2nd Amendment Thread

[de officiis]

BREAKING NEWS:

SUPREME COURT REFUSES TO ACCEPT APPEAL FROM MARYLAND GUN ADVOCATES TO CHALLENGE THE STATE'S RULING THAT """ASSAULT""" WEAPON BANS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1DR1SE

This shouldn’t surprise you. The Court only grants appeals for a small fraction of the Cert petitions that are filed every year. And it’s not always safe to assume that a denial of Cert means that the Court approves of the lower court’s ruling.

[C-Mag]

16 Former US Flag Officer lobby Congress to enact Gun Control, group included Gen Clark, Gen McCrystal, and Gen Petreus.

There is no acceptable excuse for our elected leaders to avoid addressing this as a national crisis. Credible
polling, in fact, shows that our representatives on Capitol Hill are no longer speaking or voting for the
majority of Americans, including gun owners, on gun-related issues. Such specific matters as background
checks, safety training, bump stocks, other particularly lethal guns and accessories, public health research,
suicide prevention, protecting the laws on the books, and more can all be addressed within every
reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment. Additionally, the failure of the Defense Department
and the states to properly report domestic violence convictions to the background check system is
unacceptable and must be addressed.

Apparently these fuckers don't understand the meaning of, 'Shall NOT be infringed'. I like this little tactic,
" all be addressed within every reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment". So, if you do not agree with them your are not reasonable.



https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads ... 2017-2.pdf

[de officiis]

Apparently these fuckers don't understand the meaning of, 'Shall NOT be infringed'. I like this little tactic, " all be addressed within every reasonable interpretation of the Second Amendment". So, if you do not agree with them your are not reasonable.

https://giffords.org/wp-content/uploads ... 2017-2.pdf

Not really clear what you are saying the standard is or should be for deciding whether federal legislation is compliant or violative of the Second Amendment. What we have to go by is what the Supreme Court said in D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (see link on thread p.1), relevant excerpts from which are as follows (citations in text omitted):

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment's right of free speech was not. Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.

p.595

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right.

p. 625

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

pp. 626- 627

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller {United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174} said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons."

p. 627

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding "interest-balancing" approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government--even the Third Branch of Government--the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges' assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an "interest-balancing" approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest balancing by the people--which Justice Breyer would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

pp. 634-635

[C-Mag]

Trump ceases 4000 guns

https://theblacksphere.net/2017/12/oh-c ... even-guns/

[SuburbanFarmer]

I did not see this coming...

Former SCOTUS proposes repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opin ... dment.html

[Zlaxer]

I did not see this coming...

The proles never do

[de officiis]

I did not see this coming...

Former SCOTUS proposes repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opin ... dment.html

...on the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens joined the more liberal Justices on issues such as abortion rights, gay rights and federalism. His Segal–Cover score, a measure of the perceived liberalism/conservatism of Court members when they joined the Court, places him squarely on the conservative side of the Court.[28] However, a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court. ... He was considered part of the liberal bloc of the Court starting in the mid-1980s, and was dubbed the "Chief Justice of the Liberal Supreme Court",[32][33] though he publicly called himself a judicial conservative in 2007.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens

[DBTrek]

When a simple trespassing charge gets your 2nd Amendment Rights revoked:

Parkland, Florida (CNN) - Piles of flowers sit outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a visual reminder that the campus is still a place where students and faculty honor the lives of the 17 people who were gunned down on Valentine's Day by Nikolas Cruz. It is the last place some in this community would expect or want to see Cruz's younger brother.

Yet Zachary Cruz was arrested last week, accused of trespassing on school grounds. Police say he has visited the campus at least three times since the shooting. On his last visit, Cruz, clad in a white T-shirt, blue shorts and a baseball cap, calmly told deputies he was there to "reflect on the school shooting and to soak it in," according to a probable cause affidavit. He did not enter any buildings.

Normally, trespassing in Broward County is a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. The bond typically is $25, but the judge in Zachary Cruz's case set bail at $500,000. The judge also ordered a psychological evaluation, electronic monitoring, no communication with Nikolas Cruz and a search of Zachary's residence for any weapons. . .

. . . Assistant State Attorney Sarahnell Murphy and the sheriff's office counter that argument, saying Zachary Cruz poses a danger to the community. The Broward County Sheriff's Office alleges Cruz has a violent and combative past and is likely mentally ill; and it's using a new Florida law enacted after the Parkland shooting, to restrict Cruz from getting his hands on a gun. (Zachary Cruz told deputies he did not own firearms or ammunition, according to court documents.)....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/us/zacha ... index.html

Dudes older brother shot up the Parkland school. He rides his skateboard over there to "reflect on the school shooting and to soak it in", which doesn't seem weird to me.
BAM!!! $500k bail and no guns for you!!!
WTF?

Humans have a long tradition of visiting sites of tragedy to reflect, whether they be the old WTC grounds, former concentration camps, or villages in Vietnam. How is that worthy of a half-million bail and losing your rights?

[SuburbanFarmer]

When a simple trespassing charge gets your 2nd Amendment Rights revoked:

Parkland, Florida (CNN) - Piles of flowers sit outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a visual reminder that the campus is still a place where students and faculty honor the lives of the 17 people who were gunned down on Valentine's Day by Nikolas Cruz. It is the last place some in this community would expect or want to see Cruz's younger brother.

Yet Zachary Cruz was arrested last week, accused of trespassing on school grounds. Police say he has visited the campus at least three times since the shooting. On his last visit, Cruz, clad in a white T-shirt, blue shorts and a baseball cap, calmly told deputies he was there to "reflect on the school shooting and to soak it in," according to a probable cause affidavit. He did not enter any buildings.

Normally, trespassing in Broward County is a second-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 60 days in jail and a fine of up to $500. The bond typically is $25, but the judge in Zachary Cruz's case set bail at $500,000. The judge also ordered a psychological evaluation, electronic monitoring, no communication with Nikolas Cruz and a search of Zachary's residence for any weapons. . .

. . . Assistant State Attorney Sarahnell Murphy and the sheriff's office counter that argument, saying Zachary Cruz poses a danger to the community. The Broward County Sheriff's Office alleges Cruz has a violent and combative past and is likely mentally ill; and it's using a new Florida law enacted after the Parkland shooting, to restrict Cruz from getting his hands on a gun. (Zachary Cruz told deputies he did not own firearms or ammunition, according to court documents.)....

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/28/us/zacha ... index.html

Dudes older brother shot up the Parkland school. He rides his skateboard over there to "reflect on the school shooting and to soak it in", which doesn't seem weird to me.
BAM!!! $500k bail and no guns for you!!!
WTF?

Humans have a long tradition of visiting sites of tragedy to reflect, whether they be the old WTC grounds, former concentration camps, or villages in Vietnam. How is that worthy of a half-million bail and losing your rights?

Just wait until your entire family is liable for your crimes. To the gulags!!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Illinois village outright bans weapons outside of a small list. Daily fines of up to $1,000 for possession.

This will be interesting.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-04- ... -or-become

Residents in Deerfield, Illinois have 60 days to surrender their “assault weapons” or face fines of $1000 per day per gun.

The gun ban ordinance was passed on April 2nd with residents left with few choices of how to dispose of their valuable “assault weapons.” Upon careful reading of the ordinance, residents will be left with revolvers, .22 caliber “plinking” rifles, and double barrel shotguns to defend their homes and families from criminals who could care less about the law.

Fines for not disposing of the weapons range from $250 to $1000 per day per gun for those who choose not to comply with the city’s ordinance.