Nocaster]

Well, this pretty much paves the way for the AR-15 and similar rifles to be banned. It has now been determined that the Constitution does not protect our right to own such firearms.

Say so long to your rifles. Best thing for everyone to do is to sell their rifles and high cap magazines now, while they are still worth something.


View attachment 298358

I will take all your guns and magazines at 40% value. Better jump on it, as they are soon to be worthless.

 

[Bushman]

I'm going to start a different thread about whether selling existing items will likely be allowed during such a ban. It was during the last ban but who knows with this one. Those who try to buy thousands of pmags and make a 1,000% profit on them may end up being left with a bunch of stuff they will get a $25 Safeway card for in a Gestapo gun buy back.

 

[Martini_Up]

Tyranny. It is only going to get worse.

 

[Bushman]

Tyranny. It is only going to get worse.

Yep. Glad that I can retire and relocate as needed, even if it means moving overseas. While other countries gun laws aren't exactly great either, given the choice of being unarmed and living like a King in a tropical paradise or being unarmed and enslaved in a high cost of living system that is out of control I'll take the Tropics.

 

[bolus]

Say so long to your rifles. Best thing for everyone to do is to sell their rifles and high cap magazines now, while they are still worth something.


View attachment 298358

Unless they plan on coming to get them they will be worth a lot in a few years. Just look at Machine guns. If they are planning to come get them I'll need them to make the confiscation part a little more difficult.

 

[U8395279]

I'm going to start a different thread about whether selling existing items will likely be allowed during such a ban. It was during the last ban but who knows with this one. Those who try to buy thousands of pmags and make a 1,000% profit on them may end up being left with a bunch of stuff they will get a $25 Safeway card for in a Gestapo gun buy back.

Most proposals in the past have been for bans on new sales and transfers, with grandfather clauses allowing existing owners to keep their guns. That was how Connecticut's ban was written. These past laws have also typically included registration with them. In Connecticut's example, they required all owners to not only register their rifles with the state, but also register all of their high cap magazines too, and have serial numbers engraved on them.

But the most recent national proposals have all been for outright bans on possession, which would mean that even existing owners would have to surrender their guns and their magazines.

When it comes to stockpiling high cap mags, it really does not matter which type of ban is implemented. For either way, it will become a crime for a person to sell their high cap magazines to another person.

.

 

[U8395279]

Unless they plan on coming to get them they will be worth a lot in a few years. Just look at Machine guns. If they are planning to come get them I'll need them to make the confiscation part a little more difficult.

Look at state laws like the ones in Connecticut and California. You cannot transfer the rifles to another person inside the state. If you want to sell the rifle, it has to go to someone in another state where it is still legal to buy and transfer such rifles. A father cannot even leave his AR-15 to a son, in a state where a ban exists.

But if Clinton is able to get such a law implemented on the national level, then where would you be able to sell the rifle?? It would then be illegal to purchase everywhere.

.

 

[bolus]

Look at state laws like the ones in Connecticut and California. You cannot transfer the rifles to another person inside the state. If you want to sell the rifle, it has to go to someone in another state where it is still legal to buy and transfer such rifles. A father cannot even leave his AR-15 to a son, in a state where a ban exists.

But if Clinton is able to get such a law implemented on the national level, then where would you be able to sell the rifle?? It would then be illegal to purchase everywhere.

.

That is why I've spent the last 4 years buying what I would want in the face of a ban. I have to desire to sell them or give them up

 

[Doc In UPlace]

There are a few things in this thread that make sense to me, such as being able to have your rights restored. It should be made simple and inexpensive to do.

But to say, anyone who wants to be armed should be able to do so seems both dangerous and, respectfully, naïve.

The likes of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, Jeff Dahmer, Richard Speck, Aileen Wuornos, go ahead, gun 'em up. Really?

In my job I have had the misfortune of knowing a few murderers and a few criminally insane people and many who were both. No way in the world, if you met these guys, would you walk out of the room and agree with this idea that everyone who wants to be armed should be.

All but one of the folks above are gone from this material world, and Manson will likely never be released. But there are now folks just as bad out there walking among us, and some who are staying a few miles down the road from me in Western State Hospital who may be released before they die, and when they are out, they should really only have rubber scissors and guns made out of soap bars.

Maybe they should never get out, but the reality is there are too many criminals and insane people to house forever. But just because someone has served a sentence means nothing in regard to their propensity to go forth and repeat their criminal behavior; in fact statistics say it is extremely likely that they will, and some of 'em, probably within weeks of being released.

Some folks are permanently broken. They have become malfunctioning organisms; bio-bots that are doomed to repeat their mistakes. That could be something like an armed robbery that kills one of your loved ones.

Finally some things are too dangerous for anyone who is not professionally qualified to legally own, and some of those would be nitroglycerine, polonium 210, or a 15,000 Lb. BLU-82.

Next time you see some clown out there run a red light then go careening off down the street flipping people off, think to yourself, "should this guy have a case of M-67 hand grenades?"

 

[Osarion]

The Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to assault weapons bans passed in Connecticut and New York today. By not hearing the case they are allowing state /city laws exist that violate the 2nd amendment.


Supreme Court turns down assault weapons cases (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/20/supreme-court-guns-assault-weapons-connecticut-new-york/86133004/)

The citizens need to take legislative action. Cali too.

 

[Hawaiian]

The court has been consistently turning down appeals on gun cases. It appears that they are sending the message that it is a states rights issue.

 

[Osarion]

Supreme Court upholds reach of US gun ban for domestic violence | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-upholds-reach-us-gun-ban-for-domestic-violence.html)

the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

 

[Slobray]

Supreme Court upholds reach of US gun ban for domestic violence | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/27/supreme-court-upholds-reach-us-gun-ban-for-domestic-violence.html)

Wow, Sotomayor actually joined in part of Clarence Thomas' dissent, of course she could be part of the dissent where Justice Thomas was upholding the "protections enumerated in the Second Amendment".

So it seems we only have one justice willing to defend the 2A, things are already going south for gun owners.


Ray

 

[PaulB47]

No way in the world, if you met these guys, would you walk out of the room and agree with this idea that everyone who wants to be armed should be.

Of course not. But reality should also temper our opinions. The reality is, those who really want guns can get them, no matter what the law says. The reality is, a few nuts with guns looks bad - but only until you consider the alternative, government ability to disarm anyone they please with little recourse for the individual.

It is a standard government tactic to stampede people into surrendering their rights by evoking fear. The chances of being harmed by an odd nut with a gun are extremely small, while the chances of being harmed by government are 100%. In fact we are harmed every day, not the least by collection of taxes. And how many people were killed by their own government last century?

The correct remedy to deal with the extremely rare case of a nut using a gun, is to shoot him. Not to give up one's liberty.