User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/3/2016 4:37:10 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Only watched the first minute or so, but what I saw were a mix of Stoner 63's and M16A1's. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LoneWolf545:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
From another member's separate thread: Declassified footage of a SEAL unit in Nam, most of them appear to be carrying belt fed 249's or other full auto guns. Given the nature of their individual/small unit work seems like it could further support the cause. Wes Only watched the first minute or so, but what I saw were a mix of Stoner 63's and M16A1's. Liked the old school flashlight mount. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/6/2016 10:35:05 AM EDT
[#2]
Bump because this thread needs to be seen everyday
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2016 9:20:21 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Soonershooter12:
Bump because this thread needs to be seen everyday +1 |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 2:44:26 AM EDT
[#4]
http://www.wsj.com/articles/appeals-court-upholds-concealed-carry-restrictions-1465483920
Well, they basically screwed themselves now. If you cant carry concealed, you MUST be allowed to open carry... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:00:31 AM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:08:58 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:11:11 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xxprince:
 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xxprince:
maximum effort! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:19:19 AM EDT
[#8]
Now that is a proper daily bump!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:20:17 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xxprince:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xxprince:
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:25:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
maximum effort! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By xxprince:
maximum effort! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:35:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Repairman_Jack:
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1372326351668424334.gif Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Repairman_Jack:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By xxprince:
maximum effort! https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1372326351668424334.gif good idea! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:38:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: maximum effort! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By xxprince: maximum effort! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:43:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: NoloContendere]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glockie-Talkie:
Page 6, missing a second " after terrify Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glockie-Talkie:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By xxprince:
maximum effort! lol. ban me! eta: seriously though... I appreciate the typo-pointing-out. Unfortunately, you can't unfile and refile due to a typo. Did you have any comments to the actual legal reasoning or did you simply want to point out a mistake I made? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 9:49:43 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: lol. ban me! eta: seriously though... I appreciate the typo-pointing-out. Unfortunately, you can't unfile and refile due to a typo. Did you have any comments to the actual legal reasoning or did you simply want to point out a mistake I made? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By Glockie-Talkie: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By xxprince: maximum effort! lol. ban me! eta: seriously though... I appreciate the typo-pointing-out. Unfortunately, you can't unfile and refile due to a typo. Did you have any comments to the actual legal reasoning or did you simply want to point out a mistake I made? Just finished reading, my patent law experience would be of little help here. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:07:17 AM EDT
[#15]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:55:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: November5]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
good idea! Arfcom needs to up the size limit for avatars 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 10:58:14 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
good idea! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By Repairman_Jack:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By xxprince:
maximum effort! https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/1372326351668424334.gif good idea! Lol! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 11:41:49 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryI love you |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 11:46:07 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
I love you Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
I love you No homo? or just a little homo?? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 12:16:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Great work.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/10/2016 1:17:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Looks good, makes sense, but this is the court. I'm in your corner.
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 1:45:22 PM EDT
[#22]
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 2:00:21 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/ Meh. Could have done worse by throwing a brick at the liquor wall and lighting a match. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 2:38:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryGood stuff! A side comment ...Your footnote that starts on Pg4 and finishes on Pg5 seems improperly formatted. I would have probably put it all on pg4 and moved the body onto the next page but I have no idea what the legal standard is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2016 4:59:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryLooking forward to hearing this. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/13/2016 1:45:19 AM EDT
[#26]
 finally got caught up.
I like it, I like it a lot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 5:24:09 PM EDT
[#27]
I had a chance to briefly speak with Allen West this afternoon. Elevator pitch ready, it went approximately like this:
<Typical pleasantries and greetings> Felrom: Are you aware of the ongoing lawsuits of Hollis v Lynch and Watson v Lynch? AW: No, tell me about them. F: They challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, the sixty-eight GCA and the Hughes Amendment. AW: *Nods* F: NRA members are looking for strong action from the board in support of these lawsuits, and we're not seeing it. AW: Okay. F: Stephen Stamboulieh, he's a lawyer out of Mississippi, he's leading the lawsuits and he's running for the board next year. AW: Okay, well we have a board get together next month, and I'm going to read up on this. F: Stephen Stamboulieh is the lawyer. AW: Thanks. <Exiting pleasantries> I only had about 20 seconds, the room was very crowded, he was about to go give a speech, and I have crushing social anxiety. Hopefully he remembers.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 5:48:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Good job, felrom.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 6:32:46 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By parshooter:
Good job, felrom.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 6:36:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By felrom: I had a chance to briefly speak with Allen West this afternoon. Elevator pitch ready, it went approximately like this: <Typical pleasantries and greetings> Felrom: Are you aware of the ongoing lawsuits of Hollis v Lynch and Watson v Lynch? AW: No, tell me about them. F: They challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, the sixty-eight GCA and the Hughes Amendment. AW: *Nods* F: NRA members are looking for strong action from the board in support of these lawsuits, and we're not seeing it. AW: Okay. F: Stephen Stamboulieh, he's a lawyer out of Mississippi, he's leading the lawsuits and he's running for the board next year. AW: Okay, well we have a board get together next month, and I'm going to read up on this. F: Stephen Stamboulieh is the lawyer. AW: Thanks. <Exiting pleasantries> I only had about 20 seconds, the room was very crowded, he was about to go give a speech, and I have crushing social anxiety. Hopefully he remembers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 6:46:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By felrom:
I had a chance to briefly speak with Allen West this afternoon. Elevator pitch ready, it went approximately like this: <Typical pleasantries and greetings> Felrom: Are you aware of the ongoing lawsuits of Hollis v Lynch and Watson v Lynch? AW: No, tell me about them. F: They challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, the sixty-eight GCA and the Hughes Amendment. AW: *Nods* F: NRA members are looking for strong action from the board in support of these lawsuits, and we're not seeing it. AW: Okay. F: Stephen Stamboulieh, he's a lawyer out of Mississippi, he's leading the lawsuits and he's running for the board next year. AW: Okay, well we have a board get together next month, and I'm going to read up on this. F: Stephen Stamboulieh is the lawyer. AW: Thanks. <Exiting pleasantries> I only had about 20 seconds, the room was very crowded, he was about to go give a speech, and I have crushing social anxiety.
Hopefully he remembers.
Nice! Now email him a reminder and links to Nolo's website with the briefs. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 10:11:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By parshooter:
Good job, felrom.
THIS
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 10:21:29 PM EDT
[#33]
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 10:56:18 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I will cite to you in my petition. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 11:17:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSpaniard]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I will cite to you in my petition. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I will cite to you in my petition. Hard words of truth are better than hollow ones of encouragement. I am dead serious about my advice not to seek certiorari. I can put you in touch with Alan Gura if you would like him to offer his thoughts on the matter, which I am certain parallel my own. To be clear, I do not think a cert. grant is likely, but seeking one can only do harm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 11:22:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Gura says machineguns aren't protected. Why would I ask his advice?
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 11:23:28 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Hard words of truth are better than hollow ones of encouragement. I am dead serious about my advice not to seek certiorari. I can put you in touch with Alan Gura if you would like him to offer his thoughts on the matter, which I am certain parallel my own. To be clear, I do not think a cert. grant is likely, but seeking one can only do harm. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller. Thanks for the words of encouragement. I will cite to you in my petition. Hard words of truth are better than hollow ones of encouragement. I am dead serious about my advice not to seek certiorari. I can put you in touch with Alan Gura if you would like him to offer his thoughts on the matter, which I am certain parallel my own. To be clear, I do not think a cert. grant is likely, but seeking one can only do harm. Slow night over on Subguns, eh? |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 11:33:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSpaniard]
[#38]
Gura's careful, nuanced, and supportable arguments persuaded bare 5-4 majorities to strike down absolute bans on handguns and operable long guns. What do you think your arguments would do with an 8-justice Court that is missing Scalia, and with four justices who want to overrule Heller? The best you can hope for (assuming the unlikely event of a cert. grant) is a 4-4 affirmance. But given Anthony Kennedy's index-finger-to-the-wind judicial philosophy (and current events, which always are sure to sway him) and the Chief's emphasis on judicial minimalism---not to mention the clear statements in Heller re: machine guns, which everyone in the Heller majority signed onto---I think you would do a hell of a lot worse than 4-4.
What's your SCOTUS head count? Which five justices will you win over? |
|
|
UT, USA
|
Posted: 6/14/2016 11:51:14 PM EDT
[#39]
If it were me, my tactic would be to try to find a way to drag it out and make it take as long as possible, at least until we fill Scalia's seat. And if Hillary is the one to make the appointment, we will have worse things to worry about than never being able to legally buy new machine guns.
The best possible scenario for this case would be a Trump win, followed by replacing Scalia (and hopefully Ginsburg) with some originalists before it reaches SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 9:44:51 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Gura's careful, nuanced, and supportable arguments persuaded bare 5-4 majorities to strike down absolute bans on handguns and operable long guns. What do you think your arguments would do with an 8-justice Court that is missing Scalia, and with four justices who want to overrule Heller? The best you can hope for (assuming the unlikely event of a cert. grant) is a 4-4 affirmance. But given Anthony Kennedy's index-finger-to-the-wind judicial philosophy (and current events, which always are sure to sway him) and the Chief's emphasis on judicial minimalism---not to mention the clear statements in Heller re: machine guns, which everyone in the Heller majority signed onto---I think you would do a hell of a lot worse than 4-4. What's your SCOTUS head count? Which five justices will you win over? Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 10:01:26 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Gura's careful, nuanced, and supportable arguments persuaded bare 5-4 majorities to strike down absolute bans on handguns and operable long guns. What do you think your arguments would do with an 8-justice Court that is missing Scalia, and with four justices who want to overrule Heller? The best you can hope for (assuming the unlikely event of a cert. grant) is a 4-4 affirmance. But given Anthony Kennedy's index-finger-to-the-wind judicial philosophy (and current events, which always are sure to sway him) and the Chief's emphasis on judicial minimalism---not to mention the clear statements in Heller re: machine guns, which everyone in the Heller majority signed onto---I think you would do a hell of a lot worse than 4-4. What's your SCOTUS head count? Which five justices will you win over? Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? If the New Orleans appeal came back in our favor would it help with the PA case? |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 1:01:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Gura's careful, nuanced, and supportable arguments persuaded bare 5-4 majorities to strike down absolute bans on handguns and operable long guns. What do you think your arguments would do with an 8-justice Court that is missing Scalia, and with four justices who want to overrule Heller? The best you can hope for (assuming the unlikely event of a cert. grant) is a 4-4 affirmance. But given Anthony Kennedy's index-finger-to-the-wind judicial philosophy (and current events, which always are sure to sway him) and the Chief's emphasis on judicial minimalism---not to mention the clear statements in Heller re: machine guns, which everyone in the Heller majority signed onto---I think you would do a hell of a lot worse than 4-4. What's your SCOTUS head count? Which five justices will you win over? Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? That's weak. You're telling me that you're willing to do podcast interviews and a Reddit AMA thread, and maintain a 213-page GD thread dedicated to discussing the case, but you are unwilling to tell me who your five justices are? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 1:34:14 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
That's weak. You're telling me that you're willing to do podcast interviews and a Reddit AMA thread, and maintain a 213-page GD thread dedicated to discussing the case, but you are unwilling to tell me who your five justices are? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Gura's careful, nuanced, and supportable arguments persuaded bare 5-4 majorities to strike down absolute bans on handguns and operable long guns. What do you think your arguments would do with an 8-justice Court that is missing Scalia, and with four justices who want to overrule Heller? The best you can hope for (assuming the unlikely event of a cert. grant) is a 4-4 affirmance. But given Anthony Kennedy's index-finger-to-the-wind judicial philosophy (and current events, which always are sure to sway him) and the Chief's emphasis on judicial minimalism---not to mention the clear statements in Heller re: machine guns, which everyone in the Heller majority signed onto---I think you would do a hell of a lot worse than 4-4. What's your SCOTUS head count? Which five justices will you win over? Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? That's weak. You're telling me that you're willing to do podcast interviews and a Reddit AMA thread, and maintain a 213-page GD thread dedicated to discussing the case, but you are unwilling to tell me who your five justices are? There's is literally no possibility that there will be 8 on the court when this case is heard, if ever, unless another justice dies or rerires. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 1:53:24 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller. Ah. The DoJ mole has reappeared. 
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 2:01:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSpaniard]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Ah. The DoJ mole has reappeared. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller. Ah. The DoJ mole has reappeared. So not jumping on the bandwagon makes me a DOJ mole? How about an alternative theory: I am a reasonably well informed RKBA supporter who, like any honest lawyer, can read the tea leaves. Not a single federal court has struck down an AWB, and the en banc Fourth Circuit is fixing to reverse a divided panel opinion that didn't even strike one down, but merely held strict scrutiny should be applied on remand. If the Supreme Court hasn't even yet squarely held that the RKBA includes a right to carry outside the home, and the lower federal courts have uniformly rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects semi-auto "assault weapons," who in their right mind would think that now is the time to claim a right to machine guns? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 2:05:36 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? Because everyone knows lawyers can't internet. 
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 2:06:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheSpaniard]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
There's is literally no possibility that there will be 8 on the court when this case is heard, if ever, unless another justice dies or rerires. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Gura's careful, nuanced, and supportable arguments persuaded bare 5-4 majorities to strike down absolute bans on handguns and operable long guns. What do you think your arguments would do with an 8-justice Court that is missing Scalia, and with four justices who want to overrule Heller? The best you can hope for (assuming the unlikely event of a cert. grant) is a 4-4 affirmance. But given Anthony Kennedy's index-finger-to-the-wind judicial philosophy (and current events, which always are sure to sway him) and the Chief's emphasis on judicial minimalism---not to mention the clear statements in Heller re: machine guns, which everyone in the Heller majority signed onto---I think you would do a hell of a lot worse than 4-4. What's your SCOTUS head count? Which five justices will you win over? Why would I discuss strategy on an open forum? That's weak. You're telling me that you're willing to do podcast interviews and a Reddit AMA thread, and maintain a 213-page GD thread dedicated to discussing the case, but you are unwilling to tell me who your five justices are? There's is literally no possibility that there will be 8 on the court when this case is heard, if ever, unless another justice dies or rerires. Agreed. So let's assume it's Trump who wins, and he actually picks someone from his list (it is a good list, we have to give him credit for that). So that means Nolo is counting to five as follows: Chief, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Trump's pick. Everyone aside from the newest justice signed an opinion clearly stating---despite Nolo's best efforts to find some ambiguity---that machine guns, and M-16s in particular, are not protected arms. That means Nolo isn't really counting to five. At best, he's counting to one. In addition, even ignoring Heller's clear statements regarding machine guns and M-16s, no lawyer in his right mind would believe that Kennedy and the Chief would hold that there is a Second Amendment right to a machine gun. And certainly not when the Court has repeatedly been asked---and has repeatedly declined---to decide whether the Second Amendment protects carry outside the home or semi-auto "assault weapons." |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 2:14:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
So not jumping on the bandwagon makes me a DOJ mole? How about an alternative theory: I am a reasonably well informed RKBA supporter who, like any honest lawyer, can read the tea leaves. Not a single federal court has struck down an AWB, and the en banc Fourth Circuit is fixing to reverse a divided panel opinion that didn't even strike one down, but merely held strict scrutiny should be applied on remand. If the Supreme Court hasn't even yet squarely held that the RKBA includes a right to carry outside the home, and the lower federal courts have uniformly rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects semi-auto "assault weapons," who in their right mind would think that now is the time to claim a right to machine guns? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller. Ah. The DoJ mole has reappeared. So not jumping on the bandwagon makes me a DOJ mole? How about an alternative theory: I am a reasonably well informed RKBA supporter who, like any honest lawyer, can read the tea leaves. Not a single federal court has struck down an AWB, and the en banc Fourth Circuit is fixing to reverse a divided panel opinion that didn't even strike one down, but merely held strict scrutiny should be applied on remand. If the Supreme Court hasn't even yet squarely held that the RKBA includes a right to carry outside the home, and the lower federal courts have uniformly rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects semi-auto "assault weapons," who in their right mind would think that now is the time to claim a right to machine guns? Sometimes the best approach is to go for the jugular. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 2:43:25 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Sometimes the best approach is to go for the jugular. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By TheSpaniard:
The en banc petition has literally zero chance of being granted. When it is denied, I hope Nolo has the good sense not to file a cert. petition. The only thing that could come of Supreme Court review would be affirmance and a chance for the Court, in the absence of Heller's author, to make some bad law on the common use test or, worse, outright recede from Heller. Ah. The DoJ mole has reappeared. So not jumping on the bandwagon makes me a DOJ mole? How about an alternative theory: I am a reasonably well informed RKBA supporter who, like any honest lawyer, can read the tea leaves. Not a single federal court has struck down an AWB, and the en banc Fourth Circuit is fixing to reverse a divided panel opinion that didn't even strike one down, but merely held strict scrutiny should be applied on remand. If the Supreme Court hasn't even yet squarely held that the RKBA includes a right to carry outside the home, and the lower federal courts have uniformly rejected claims that the Second Amendment protects semi-auto "assault weapons," who in their right mind would think that now is the time to claim a right to machine guns? Sometimes the best approach is to go for the jugular. Quite possible that Nolo's tea leaf reading ability is better as well. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 6/15/2016 10:51:09 PM EDT
[#50]
I went to an unaccredited law school and I have failed the bar exam multiple times, and even I know your reasoning is flawed. (Of coarse none of this is legal advice, for legal advice consult a lawyer. :)
Anyway, I read Heller as absolutely protecting arms in common use. The AR15 is in common use as it's the most common type of rifle in the US, and the M16 would be were it not banned 'virtually' by the Hughes Amendment way back in 1986. That said, a clear reading of Heller and McDonald absolutely does protect weapons in common use that are not dangerous or usual. Given the commentary that we have heard on various government law enforcement agencies demanding to use M16's themselves for personal protection, the arms in question hardly are excluded as dangerous or unusual. And of coarse they would be in common use except for the ban mentioned above. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that the M16 would be a protected arm under Heller. Give conservative judges a chance, and they might surprise you. They follow the law. SCOTUS just protected stun guns as being in common use, and there are just as many of those as machine guns, more or less. Therefore even if we don't take into the account the chilling effect of the 1986 ban, the machine gun would be in common use based on pure numbers. That said, Nolo is smart enough not to discuss strategy on an open forum. Nolo knows what he is doing. In Nolo we trust! So I have one question for you. Do you think the Constitution protects an individual right to possess a machine gun? I suspect your answer will tell us much about your intentions. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
