Using what seems to be faulty reasoning concerning the “common use” of AR-style rifles for self-defense purposes, a district court in Washington State has denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the state’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.
On September 26, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in the case Banta v. Ferguson denied the request for an injunction because, the ruling said, AR-15s are not weapons that are commonly owned for self-defense and well-tailored for that purpose. Instead, the court ruled that common semi-automatic rifles owned by millions of lawful Americans for self-defense and other purposes are better suited for offensive combat.
In the request, plaintiffs presented evidence that, in fact, self-defense is one of the primary uses of such firearms
“As to why Americans own AR-15s, NSSF consumer survey data shows that ‘[h]ome/self-defense’ is the second-highest reason cited for modern sporting rifle ownership, behind ‘recreational target shooting,’” plaintiffs argued.
However, the court wasn’t buying that argument as reason enough to grant the injunction.
“In sum, the data presented suggests that AR-15s are commonly owned, and some who own them do so for self-defense,” the ruling stated. “However, … most courts analyzing this issue have found commonality is not enough. In fact, most courts that have considered whether the AR-15 falls under the Second Amendment’s plain text have concluded that it does not.”
In its discussion of the second Bruen standard, whether there was historic precedent at the time of the nation’s founding, the court noted that the state’s proffered historical analogs likely weigh in favor of upholding the ban, despite the fact that ownership of common arms wasn’t banned at the time.
noted, without providing any analysis, that the State’s proffered historical analogs—including restrictions on the sale of certain weapons and on the manner in which they could be carried—likely weigh in favor of upholding the ban.
“Similar to the above discussion of Bruen step one, there is little authority to guide the Court’s analysis at Bruen step two,” the ruling stated. “However, what authority exists tends to weigh against Plaintiffs’ challenge. SHB 1240 is a prohibition on the manufacture, import, distribution, or sale of a weapon the legislature deemed dangerous. While no Ninth Circuit case to date has reviewed a similar law, other circuit courts and other district courts in this circuit have done so.”
The ruling then went on to explain its reasoning on the historical precedent question, even though it didn’t make much sense.
“Here, the State Defendants offer a number of proposed analogues to demonstrate that SHB 1240 is within this Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations,” the ruling stated. “These analogues include restrictions on the sale, carrying, concealment, brandishing, possession, and certain types of uses of certain weapons, in the form of taxes, fines, and criminal penalties. These analogues include some that circuit courts of appeal have found persuasive in comparable cases, such as regulations of Bowie knives and other dangerous weapons.”
The decision is likely to be appealed to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.
….” instead, the court ruled that common semi-automatic owned by millions of lawful Americans for self defense and other purposes are better suited for offensive combat. ”
In other words, the exact intent of the Second Amendment as written.
Yes.
The ruling is backdoor Gun Control. And what specifically is Gun Control? Gun Control is an Agenda History Confirms is Rooted in Racism and Genocide. And did one of the so called Defenders of the Second Amendment in the courtroom Define Gun Control by its History for the Black Robes? No and Hell No.
It boils down to some sick self serving Gun Control sackofsht like tampon tim singling out the attributes of the Armalite Rifle and saying you cannot have it. Ironic how the attributes of Gun Controlled Blacks, Jews, Catholics, Indians and other “misfits” were also, “Singled Out.”
So nssf…How’s that pathetic, concocted modern sporting rifle label working to appease those carrying around the demonic agenda of the third reich, the kkk, Jim Crow et al? Answer the GD question.
TRUMP/VANCE 2024.
I maintain that Non-Military weapons ARE NOT protected by the Second Amendment and can be banned at will.
I’m unclear how you reach that conclusion. The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is pretty clear. Now I will agree that in US v. Miller (1939) SCOTUS cited the introductory statement of the 2nd Amendment to say that arms of efficacy to the military ARE SPECIFICLLY protected for the People. All arms have dual use and at one time or another all firearms were used by militaries.
“ARMS” refers to military weapons & has for centuries. Fowling Pieces, Saturday-Night Specials and Deer Rifles are NOT “Arms”
… in Beginners Dictionary for Dummies?
Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, Funk and Wagnell’s, Random House, Chambers, and others would like to have many words with you.
And you need it, as you mis-spell Fudd Troll in your name constantly.
unicorn he spellsit that way cus his capitol “C” and “t” dont work on his keybored
arms (Oxford Dict)
/ärmz/
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
“arms exports”
arm (n) Merriam Webster
: a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense
especially : firearm
Not seeing it dude.
What one would call a “deer rifle” another would call a sniper rifle. Me thinks the coke bottle glasses have you seeing the world different than the rest of us.
Not seeing the world, he is. He’s in his Marxist power drooling mind.
Hund,
Actually, our United States military has used all three of those classes of firearms that you mentioned in combat.
Various troops carried shotguns in World War I, World War II, and even as late as the Vietnam War. Troops also carried small and inexpensive revolvers (chambered in .38 Special no less), especially pilots. Finally, sharpshooters (e.g. snipers) have used “deer rifles” in combat in Vietnam and through present day.
Note that “sniper rifles” (starting at least as early as the Vietnam war) were none-other than bolt-action rifles with scopes which were (and to this day still are) common among deer hunters.
The only possible quibble would be over the length of the barrel on shotguns, with long barrels (about 26-inches) being common for fowling and shorter barrels (about 18-inches) being more common for combat.
Remington rifles were also used in WWII as sniper rifles. Pretty much most every soldier carried a bolt rifle in WWI, so there’s that too.
Fowling pieces=shotguns, and shotguns are used by militaries worldwide.
Saturday Night Specials are also “military arms.” You’ve never heard of the Ruby pistol?
hund…Get a box and go door-to-door in your neighborhood demanding residents put their firearms in your box. How long do you think it would take for some lady of the house to arm herself with a frying pan and flatten your head?
“Fowling Pieces, Saturday-Night Specials and Deer Rifles are NOT “Arms””
Really? Scoped bolt-action rifles are called ‘sniper rifles’, and are very much a ‘weapon of war’ in today’s militaries around the world today.
Also, single-shot muskets were a ‘weapon of war’ when fighting England at this nation’s founding…
” ‘ARMS’ refers to military weapons & has for centuries. Fowling Pieces, Saturday-Night Specials and Deer Rifles are NOT ‘Arms’ ”
100% false
since about the time of Roman rule over the known world since about 27 BC … the concept of ‘arms’, even if not called that so long ago, has always included basically ANYTHING a person, be it ‘military’ or not orientated, a person (e.g. the common man’) can used for defense or offense. Although the inherent natural right of defense with ‘anything’ was a thing since man first walked the earth before the Roman empire, the Romans just acknowledged the concept as also existing in a ‘society’.
It wasn’t until the word “Arms” arose from Middle English about 1300 (from the french “armes”), and then later joined the language as a common word around 1400, that the concept of ‘arms’ was given substance as an understood defined thing as ‘weapons of a warrior’ but that the term ‘warrior’ was not restricted to just ‘military’ but rather to anyone, military or not, engaged in defense or offense ‘battle’ be it personal or home or war, plus it also included the inherent human right of defense of self or others or home.
Its use was first given substance as something ‘codified’ in writing as a right (law) for ‘the people’ in the English (British) ‘Bill of Rights’ of 1689 which stated that the “subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”.
In all that since the Roman concept and before that since man has walked the Earth, “arms” also (in addition) referred to weapons found among contemporary military arsenals, but never excluded use of these also by ‘the people’ (except in codified ‘law’). Its this point from which the anti-gun draw and present their false assertion that ‘arms’ in the second amendment only means military arms – they do this by omission that these were never excluded from use or possession or ‘ownership’ by the ‘people’ but rather is ‘in addition’. This is the concept you present now with your comment (in part) of ” ‘ARMS’ refers to military weapons & has for centuries.” when in reality it has not because in reality it was in addition to the ‘definition’ concept for arms overall as “basically ANYTHING a person, be it ‘military’ or not orientated, a person can used for defense or offense even the common man” since the the Romans applied the concept in a society sense or the ‘common people’ in 27 BC.
In 1755 Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language was first published. It defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” (which was actually the concept applied by the Romans circa 27 BC and onward since).
The term ‘arms’ has never once over the centuries and years, and especially in the last several hundred years, ever meant actually just “military weapons” and has never in actual ‘arms’ definition or concept been excluded from use by ‘the people’. It is only in law and politics that such distinctions arise, which is in direct opposition to the intended definitions and concept of ‘arms’.
In terms of the 2A it is only in codified law and political distinction that ‘military weapons’ were conflated with ‘arms’, in reality though the concept isn’t. And the 2A use of ‘arms’, as written by and intended by the founders and understood at the founding and even before the Romans in 27 BC and since man has walked the earth – to mean anything which a person can use for defense or offense including firearms.
Much to the distaste of the anti-gun – SCOTUS got the history and meaning of the word ‘arms’ correct with Heller and then Bruen. The word and concept was and has always been in the entire history of mankind meant a natural and inherent right to ‘arms’ for ‘the common man’ (e.g. the people) as “ANYTHING a person, be it ‘military’ or not orientated, a person (e.g. the common man’) can used for defense (e.g. “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” – defensive use of ‘weapons’ is an ‘offensive’ exercise) – and that includes firearms. It is only the law and political distinction that separate ‘the people’ from ‘military arms’, and not the concept or definition of ‘arms’.
So it is not true that… ” ‘ARMS’ refers to military weapons & has for centuries. Fowling Pieces, Saturday-Night Specials and Deer Rifles are NOT ‘Arms’ ” – for they are all ‘arms’ for ‘the people’ and the concept of ‘arms’ has been and inherent natural right for the ‘the people’ ever since man has walked the earth and even before (for the evolutionist among you) when still that primordial ooze ‘thing’ struggling for survival using what ever ‘natural capabilities’ it could muster and for the biblically minded since God expelled Adam and Eve from the garden. The use of ‘arms’ has always been with us in some form or another in nature and its inherent, be it the claws of an animal or the sting of a bee, or that club the caveman used, or sometimes simply running away from danger – ‘arms’ has always been with us and firearms are no different as they are ‘arms’ also in the intended and true sense of the definition and concept even if they are “Fowling Pieces, Saturday-Night Specials and Deer Rifles”.
clarification for: ” …to mean anything which a person can use for defense or offense including firearms.” (and in the rest)…
meaning also firearms since they first existed as they are also ‘anything’. In modern day SCOTUS use (Heller) with the actual definition from a 1771 legal dictionary defined them as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” and in a 1773 dictionary (widespread publication in 1755) as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence”. Justice Scalia wrote that “arms” refers to “weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.” For example, contrary to the anti-gun, the AR-15 was not originally designed for “specifically” military use as the military had no use for it originally (and did not adopt it as is in the civilian design rendition by Stoner) and its origin was as a civilian ‘sporting’ rifle, even though its descendant use was adapted for military use as the M-16 after a Colt redesign after they bought the patent from Aramalite. And today indeed there is still no AR-15 as a military service rifle in any government military force in the world. But, this does not mean because its designed for ‘military use’ its not a ‘bearable arm’ for ‘the people’
In the Court’s opinion (SCOTUS), the Second Amendment extends to “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
Regarding the phrase “keep arms,” SCOTUS analyzed examples from the founding era that mentioned the phrase. Justice Scalia concluded that the right to “keep arms” is an individual right unrelated to militia service. In other words, it refers to possessing arms for everyone, not just militia members.
SCOTUS then analyzed the term “bear.” The Court wrote that, in the 1700s, “bear” meant “carry.” However, when one combines “bear” with “arms,” the meaning changes to one indicating a right to carry arms “for a particular purpose — confrontation.”
In other words, SCOTUS got it correct for the word ‘arms’ as it was meant to be, as I said above, since man has walked the earth.
It is only the law and political distinction that separates ‘the people’ from ‘military arms’ as those also are also for ‘the people’ “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”
Gman, just like all knives can either slice tomatoes or stab a person.
Glad to see we are now in total agreement that your argument is specious. You’re welcome.
I am in agreement with you and was making the comparison between the words “arms” and “knives”. Just like there are many variables of “arms” there is also many relative to “knives”. Hence, I do not understand how my comment was specious.
Note that Hund and Hush are two different people.
Ah ha. I see that now. Damn old eyes.
Sorry Hush.
Dude thanks. I thought about the similarity after I made the reply. Keep living Gman for it only gets worse. I don’t drive due to vision issues and wear hearing aids.
Hush,
I don’t drive due to life on a sailboat (home). Three motorcycles and adding a new one. I will keep living to the max for as long as my 64 year old body will allow me.
Here is what my great great grandfather voted for in Butler, Pennsylvania: “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” Tench Coxe The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
okay hund, explain to me the difference between an ar15/ar10 and a remington 7400 or a browning b.a.r. both of which would be in .308 cal. or 30.06
we can wait.
Do you folks not understand ?
So does that mean that all civilian AR15 platform rifles should be converted to select-fire rifles to be compliant…thereby nullifying the 1986 assault weapons ban and all NFA regulations? I could possibly get behind that.
Geeze, ONE PERSON seems to get the ‘tongue in cheek’ reference?
I would think it would turn all the anti gun peoples’ knickers inside out if it was ruled that the 2nd covers MILITARY weapons only, AND that we ALL were covered and could own any NFA item we chose with no restrictions allowed whatsoever by ANY government ‘agency?’
All of a sudden, EVERY gun owner can have a .50 cal mounted Rat Patrol style to protect their abode from the Antifa hordes?
Or a FULL AUTO Tommy Gun sitting in the closet to greet the midnight ‘gremlins?’
(Yeah, I get it. Arms are pretty well defined in almost ALL legal writings, and include cudgels, crossbows and 4 gauge gunwale blunderbusses, but it sure would be a tweak to the Hochuls and Bob “Goes the Weasel” Fergusons’ of the world if the whole thing blew up in their collective faces..)
How do you justify that claim, considering we had, just a decade before, fought a war where *civilians* owned warships, and cannons?
Welcome to the good ol’ USA. Where progressive judges will simply ignore their duties completely and find in favor of the progressive decision, while conservative judges are the ones painted as ‘radical’ and ‘tyrannical’.
Hard to be patriotic when THIS is the sort of state that you’re waving a flag for.
washington supreme court a few yrs. back declared it is legal for politicians to lie, they codified it into law.
look it up.
More accurately, it is not illegal to lie, as pols can neither be prosecuted or sued for lying. But they can be voted out of office.
And this is just one flaw in the “common use” test. Whether we are talking about common use by the People or the military, this test is irrelevant and fundamentally oppositional to “shall not be infringed”. Rights, by their very definition, are absolute. No law which seeks to restrict the ability to exercise a right is Constitutionally permissible. Now, if through that exercise you harm others, then yes, punishment is fitting. Yes, you CAN yell fire in crowded theatre when none exists. We haven’t even contemplated banning the word FIRE. Yet in doing so you can be held accountable for that act and the harm it creates. If you are uncomfortable with banning words or thoughts or religions, then you should be equally uncomfortable with banning arms. And those who seek to ban arms are naught a stones throw from banning the former as well.
Washington courts are less than judicial when it comes to thinking. The AG already has commitments from judges about his gun policies before the policies are put in place.
The Washington Supreme court is also packed. Until these challenges get out of the state there is no hope.
The AG has said that he will put into place anything he wants because the status will stay for years until it gets to a court that reverses them.
What Washington needs is a law that allows damages against the state, and personal damages against the politicians that supported the measures, as well as personal damages against the lower officials that enforce the unconstitutional measures.
That would have to be a state law, which will never pass, as they are immune from federal civil rights laws.
It looks like the Florida ‘Ooops, we didn’t mean it’ gun banners are going to have to pony up about $5000 OUT OF THEIR OWN POCKETS…
So exactly where is it in the 2nd Amendment does it say only the arms approved by the government?
Yes, when the BOR was written they did include things like cannon and even privately owned warships.
As for the AR pattern rifles not being suited to defensive use, then why are they issued to LEO’s and garrison or security troops? Or do these Judges think police or security personnel are offensive combat troops?
No, the ruling is nothing but the opinions of politically motivated activist Judges who have swallowed the narrative of the pro disarmament industry. Never mind the 2nd amendment is very clearly written that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be untouched by any government regulations.
What most of these leftists are upset about is the fact the Constitution is written to limit governmental authority and promote individual freedoms, liberties and responsibilities of the citizens. And yes, with rights do come responsibilities. Just as with choices come rewards and consequences.
Based on this logic, nukes should be permissible for the people, since all of our nation’s nuclear weapons are controlled by the Department of Defense. Hence, nukes are defensive weapons, not offensive.
:-p
If you wish to bear a nuke, more power to ya.
…but you’d better have a pretty strong throwing arm.
OldManinAl,
Your statement about law enforcement carrying AR-15s in their cars is, by far-and-away, the best counter argument to the courts.
Unfortunately, anti-rights courts will simply devise another bogus “argument” to support AR-15 bans even if we somehow dismantle their current justification for upholding bans.
The sad reality is that judges (in civil rights cases) already have a position before the case ever comes to them and their “decision” is nothing more than their attempt to bamboozle the masses into accepting their predetermined position.
The Courts will treat police the same as military, as in the sense of having special privileges to bear arms prohibited to the rest of us. For example, police, as long as it is a departmental request, can purchase newly manufactured full on M-16s and M-4s. The flaw is of course is that the courts are treating the government as the sovereign, and therefore able to do anything it has not prohibited itself from doing, as opposed to the People.
come and take it camel toe Kamala
I get a kick out of Dems that want to kill babies but want to take our guns away that protect them.
Says a lot for humanity.
camel-a can kiss my hump. WILL NOT COMPLY.
The purpose of the courts is to come to the partisan conclusion the people who pu them there want.
When you accept this you’ll realize there is no such thing as faulty reasoning and you’ll stop putting any trust, value or worth on the courts of this country and yes the logical conclusion extends this sentiment to Congress, POTUS and the nation itself.
We’re all just here to be robbed and bullied by the 1% experiencing only occasional and temporary reprieve.
The dirty little secret is that judges are highly political. That’s how they became judges. They were either politically connected for an appointment and/or they ran for office (they’re politicians). Judges will often signal on a high profile case, hoping to get an appointment to higher office.
And that is the crux of the matter.
Judges know they have to tow the poli-rival line, and if they don’t they can be “retired”.
The Truth About the AR-15 In One Brief.
Everything you ever wanted to know about the AR-15 in one brief.
Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses another amicus brief filed in the matter of Snope v. Brown, a challenge to Maryland’s assault weapon ban. This amicus brief, authored by experts in the field, is an excellent roadmap of all the false rumors and fairy tales that are often used to pass legislation to ban these weapons. This memorandum systematically takes apart each and everyone of these arguments.
h ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNLF4KTpbFg
especially read the brief its self … completely debunks the anti-gun lies about the AR-15.
h ttps://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-203/326694/20240923185449707_24-203%20Amicus%20IntlLawEnfEducatorsTrainersAssoc.pdf
A judge said, “if the negroes were american citizens, they would be able to have guns. And carry them where ever they please.”
So judges make all kinds of crazy.anti civil rights statements. They should be removed from office. Just like any anti-civil rights politician.
your quote is inaccurate. what the Dred Scott ruling said is property (slaves) do not have rights, and that if Mr. Scot were not property, he would, as a citizen, be able to keep and bear arms.
Even today, property does not have rights. And slavery still exists in the form of human trafficking.
Some property does have rights. Your pet dog is your property and you are accountable for its actions. but if you abuse or kill it you are breaking the law. which to me gives the dog ,your property, rights. This probably varies by state.
Faulty reasoning? Try malicious misapprehension.
How many times to we have to take these judges to the woodshed, because they constantly refuse to adhere to the Bruen decision. This one will get bounced too
The West Coast is such a messed-up place, no wonder people are leaving it in droves. Washington doesn’t recognize the historical common use of a rifle designed nearly 70 years ago, while California is anxiously awaiting the someday invention of the “Safe Biometric System” to immediately replace everything else on its roster.
There is NOTHING the libs won’t try, is there?
Your constitution supposedly gives americans the right to bear arms. my understanding is those arms were meant to be in defense of the republic. Therefore under your constitution an american citizen should have the right to bear weapons of war. you american arms advocates should discontinue playing the game of ‘assualt weapon’ and common use.
i’m beginning to believe my allies to the east are correct in their assumption that americans are stupid.
Your constitution supposedly gives
No. Our Constitution is naught but a limit upon Government. Our Bill of Rights acknowledges that rights pre-exist government and tells government to keep their hands off.
Yes. Our 2nd Amendment has no limits whatsoever. If only our left would finger that out.
Yes. Americans, or some of us, are stupid. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t they understand?
Good to have you back. 😉
Venza, as Gman noted, you have it backwards. Unlike the rest of the world, our Constitution was written by the People, and it tells the government thus formed what the structure and responsibilities of the government will be. The Bill of Rights tells the government what the People have retained for themselves. Our system was built from the People up, while all other systems were legislated from the government down.
Well said. The truly sad part is even SC justices (Scalia) get it wrong. Rights, or the ability thereof to exercise, are unlimited. To say that the 2nd, like all rights, are limited, is 100% wrong. #10th Amendment.
“Rights, or the ability thereof to exercise, are unlimited“
Interesting, so under the unlimited first amendment, one has the right to defame someone?
Under that unlimited first amendment, does one have the right to threaten another?
In short yes. The right is free speech. The power to use that right is unlimited in any way without hindrance from government. Do you have the right to defame? No. You have the power to do so, but may suffer the consequences. Do you have the right to threaten? No. Same explanation. The nuance betwixt what is a right and what you can do with that right is important. The ability to exercise a right is unlimited.
“Interesting, so under the unlimited first amendment, one has the right to defame someone?
Under that unlimited first amendment, does one have the right to threaten another?”
You don’t understand the right. You conflate it with the conflict intersection of the law.
The right to utter speech as one sees fit or desired is protected under the first amendment, yes, even hate speech and threats and defamation. Its the law that draws a distinction though as to if such speech is ‘harmful’, and makes it not ‘protected’ in a legal sense not necessarily a constitutional sense. So no, people cannot say whatever they want and get first amendment protection for their comments in a legal sense, but when they do utter it their right to do so is protected even if the actual ‘speech words’ may not be. And indeed SCOTUS has ruled as such, basically, that the right to speech is protected even if the words may not be.
“Do you have the right to defame? No. You have the power to do so, but may suffer the consequences“
I like that, I think that moves towards the meaning.
“yes, even hate speech and threats and defamation. Its the law that draws a distinction though as to if such speech is ‘harmful’, and makes it not ‘protected’ in a legal sense”
So that seems to indicate once Congress determined some speech was ‘harmful’ they were perfectly within the scope of their governance to declare it ‘hate speech’ and unlawful.
The big difference here is the ability to exercise versus what happens when you do. Relating 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, the left seeks to ban weapons which are the tools of the 2nd. What then prevents them from banning words, or thoughts, or religions which are the tools of the 1st?
MajorLiar,
So, ONCE AGAIN, you lie (as usual, in a sneaky, underhanded way). YES, you absolute, complete drooling MORON, it is “legal” to defame someone – i.e., there is no, and CAN BE no, constitutional law to prohibit “defamatory” statements, prior to the making thereof. What there CAN be, legally, is “after-the-fact” laws to (i) civilly render a slanderer CIVILLY liable for the PROVABLE CONSEQUENCES of their slander, and (ii) in LIMITED CASES, criiminally prosecute CERTAIN types of slander or defamation, again AFTER the fact, when the subject areas are deemed of particular danger to the pubic in general.
It is NOT illegal to own, or even USE, a gun BEFORE you actually use it (or at least it is not constitutionally illegal – no law prohibiting carry can be constitutional), but you can be civilly and criminally liable for your IMPROPER use of a gun, or a lie. I would say “learn the difference”, but you are clearly too stupid to even understand the difference.
And, YES, I did mean that “no law prohibiting carry can be constitutional”, and I chose my words intentionally. The OWNER of a piece of property has the right to forbid carry on their property (I actually believe in property rights, unlike you Leftist/fascist clowns), but the government has no right to legislate over it . . . “shall not be infringed”.
Seriously, most commentary on “constitutional rights” is stupid, but you argument may be one of the absolute stupidest arguments out there. “Prior restraint” =/= “no consequences” – are you daft, stupid, or a lliar?? (Ah, but I must embrace the healing power of “and”!!)
But governments, being governments, are always seeking to diminish the rights the People reserved to themselves. So it has been, so it always will be. Someone once proposed that “government” is a struggle between there basic forms: democracy, dictatorship, and monarchy. He stated that democracy eventually becomes degraded and falls to dictatorship, and that dictatorship evolves into monarchy. Eventually the People grow tired of the abuses and misgovernment of monarchies, overthrowing them to create democracies.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what’s for dinner and thus exactly why we don’t have one. The left keeps screaming about saving our democracy and yet we are a Constitutional Republic. They WANT us to be a democracy so the wolves will always win.
The Constitution gives no rights to the citizens. It is acknowledgment that God has given the people certain rights and places limits on Government to insure that it doesn’t interfere with them.
“It is acknowledgment that God“
I don’t think the constitution actually mentions God.
The Declaration of Independence gets close with ‘the creator’ language, but there’s certainly no acknowledgment of any divine beings.
MajorIiar,
“The Declaration of Independence gets close with ‘the creator’ language, but there’s CERTAINLY NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANY DIVINE BEINGS (enphasis supplied).”
Every time I find myself thinking, “Welp, looks like MajorLiar FINALLY hit rock bottom in his propagandistic promotion of puerile prevarications, you just grab that damn shovel, don’t you???? NO ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of any Divine Beings in the DoI? Are you stupid, illiterate, an outright liar, or all of the above???
First paragraph, second line, “. . . to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them . . . ” Nope, certainly no mention of a “Divine Being” THERE!!!
In the second paragraph, I believe you grudgingly acknowledged the use of “the Creator” – but apparently, to you, that doesn’t constitute an acknowledgement of a “Divine Being”. While I acknowledge that contemporary English usage at the time resulted in capitalizations of words that did not necessarily imply the Divine, I would say that, given the EXPLICIT use of “Nature’s God” in the FIRST DAMN SENTENCE is a pretty convincing nod to the existence of a divine being.
And then, of course, we CLOSE with “and appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World”. No, once again, absolutely NO indication of a Divine Being in that reference.
Don’t know whether to blame your historical ignorance, your absurdist political beliefs/narratives, your innate anti-Americanism, your hatred of Western Civilization, your arrogant denial of any Divine Being (and resulting antipathy to religion in general and Judaism and Christianity in particular), your obviously crappy public education, or it’s simply a toxic mix of all of the above, but the result is both historical stupidity AND clownish, illiterate revisionism. NICE JOB, quarter-wit!!!!
does G in Gman must stand for gatekeeper
does G in Gman stand for gatekeeper. learning has occurred for me from this comment thread
If this ruling is valid, why do so many police in Washington State as well as all over the country carry AR-15 “patrol rifles” in their police cars? Are these assault rifle toting cops all mass shooters who are in the prowl to commit their next massacre?
According to the latest available FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, if you are killed with a rifle of any type, you were more likely to have been shot by a cop rather than a gang banger or some random transmission in transition.
Looks like this has a ways to go before the 9th circuit but good to see this level of stupid reasoning in the pipeline.
There is a good chance that the Ninth will never get to decide the issue, SCOTUS having taken the Md. AR ban case (Snopes v. Maryland). Yes, the issue is there already in the Ninth on appeal, but it is known for holding cases once the Supremes take a case. Avoids future embarrassment?
I would like to think the first AWB case will end the issue but I have a sinking feeling it will take a few to get past all the hairsplitting attempts at exceptions or inappropriate application of public balance that will be attempted.
SAFE,
No, the anti-gun zealots of the Left have already made their “game plan” manifest, just with their “reactions” to Heller and Bruen, and if you think they won’t follow it for the first SCOTUS decision to strike down an AWB, I’ve got some oceanfront property in New Mexico I’d like to sell you.
They will KEEP passing laws, like they have with Heller and Bruen, that CLEARLY violate the holdings in those cases, but change a few words, a little language, while keeping the same (unconstitutional) intent, and make us litigate those, too. Lawfare, for the fascist Leftoids, is simply politics by another means. You can bet your sweet @$$ that a flat, outright holding by SCOTUS that it is unconstitutional to ban ill-defined (and even more poorly understood, by the drafters thereof) “laws” banning categories of guns will continue marching along. Frankly, SCOTUS screwed us, and themselves, with that ABSURD (and arguably moot, at the time of the hearings and decision) Miller ruling (although the ONLY part of Miller the idiot Leftists focus on is the language about banning certain guns as being “inherently dangerous” and “not in common use by the military” (when they in fact WERE in common use by the military), but IGNORE the fact that an exlicit statement in Miller was the the 2A expressly DID protect the right to “keep and bear” arms COMMONLY USED BY THE MILITARY!!! Kinda makes that whole “weapons of war” bullshit sound stupid, dunnit????
Working for state government I am used to stupid, the anti gun (and other activists looking to limit other civil rights) may have stupid arguments (as you outlined very well) but maliciousness is the background not stupidity. The worst I can wish upon them is they are successful in their objectives and get to live in the world it creates.
camel-a can kiss my hump. WILL NOT COMPLY.
“Instead, the court ruled that common semi-automatic rifles owned by millions of lawful Americans for self-defense and other purposes are better suited for offensive combat.” It is a long, historically recognized and well documented fact, that the best defense is a good offense.
“However, what authority exists tends to weigh against Plaintiffs’ challenge. SHB 1240 is a prohibition on the manufacture, import, distribution, or sale of a weapon the legislature deemed dangerous.” Simple logic would dictate that an object deemed to not be dangerous, would be useless for self defense. Therefore the state is suggesting that self defense is only legal if no weapons are involved.
I guess police officers are not defending themselves with AR rifles they are attacking instead.
Remembering that fence sitting article on here a few months ago… I’ll say it again, if you believe that you have any sort of 2A rights whatsoever, there is only one choice in this election. The Democrats left to their own devices do not believe that you have any right whatsoever and will do anything they can to strip you of that right. Not liking Trump because he’s bombastic is not an excuse to let these people take over our country.
“if you believe that you have any sort of 2A rights whatsoever, there is only one choice in this election“
You are absolutely correct:
“Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court because that’s another system. Because a lot of times by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures. I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida, he had a lot of [firearms], they saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time. So, you could do exactly what you said but take the guns first, go through due process second.”
-President Donald J. Trump, February 28, 2018
once again Miner49er, you miss the context and even in your own Trump quote in your fit of TDS mental illness.
Learn what context means.
MajorLiar,
Once again, you are a prevaricating propponent of terminological inexactitudes. Yes, Trump can clearly be said NOT to be a reliable champion of the 2A OR due process, and I have explicitly acknowledged such, in comments responding to YOUR inane bleatings, on this very forum. But the implication of your (idiotic) statement is that, of the TWO choices we are presented with, Trump is the worse of the two for defense of the RKBA, which is so absurd on its face that I can clearly understand why even a drooling idiot like you would hesitate to state it explicitly. On the 2A (and on the 1A, and on the 4A, and on the 10A) Trump, inadequate as he is, is MAGNITUDES better than Kamal-toe the Ho and Tampon Timmy “stolen valor” Walz, the jazz hands fat man, and only a COMPLETE fool, or a lying partisan propagandist (so, we include you in BOTH categories!!) would even imply to the contrary. We know you give zero sh*ts about such unimportant things as “rights” if they happen to make it difficult to implement your authoritarian Leftist utopia, but outright LYING about it is a bad look, MajorIdiot.
The Ar15 is no a commonly owned firerarm? “the AR-15 and similar semi-automatics dubbed Modern Sporting Rifles by the NSSF, account for an estimated 19.8 million, lending concrete numbers to the argument that such guns are in common use. ”
https://www.guns.com/news/2020/11/17/data-us-has-434-million-guns-20m-ars-150m-mags
“…lending concrete numbers to the argument that such guns are in common use. ”
“common use” is the conflict. Courts are now looking at “common use” to mean only actual defensive gun uses (which we all know do not happen), not ownership. If you do not deploy a firearm for self-defense, you are not “using” it for its purpose, thus such use is not “common”/ordinary use.
Hund works for TTAG…his job is to provoke comments. Employee of the month today…
Shall not be infringed, either live as an American or die as a traitor.
“Here, the State Defendants offer a number of proposed analogues to demonstrate that SHB 1240 is within this Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulations,”
With Rahimi, the SC destroyed its own Bruen deciison. The court held that alalogs of gun controls in history do not need to be direct; close enough will do.
The “military use” angle is becoming more attractive as a means to defeat the Second Amendment. Is any plaintiff strongly arguing that the history of the Second Amendment is grounded in having local militias, and weapons suitable for military use?
Comments are closed.