User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 2:37:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Double-fuck Highland Park. Meanwhile, every surrounding suburb chose 2nd Amendment freedom. Even the liberal oasis of Evanston, where I live, chose NOT to ban them... even though it was proposed and had wide support... even though the Mayor was a member of MAIG... even though Moms Demand Anal showed up at the City Hall hearing, shouting propaganda and passionate nonsense. The view of the City Council was that they would not (to use their exact words) ban a gun simply on the basis of its appearance. Our Chief of Police was the wise man who the Council listened to before making this decision. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
After the passage of the CCW law, the local municipalities had 10 days to enact any restrictions on AWB. If HP succeeded in doing so in the allotted time, then this was a waste of litigation. I don't care as long as handgun pre-emption is still on the table. and fuck highland park. that suburb sucks anyway. Double-fuck Highland Park. Meanwhile, every surrounding suburb chose 2nd Amendment freedom. Even the liberal oasis of Evanston, where I live, chose NOT to ban them... even though it was proposed and had wide support... even though the Mayor was a member of MAIG... even though Moms Demand Anal showed up at the City Hall hearing, shouting propaganda and passionate nonsense. The view of the City Council was that they would not (to use their exact words) ban a gun simply on the basis of its appearance. Our Chief of Police was the wise man who the Council listened to before making this decision. I thought evanston had an AWB? That's good that they don't then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 2:53:49 PM EDT
[#2]
It's pretty well established around here that HP is THAT north shore suburb that has very few redeemable qualities. They also ban pistol mags over a certain capacity despite state preemption. They are a shithole of a suburb.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 2:54:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's pretty well established around here that HP is THAT north shore suburb that has very few redeemable qualities. They also ban pistol mags over a certain capacity despite state preemption. They are a shithole of a suburb. I mean, it's a very nice and wealthy suburb. There gun laws are just a joke. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:08:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean, it's a very nice and wealthy suburb. There gun laws are just a joke. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's pretty well established around here that HP is THAT north shore suburb that has very few redeemable qualities. They also ban pistol mags over a certain capacity despite state preemption. They are a shithole of a suburb. I mean, it's a very nice and wealthy suburb. There gun laws are just a joke. Sure, but the people and local government are ridiculous. Like every negative quality associated with HOA's wrapped into an entire town. There's plenty of other wealthy suburbs that don't have the amount of bullshit associated with HP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:11:03 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, but the people and local government are ridiculous. Like every negative quality associated with HOA's wrapped into an entire town. There's plenty of other wealthy suburbs that don't have the amount of bullshit associated with HP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's pretty well established around here that HP is THAT north shore suburb that has very few redeemable qualities. They also ban pistol mags over a certain capacity despite state preemption. They are a shithole of a suburb. I mean, it's a very nice and wealthy suburb. There gun laws are just a joke. Sure, but the people and local government are ridiculous. Like every negative quality associated with HOA's wrapped into an entire town. There's plenty of other wealthy suburbs that don't have the amount of bullshit associated with HP. Very true. It's kind of funny that my CCL class teacher lived in highland park and has to keep his "assault weapon" in a locker at the indoor range he goes to in another town where it's legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:13:07 PM EDT
[#6]
In the interim, get a lever-action 45-70
 That way it won't be as scary when you blow their head clean off...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:14:43 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They have consistently rejected every 2A case since McDonald. They won't take this one. P.S. You have a Pit Thread to attend. Don't run out the clock. 
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_130/1652542_AlexanderA__get_your_marxist_self_in_here_.html Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I doubt if the Supreme Court would take the case. They have consistently rejected every 2A case since McDonald. They won't take this one. P.S. You have a Pit Thread to attend. Don't run out the clock.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_130/1652542_AlexanderA__get_your_marxist_self_in_here_.html Likely they will take it if they get a conflict at the appeals level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:17:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Now why does recent so called victories in the Supreme Court knock this out? Anyone? Not sure what you are saying. Neither Heller nor McDonald determined the status of large capacity mags or EBRs. With good reason, you form a solid base one argument at a time, not by arguing everything at once. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:50:19 PM EDT
[#9]
The facts surrounding ARs make a sound argument for them, as self defense weapons.
Low recoil makes them easy to use by almost everyone. Likewise for adjustable length of pull on carbine models. Likewise light weight. Lack of barrier penetration makes them comparatively safe in urban areas. Attachment points for lights/advanced optics. Etc., etc. Not to mention that "in common usage" thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 3:53:43 PM EDT
[#10]
The court did not consider the USSC holding in Miller - guns can be taxed (not banned) if they do NOT have a suitable militia purpose, according to Miller. Ergo, guns that DO have a suitable militia purpose may NOT be taxed (let alone banned). This appellate decision is
 out of . Majority judges should be visited with peaceful protests.
Like those upstanding civil rights protesters in Baltimore... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:20:35 PM EDT
[#11]
See people owner why I'm really pessimistic about our chances of Nolo's cases succeeding in any meaningful capacity. This is exactly why. They will concoct any nonsense to uphold bans on these sorts of things.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:30:19 PM EDT
[#12]
this is really great news for people in ban states...
guess we can ban certain types of speech or religions because it about feelings seriously, this may mean that the scotus will look at us poor people in the ban states |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:43:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See people owner why I'm really pessimistic about our chances of Nolo's cases succeeding in any meaningful capacity. This is exactly why. They will concoct any nonsense to uphold bans on these sorts of things. Well then, I guess the courts will no longer be legitimate then, if they won't uphold the rulings of higher courts. I guess that's just another box to put aside then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:50:47 PM EDT
[#14]
What standard of scrutiny is muh feels?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/28/2015 4:53:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well then, I guess the courts will no longer be legitimate then, if they won't uphold the rulings of higher courts. I guess that's just another box to put aside then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
See people owner why I'm really pessimistic about our chances of Nolo's cases succeeding in any meaningful capacity. This is exactly why. They will concoct any nonsense to uphold bans on these sorts of things. Well then, I guess the courts will no longer be legitimate then, if they won't uphold the rulings of higher courts. I guess that's just another box to put aside then. Take a gander at Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jackson-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco/ The issue is nearly identical to the issue squarely addressed by Heller (requirement that handguns be disabled or locked up while in the home). Still the United States District Court and the 9th Circuit flouted that very basic holding. The Petition is written by perhaps the best appellate lawyer in the nation. He practically begs SCOTUS to take the case to send a message to the lower courts to stop ignoring the clear SCOTUS precedent. You will note from the SCOTUSBlog page that it has been listed for several different conferences. That is called a re-list and means that four of the nine Justices wouldn't agree to take the case, but that one or more Justices wanted it bumped to see if they could get four votes to take the case. Like every other 2A petition since McDonald I am betting this one dies shortly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 9:38:37 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I doubt if the Supreme Court would take the case. There are quite a number of identical cases brewing, one in CT, one in NY, one in Maryland, and I don't know what others there are. All it takes is ONE of these lawsuits to win and contradict what the other rulings are saying for the Supreme Court to get involved. The Attorneys General of twenty three states and a pro-gun Congress will see to it. If the Supreme Court hears it, we will win, plain and simple. These AW bans are almost a word for word clone of the DC vs Heller ban the SC already struck down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 10:30:02 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Upheld because... Feelings Quote HistoryQuoted:
Upheld because... Feelings If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety... If a ban on semi- automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit. And while a different court, and a different judge, the irony is thick in the questions from the oral arguments yesterday on same sex marriage: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: But the problem is that even under a rational basis standard, do we accept a feeling? I mean, why is -- why as -- and I think Justice Kagan put the argument quite clearly, with something as fundamental as marriage, why would that feeling, which doesn't make any logical sense, control our decisionmaking? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 11:21:38 AM EDT
[#18]
The idiots need to learn what a sub-machine gun is, taken directly from the decision (just one of many mistakes):
"(The Tommy gun is a machine gun, as defined by 18 U.S.C. §921(23) and 26 U.S.C. §5845(b), and generally forbidden by 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(4), because it fires multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger; like the Uzi it is called a “submachine gun” to indicate that it is smaller and more mobile than other machine guns. The AK-47 and AR-15 (M16) rifles in military use also are submachine guns, though civilian versions are restricted to semi-automatic fire.)" These are the clueless assholes determining gun laws. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 8:25:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm glad you support gun bans Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OP what is the mood on DU? 
I'm glad you support gun bans I support bans. Just not the kind involving guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 8:38:09 PM EDT
[#20]
That will surely convince a potential terrorist or criminal not to use a gun there..........
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Upheld because... Feelings Quote HistoryQuoted:
Upheld because... Feelings If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety... If a ban on semi- automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 8:41:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Move to a free state? Like NY? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 8:52:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Move to a free state? Says the guy from NY.
This isn't a state law. It is a village of less than 30,000. The fight isn't over yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2015 8:55:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Says the guy from NY.
This isn't a state law. It is a village of less than 30,000. The fight isn't over yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Move to a free state? Says the guy from NY.
This isn't a state law. It is a village of less than 30,000. The fight isn't over yet. You guys are slow. That's the point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 12:55:55 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The shitty part of this is that the Judge in Nolo's case can use this as persuasive authority and assert if the semi-auto version of the M-16 is deemed to be "dangerous and unusual" then certainly the full-auto version would fall within that category.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
But the new ruling by the federal appeals court cited those Supreme Court decisions while also maintaining long-standing prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.” which isn't defined, as Nolo has brought up in his case. The shitty part of this is that the Judge in Nolo's case can use this as persuasive authority and assert if the semi-auto version of the M-16 is deemed to be "dangerous and unusual" then certainly the full-auto version would fall within that category. Joint appeal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 6:49:16 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Joint appeal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
But the new ruling by the federal appeals court cited those Supreme Court decisions while also maintaining long-standing prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons.” which isn't defined, as Nolo has brought up in his case. The shitty part of this is that the Judge in Nolo's case can use this as persuasive authority and assert if the semi-auto version of the M-16 is deemed to be "dangerous and unusual" then certainly the full-auto version would fall within that category. Joint appeal? Different issues, vastly different posture, and no way to procedurally combine them at this stage. The Illinois case is way more advanced. The appellant's can ask the 7th Circuit for en banc review but failing that they have 90 days to file a petition for certiorari with SCOTUS (although the Justices routinely grant a brief extension on application -- I have twice gotten extensions of 30 days without any issue). Nolo's case doesn't even have a decision from the trial court yet. Any appeal has to run through the 5th Circuit which could take a year or more to get a decision. SCOTUS can consolidate cases but they only do so when the issues are substantially similar and when the petitions for certiorari are filed around the same time. An example of that are the various gay marriage cases that were all granted at the same conference. The Illinois case and Nolo case would never be consolidated for the fact that the petitions for certiorari will never be filed around the same time and they represent very different issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 6:55:16 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I never thought I'd see feels used as a legal premise. These days, I expect it to be argument #1. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Upheld because... Feelings If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety... If a ban on semi- automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit. I never thought I'd see feels used as a legal premise. These days, I expect it to be argument #1. Fucking liberals can't even fathom logical consistency or applying their reasoning equally across their world view. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:05:47 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, no shit. If that is the case then what if banning gay marriage makes the majority of people feel more special? Then is that a substantial benefit? Fucking liberals can't even fathom logical consistency or applying their reasoning equally across their world view.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Upheld because... Feelings If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety... If a ban on semi- automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit. I never thought I'd see feels used as a legal premise. These days, I expect it to be argument #1. Fucking liberals can't even fathom logical consistency or applying their reasoning equally across their world view.
The sad thing is that Easterbrook is not considered a liberal. He was a potential Bush II nominee for SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:06:02 AM EDT
[#28]
We really don't have "rights" if they can be modified by elected officials or judges.
Rights can not be taken away, regulated in any way the government desires, or banned in certain locations. You can't be told where, when, why, or what kind. To do so, gives the government the authority to do whatever it wants. "Reasonable regulation" turn into infringement. So don't be swayed. When it comes down to it, you have privileges, not rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:08:02 AM EDT
[#29]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:17:14 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean, it's a very nice and wealthy suburb. There gun laws are just a joke. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's pretty well established around here that HP is THAT north shore suburb that has very few redeemable qualities. They also ban pistol mags over a certain capacity despite state preemption. They are a shithole of a suburb. I mean, it's a very nice and wealthy suburb. There gun laws are just a joke. If this is the same HP that Ft. Sheridan was near, my brother graduated HS there in '69 and it was already a liberal place back then... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:39:03 AM EDT
[#31]
If SCOTUS will not take the case and restore the rights of the people, then there is only one box left.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:43:52 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Upheld because... Feelings Quote HistoryQuoted:
Upheld because... Feelings If it has no other effect, Highland Park’s ordinance may increase the public’s sense of safety... If a ban on semi- automatic guns and large-capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit. "A substantial benefit" How is that benefit quantified? Can it be measured? The law needs to deal with concrete issues, it cannot deal with feelings, because the scope and breadth of human feelings is nearly infinite. A ban on semi-automatic weapons makes me feel less safe, due to my inability to protect myself. Is the law now telling me that someone else's feelings are more important than mine? On what basis is it making this judgement? What state, local, or federal law makes someone else more important than me? Are we not all considered equal in the eyes of the law? Or are they merely assuming that this is a majority/minority issue? In which case, isn't it the duty of the government to protect the interests of the minority from the tyranny of the majority? What data points have they used to assign this position to the "majority"? Have each and every member of the majority been evaluated by a psychologist to determine if their feelings are legitimate? Or is the judge simply superimposing his personal feelings on the canvas of "society", thus creating law for his own benefit? It's a sad fucking day, when this is the crap that passes for a "legal system" here in America. I hope this goes to the SC, and that Scalia rips theirs assholes apart like a buzzsaw going through a bowl of cherry jello. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:47:22 AM EDT
[#33]
If a dem gets elected president in 2016 and appoints 1-4 possible SCOTUS judges, all these arguments will be pissing in the wind when the govt decides to disarm the American people.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 7:57:41 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't appreciate the dissent containing statements such as- Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't appreciate the dissent containing statements such as- In the case of machine guns, nobody has argued, before or since, that ordinary citizens used these weapons for lawful purposes, and so they have been rightly deemed not to fall within the ambit of the Second Amendment. Doesn't the fact that the government itself issues stamps to citizens every day to legally transfer and own machineguns pretty much define the fact that they are owned and used for lawful purposes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 8:03:09 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well good luck Illinois folk. Savages ain't going to let up now for sure. Makes little difference locally. State law prohibits new local AWB' s. Only the state legislature can impose it now, and they try every year and fail. This is a national issue, with national implications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/30/2015 8:03:17 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the interim, get a lever-action 45-70
That way it won't be as scary when you blow their head clean off...... The 45-70 Government? That was developed as a military round! A lever action? That was developed as a weapon of war for the Union Troops! Weapons of war and military calibers have no place on our streets...
|
|
|
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.
