In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Ramifications Of The Heller Case RE: Assault Weapo

DefenderDefender Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
edited June 2008 in General Discussion
Ramifications Of The Heller Case RE: Assault Weapons And Such.
Okay legal beagles; tell me why I'm right or wrong?
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2008/06/ramifications-of-heller-case-re-assault.html

Comments

  • buschmasterbuschmaster Member Posts: 14,229 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    he made a good point when he said that the anti's had to run around screaming about how many "assault weapons" there were in order to get their ban, and it comes back to bite them in the * when it says in this ruling that guns in common use are protected.

    my guess is, the anti's will, among other things of course, forget they said that -deny, distract, damage control- and also try to make .50 cal, etc. into "not in common use" and excessively dangerous.

    some of those idiots might say the same thing about large capacity handguns/"assault weapons", but that won't be the party line (it's obviously indefensible) and will be meant for consumption of the anti-gun crowd anyways for the purposes of fund raising.

    if I read right, there's already some talk about only guns for "non military use" being protected. so I think they might turn this into "since it's an individual right, people should only be allowed guns that individuals use". which is crap. we are guaranteed the right to own any small arm that our military uses or will use, one of the purposes of which is to have them available to fight tyranny, invasion by hostile forces, etc. as you can see the the purposes include paramilitary objectives. enacted by any single person or group of people in whatever capacity.

    which brings another thing to mind, sometime in the future when some major improvement in firearms technology comes about, the yoyos might say this ruling meant "in common use" at the time and want to deny us the technoloogy. much like saying the 2nd was not written with anything but flintlocks in mind.

    he mentioned the fact that the ruling avoided describing exactly what guns were covered. I think that's a good thing, because a specific description could be used to narrow down which guns we can own. even the implication of a class of guns in the ruling is a bad thing really, because to conform to the spirit of the 2nd amendment, we are guaranteed the right to ANY armament. it's just that we need to go back to the SCOTUS again and get that clarified.

    the other side of the coin is the vagueness that they use to say what are "dangerous and unusual weapons", but taken together with the above paragraph that seems to be an acceptable evil.
  • ElMuertoMonkeyElMuertoMonkey Member Posts: 12,898
    edited November -1
    By saying "in common use", the Supreme Court gave us (that is to say gun owners) a big stick to use against the gun grabbers. Seeing as how there are millions (probably literally) of "assault weapons" in circulation and for sale, it would take brain damage of monumental proportions to turn around and say the Heller case does not apply to AR-15's and other "black rifles" as well.

    In my opinion, they provided the first step in slippery slope that will return our rights to us rather than take them away. It may not happen over night, but it will happen.

    At least I hope so.
  • select-fireselect-fire Member Posts: 69,529 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I foresee the states only having the rights to make all firearms registered. Uncle sam may even go as far as making certain firearms registered and charge as they do now with class 3 firearms. States are going to be challenged in Federal courts soon. I am totally surprised they have NOT been challenged by someone with a Class 3 who moved to a state where class 3's are not legal by that state. ( Almost happened by myself but law was changed to my benefit. ) The Fed govt. Ok'd the firearm but the state wouldn't . Go figure. There are still non gun class 3 states.
  • iwannausernameiwannausername Member Posts: 7,131
    edited November -1
    Well, that means in my mind anything an individual can operate and carry. So no Phalanx systems or crew served weapons, but pretty much anything else would be fair game.

    quote:Originally posted by buschmaster


    if I read right, there's already some talk about only guns for "non military use" being protected. so I think they might turn this into "since it's an individual right, people should only be allowed guns that individuals use".
  • gunnut505gunnut505 Member Posts: 10,290
    edited November -1
    If you read the opinion and all its' 156 pages, there is a phrase that keeps popping up; "dangerous and unusual weapons".
    This phrase first appears in the context of denying the ability to carry a sawed-off shotgun, but if you use English as your primary language; you soon realize that it means "assault weapons", AOWs, and quite possibly, select-fire guns.HMMMMMM.
  • CaptplaidCaptplaid Member Posts: 20,298 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Ask yourself this question

    Does the Brady Bunch really want the SCOTUS to determine what is "acceptable" for the public to own?

    This decision has allowed us to go down a road that has not been traveled. Read Justice Steven's dissent. He even dreads going down this road. [:D] THis road before us should not be feared. Traveing down this road is feared by the likes of the Brady Bunch. To put it another way, if that old ba$tard dreads it, I like it!

    Have you looked at King Daley's black guns list? It lists specific rifles and variants. "Dangerous and unusual" can be very specific well defined terms that are not painted with a broad brush. Look at the extreme of this idea. D.C. is talking about saying revolvers are O.K. but pistols like the 1911 are "dangerous and unusual".

    Daley and Company does not want to go before Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and whoever else and have them declare we, the people should be allowed to possess any and all forms of firearms law enforcement agencies can use. Daley and Company are talking big because right now that's all they got. Daley is nothing more than a big talking bully.

    Daley doesn't want to push the other issues why people own firearms, besides sporting and home protection. He might lose more than what he has lost now. They just lost big and they don't want to go before the same court again in the near future.

    Also, I look for Stevens to "retire" one way or another in the next four years. He is as old as dirt. Even if he does a Rhenquest, and keeps the job until he drops dead, a McCain nominated justice makes Kennedy's vote almost irrelevant.[:D]

    It takes a few years for a case to work its way to the SCOTUS. Daley doesn't want to lose there. Steven's age would weigh on Daley and the Brady Bunch's minds. They are bluffing.
  • CaptplaidCaptplaid Member Posts: 20,298 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    INDIA'S MAHATMA GANDHI
    "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

    That is one of the greatest quote. Somehow I thought Orson Wells said that about Russia. No wonder I had trouble finding it on the internet.
  • DefenderDefender Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    When the court vague on describing constitutionally protected firearms as they did in Heller using terms like, "in common use" and "dangerous or unusual weapons" that is a good thing. This serves as guidance that there must be the most liberal interpretation that could cover fully automatic weapons. To use dangerous weapons in the strictest terms that would outlaw a BB gun.

    I am encouraged here by the deliberate vague language.
  • oldemagicsoldemagics Member Posts: 5,851 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by ElMuertoMonkey
    By saying "in common use", the Supreme Court gave us (that is to say gun owners) a big stick to use against the gun grabbers. Seeing as how there are millions (probably literally) of "assault weapons" in circulation and for sale, it would take brain damage of monumental proportions to turn around and say the Heller case does not apply to AR-15's and other "black rifles" as well.

    In my opinion, they provided the first step in slippery slope that will return our rights to us rather than take them away. It may not happen over night, but it will happen.

    At least I hope so.

    this is the part i think of when D.C.'s c.o.p. claims it does not apply to auto-loading pistols, only revolvers.
    waiting for the shtf with seperate suits on that one
  • DefenderDefender Member Posts: 1,772 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There will be no need for new lawsuits against the dopes of D.C. The Heller ruling allows the winner,Heller to write the final order of the court and it must be approved by the court. Because the goofy mayor of D.C. already gave away their game plan to try and limit the scope of Heller you can bet that order allows for the handguns in common use (There are more semi-autos in common use everywhere in the world) will be spelled out.

    Another D.C. Mayor is strung out on crack.
Sign In or Register to comment.