Do you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will ever rule in favor of our "Assault Rifles"?

Funny how states’ rights is a beloved principle among conservatives unless it is blue states’ rights.

CoalTrain49 said:

Not banned, just heavily restricted. If you own one you will have to register it and pay for a stamp. Otherwise you will be in possession of contraband.

Click to expand...

If history is any guide, probably the initial registration would be free. Thereafter, subsequent transfers would be subject to the tax and -- more importantly -- a year-long wait for the transfer to be approved. Noncompliance would be at a level comparable to noncompliance with alcohol Prohibition.

The SCOTUS has allowed so called "assault weapons" bans to stand.

https://blogs.findlaw.com/decided/2...ws-maryland-assault-weapons-ban-to-stand.html

SCOTUS operates under the principle of stare decisis (let the decision stand). SCOTUS seldom reverses itself.

rpenmanparker said:

Funny how states’ rights is a beloved principle among conservatives unless it is blue states’ rights.

Click to expand...

Exactly. It works both ways. I'm a strong supporter of states rights. The states are "the people" as mentioned in 10A.

Amendment 10: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Texas10mm said:

Just look at I-639 that the VOTERS in Washington state passed. Semiauto = Assault Rifle.

Click to expand...

I-1639 will be challenged in court. I would say there is better than even odds it will stand. If any more legislation gets pushed in congress you can bet they will make the same distinction. Semi-auto rifle will be what they will restrict, not a bunch of military looking parts.

Is my Winchester mdl 100 308 a assault rifle? A modern sporting rifle? My Dad gave it to me back around 1968 after returning from Viet Nam. I know the Liberals want to take it away from me. But as the saying goes. "Till death do us Part". There will never be a Liberal born that will take that gun away from me alive.

Steve S. said:

If conservative beliefs have the numbers, the 2A gives individuals possession and owner’s rights. If Liberal beliefs have the numbers, then the 2A grants those rights to a well regulated militia or the government. The wording of the Constitution has not changed, the power structure is what changes.

Click to expand...

The Constitution grants no rights at all, rights are inalienable.

Drail said:

Maybe if they were given the choice of ruling in favor of the Constitution and "we the people"(who pay their salaries) - or going to Federal prison they would actually do their duty and their job. When they decree that an unalienable right that "shall not be infringed" leaves plenty of room for "limitations" then they're clearly not working for us anymore.

Click to expand...

That's for sure!

rpenmanparker said:

How could it be any other way? Isn't your own reading just another example of the situation you are complaining about? There is no such thing as TRUE meaning or ORIGINAL INTENT. All written words are subject to the understanding of the reader. Always have been, always will be. Just because you don't like one of the interpretation options, don't think you can rule it out of legitimacy. Your interpretation (sans militia I'm guessing) is no more legitimate than any other. All the BS about Scalia being an originalist doesn't mean a thing. The correct interpretation of the written word is the one that the most people accept at any given time. That is just the way of the world.

Click to expand...

The meaning of the 2nd is clear. Only liberals and those that hate guns muddy it. Haven't you ever noticed that when liberals mention individual or collective rights they have no doubt that in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments the word "people" denotes an individual right, but somehow, only in the 2nd, the same exact word means a collective right of the militia. Anybody that doesn't see them applying their ridiculous interpretation, simply to fit their agenda, is being disingenuous.

Only liberals and those that hate guns muddy it.

Click to expand...

Please study the history of many conservatives who have supported gun bans and anti-gun views of the 2nd Amend. and even that the Second is stupid. Now, you blithely can categorize them as gun haters but you are being politically naive.

As I said before, everything is interpreted by a person's agenda. Then they find precedent. Of course, your interpretation is obviously given by God and perfectly clear. Real world politics doesn't work by appeals to authority.

They'll have to define "assault weapons" first. I don't think a ban on AR-15 rifles will get the approval of he SC at the moment. If there were to be changes and a more liberal court maybe. The rifle is very much a common use firearm and is currently the most popular and most common rifle in the hands of shooters and has been available for over 50 years. While exact numbers are hard to pin down there are more AR-15 rifles out there than Marlin and Winchester 30-30's combined.

It would be hard in my opinion to ban a rifle that common that functions no differently than any other semi-auto that has been in production for over 100 years. Not to mention that military surplus rifles that function exactly the same such as the Garand, M-1 carbine many other WW-2 era guns have been in common use for almost 75 years. The fact that "mass shootings" where these firearms have been used is a very recent event and the fact that the same weapons have been in common use for a very long time is proof that the issue isn't the weapons, but something else.

I could see the SC allowing some restrictions on who can purchase any firearm. And I have mixed feelings on that. There are a lot of people who I don't believe should ever be allowed to own any gun. But I don't know how you go about deciding who can, and cannot buy them.

They won't take it away from you, Jeb, but it is unlikely you will be able to leave it to your son.

And there is the chilling effect.
Statist: Your Bad Gun is banned.
You: I'll sue!
Statist: Go ahead, you hire a lawyer, I will just drop a note to my full time taxpayer supported legal staff. I'll check in about ten years from now.

Stevie-Ray said:

The Constitution grants no rights at all, rights are inalienable.

That's for sure!

The meaning of the 2nd is clear. Only liberals and those that hate guns muddy it. Haven't you ever noticed that when liberals mention individual or collective rights they have no doubt that in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th amendments the word "people" denotes an individual right, but somehow, only in the 2nd, the same exact word means a collective right of the militia. Anybody that doesn't see them applying their ridiculous interpretation, simply to fit their agenda, is being disingenuous.

Click to expand...

It is clear to you and it is clear to me. So why do we disagree about what it means? Because that is what folks do about written words.

Heller or no Heller, the authors of the Constitution were thinking something about militias else they would not have mentioned them. Exactly what, I don't know, and neither do you, neither did Scalia, neither does anyone. But ignoring those important words in the 2A is simply wrong and to blithely disregard them makes no sense. One doesn't have to attribute the right to bear arms as a collective right of a militia to understand that the authors felt there was a purpose to INDIVIDUAL gun ownership that had to do with the defense and maintenance of order of the homeland. But no, you don't want any responsibility attached to your rights. Rather selfish, don't you think.

Doesn’t really matter to me what SCOTUS decides. My rights in a free republic are inalienable and granted by God, not the government. The problem is, everyone needs to think that way to make a stand. That’s right, all gun owners standing together. Imagine that. If we did that as a collective we wouldn’t even be having these discussions.

A dissenting, and more cheerful opinion on the topic:

I think that we will see SCOTUS take up 2A cases, and that we will see rulings that we like more than not. I think we have not seen 2A cases for the past few years largely because the balance in the Court was so uncertain. I think we're past the worst of that, and if the rumor that RGB's cancer has come out of remission, and that she will retire in January of 2019 is true, our position will be that much more favorable.

Justice Kavanaugh has written in an opinion that from a purely legal standpoint, there is no difference between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles, and that Heller established the right to possess all handguns, including semiautos. That's a little different line of reasoning than I've heard before, and I think it potentially carries a lot of weight.

If Heller establishes anything, it establishes that an outright ban on an entire class of firearm, commonly owned for lawful purposes, is impermissible.

It's also a general principle that everything essential to a right is as protected as the right itself. That was established in the Minneapolis Star Tribune case.

Heller also requires that laws restricting firearms have to meet one of the heightened levels of scrutiny, and the burden of showing the need for the restriction rests with the authority issuing the restriction.

Given all that, I'm pretty comfortable that a new AWB or a ban on semiauto firearms would be struck down by the Supreme Court. I also think that a magazine is an essential, functioning part of a semiauto, and thus receives protection as well. Any entity wanting to restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds has to show that something gawdawful happens when you add room for that 11th cartridge. That's going to be really hard to do. I also think that California's "type approval" for firearms that can be sold is in great jeopardy.

The most interesting legal fireworks on the horizon is the case of NRA v. Cuomo. Cuomo used color of law to discourage NY based financial and insurance institutions from doing business with the NRA. That has just come back to bite him. In the midst of all of last week's election hullabaloo, a judge denied Cuomo's petition to block the case from going forward. In his opinion, the judge stated that based on the facts presented, the NRA has a very good case. It would be sweet if New York had to pony up a few million $ in damages to the NRA.

Jeb Stuart said:

Is my Winchester mdl 100 308 a assault rifle? A modern sporting rifle? My Dad gave it to me back around 1968 after returning from Viet Nam. I know the Liberals want to take it away from me. But as the saying goes. "Till death do us Part". There will never be a Liberal born that will take that gun away from me alive.

Click to expand...

In Washington State it will soon be classified as an assault rifle. The definition in I-639 covers ALL semi-auto rifles.

rpenmanparker said:

It is clear to you and it is clear to me. So why do we disagree about what it means? Because that is what folks do about written words.

Heller or no Heller, the authors of the Constitution were thinking something about militias else they would not have mentioned them. Exactly what, I don't know, and neither do you, neither did Scalia, neither does anyone. But ignoring those important words in the 2A is simply wrong and to blithely disregard them makes no sense. One doesn't have to attribute the right to bear arms as a collective right of a militia to understand that the authors felt there was a purpose to INDIVIDUAL gun ownership that had to do with the defense and maintenance of order of the homeland. But no, you don't want any responsibility attached to your rights. Rather selfish, don't you think.

Click to expand...

It's pretty easy to find what the Founders were thinking. Read the Federalist papers and other original sources. Also you can't apply what a word means today to what a word meant in 1789. An example is well regulated. Today most people will tell you that it means "under regulation or under the law". Back in 1789 it meant "in working order".

And that is what is still means.

rpenmanparker said:

the authors of the Constitution were thinking something about militias else they would not have mentioned them. Exactly what, I don't know, and neither do you, neither did Scalia, neither does anyone.

Click to expand...

Well, yes they do know what they were thinking. The militia was the only defense the country had at that time. The militias were organized by the states. In effect they were the only army the country had. The militias were paid by the federal gov't as they were needed. Many people felt a standing federal army was too expensive and too dangerous to a new republic. They felt the same thing about a Navy until the war of 1812. The federal gov't didn't have a lot of money in those days like they have now.

I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this but 2A was to insure that the federal gov't could never restrict a state from raising an army from the civilian population. A guarantee that the federal gov't would never be more powerful than the states. To reinforce that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed by congress after the civil war to limit the powers of the fed using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the US.

2A was there to restrict the federal government's power over the people (states). It says just exactly that,

being necessary to the security of a free State

Click to expand...

.

Very ironic that it's mostly the states doing the restricting now with the fed being mostly hands off.

SilentStalker said:

Doesn’t really matter to me what SCOTUS decides. My rights in a free republic are inalienable and granted by God, not the government. The problem is, everyone needs to think that way to make a stand. That’s right, all gun owners standing together. Imagine that. If we did that as a collective we wouldn’t even be having these discussions.

Click to expand...

Why do people have to agree and make a stand if a right is granted by God? Does God not defend the rights He grants? How is it that man has the power to revoke the rights granted by God, the rights enumerated by Jefferson? Perhaps we should stick to what we can control?

CoalTrain49 said:

I know a lot of people don't agree with me on this but 2A was to insure that the federal gov't could never restrict a state from raising an army from the civilian population. A guarantee that the federal gov't would never be more powerful than the states. To reinforce that the Posse Comitatus Act was passed by congress after the civil war to limit the powers of the fed using federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the US.

Click to expand...

Do you mean like protecting the southern border against the caravan?

Divine intervention and migrants?
Going off the rails.
Hint!!

jmr40 said:

They'll have to define "assault weapons" first.

Click to expand...

They're going to sidestep that problem by simply banning all semiautomatic rifles with removable magazines. So what if some Fudd hunting rifles fall under that umbrella? They don't care.

I recall that in Australia , some of their gun folks were quite OK with buying new bolt guns with the confiscation funds.

coloradokevin said:

Read the 10th Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now read the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the states do not have the authority to override it. Your 2nd Amendment rights should be available to you in all 50 states just as your 1st and 4th Amendment rights are available to you in all 50 states.

Click to expand...

Why didn't you bold and underline the part about the militia too. It isn’t there by accident.

The can will be kicked down the road until next time the party with restrictive gun control literally in their platform takes complete control, as in both houses of Congress and the Presidency, at that point some type of terrible shooting will inevitably happen. Then a bill that will be extremely anti gun will be passed and signed into law, then it will be challenged in court eventually going to SCOTUS. The out come of that case will likely have wide effects, overriding many state laws. Maybe the laws of Alaska and Texas, maybe the laws of California and Washington, that’s anybody’s guess.

This could happen in 2021 or in 2080, obviously we can’t know but it’s my full belief that’s how it will eventually play out and their is no way to know whose favor it will fall in.

I’d also expect this to repeat itself, for instance, a bill banning semi autos, years later another for handguns, years later a bill for “sniper rifles” (anything with a scope) years later something else, etc, etc.... until the ultimate goal is reached or fully defeated or more likely a mixture. It’s called progressive for a reason, it’s slow but it’s extremely effective.