User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:16:55 AM EDT
[#1]
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:17:00 AM EDT
[#2]
SCOTUS?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:17:02 AM EDT
[#3]
The real question is "Doesn't this contradict what they said specifically in Heller?"
Decision The Supreme Court held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:17:38 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another Our only chance in hell was when Scalia was alive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:18:00 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted: Just in. How the FUCK could that possibly be construed as constitutional ? What the fuck is wrong with these people? FUCK. Discuss. " (source: CT Mirror and Fox Ct affiliate) Legislatures in response to the mass murders of 26 children and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit unanimously rejected gun owners’ claims of a Second Amendment right to own large-capacity magazines and military-style weapons such as the AR-15, the popular semi-automatic rifle used in the massacre. "We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness,” the court concluded in a 57-page decision by Judge Jose Cabranes." FUCK YOU Jose Cabranes.  Thread Title = incorrect. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:18:05 AM EDT
[#6]
It was not a SCOTUS decision, it was the 2nd circuit court of appeals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:18:21 AM EDT
[#7]
I see nothing about SCOTUS... Wtf OP?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:18:34 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question is "Doesn't this contradict what they said specifically in Heller?" That's not the real question, we already know the answer. The real question is "Will anyone do something about this?". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:19:11 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see nothing about SCOTUS... Wtf OP? Several Courts Of The United States. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:19:28 AM EDT
[#10]
OP fails
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:20:01 AM EDT
[#11]
I think we need a thread title change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:20:09 AM EDT
[#12]
Isnt this a state issue? Each state gets to regulate things like capacity but what they cant do is say you cant own this gun or that. Am I missing something?
Dont get me wrong, i dont like it at all but it seems like this is the way the SC looked at it? V Link to news story... http://www.wcvb.com/news/supreme-court-leaves-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-bans-in-place/40135548 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:20:51 AM EDT
[#13]
We will keep having these problems until Politicians are sent to jail for passing un Constitutional laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:21:08 AM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:21:18 AM EDT
[#15]
SCOTUS....lulz
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:21:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Hey #NeverTrumpers this is why Trump winning matters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:22:55 AM EDT
[#17]
Not SCOTUS
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:23:07 AM EDT
[#18]
And Dupe
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1880228_.html Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:23:14 AM EDT
[#19]
Thread title is wrong and implies SCOTUS made a decision.
This thread is bad, OP should feel bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:23:22 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Isnt this a state issue? Each state gets to regulate things like capacity but what they cant do is say you cant own this gun or that. Am I missing something? Dont get me wrong, i dont like it at all but it seems like this is the way the SC looked at it? V Link to news story... http://www.wcvb.com/news/supreme-court-leaves-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-bans-in-place/40135548 People only like states' rights when it's states' rights to do stuff they like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:28:49 AM EDT
[#21]
In before the "We are winning" dipshits...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:29:46 AM EDT
[#22]
Local politics are the most corrupt politics. The federal circuits are only 1 step from the SCOTUS, but they're still regional, and they consistently make bad rulings based on political agendas.
This country needs a fucking reboot. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:43:02 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In before the "We are winning" dipshits... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:43:12 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey #NeverTrumpers this is why Trump winning matters. Oh you mean the guy who supported AWBs for most of his life until he decided to run as a Republican? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:44:51 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Several Courts Of The United States. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I see nothing about SCOTUS... Wtf OP? Several Courts Of The United States.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:49:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh you mean the guy who supported AWBs for most of his life until he decided to run as a Republican? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey #NeverTrumpers this is why Trump winning matters. Oh you mean the guy who supported AWBs for most of his life until he decided to run as a Republican? Then just fucking stay home, already!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 10:50:31 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our only chance in hell was when Scalia was alive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another Our only chance in hell was when Scalia was alive. Which is why so many of us wanted to keep slamming cases through. The "wait until..." mentality guarantees we lose, as the courts are only going to get more liberal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:05:59 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Just in. How the FUCK could that possibly be construed as constitutional ? Since Heller self-defense is the "...central component ..." of the right secured by the Second Amendment. The lesser gods of the Federal judiciary have ruled that, so long as government allows people to own handguns (the most popular choice for self-defense), it may prohibit possession of "assault weapons". In summary no one needs a semiautomatic rifle to shoot a burglar so there is no right to possess one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:13:32 AM EDT
[#29]
The OP is trying to say the SCOTUS has declined to hear the NY and CT ban cases.
Kharn Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:18:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question is "Doesn't this contradict what they said specifically in Heller?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question is "Doesn't this contradict what they said specifically in Heller?" Decision The Supreme Court held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. It does. And that's what you get when you have a judiciary that is concerned with driving policy and not ensuring that our laws are permissible under the framework outlined in the constitution. All we needed was a couple more years with Scalia on the bench. Now we stand to lose it all for generations to come. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:19:16 AM EDT
[#31]
Them weapons are dangerous and unusual..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:21:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Well, keep in mind they declined to review. We don't really want SCOTUS to review this right now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:22:59 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Just in. How the FUCK could that possibly be construed as constitutional ? What the fuck is wrong with these people? FUCK. Discuss. " (source: CT Mirror and Fox Ct affiliate) Legislatures in response to the mass murders of 26 children and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit unanimously rejected gun owners’ claims of a Second Amendment right to own large-capacity magazines and military-style weapons such as the AR-15, the popular semi-automatic rifle used in the massacre. "We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness,” the court concluded in a 57-page decision by Judge Jose Cabranes." FUCK YOU Jose Cabranes. UMM, the Supreme Court of the US is involved how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:24:05 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question is "Doesn't this contradict what they said specifically in Heller?" Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real question is "Doesn't this contradict what they said specifically in Heller?" Decision The Supreme Court held: (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. It's in direct conflict with the Second Amendment and Heller, but they've used the "unsually dangerous" clause to restrict them. And they will continue to use that clause to restrict almost everything in the future. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:24:42 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another Is a smart move IMO and as far as I understand the US system. (of course seeing 2A they should have taken the case and within about one minute passed judgement) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:26:30 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another Yup. OP thread title fail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:29:14 AM EDT
[#37]
This thread is why people think it's OK to do something besides vote for whomever is the main challenger to Hillary in November.
Holy fuck people. Learn how this shit works.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:30:15 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People only like states' rights when it's states' rights to do stuff they like. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Isnt this a state issue? Each state gets to regulate things like capacity but what they cant do is say you cant own this gun or that. Am I missing something? Dont get me wrong, i dont like it at all but it seems like this is the way the SC looked at it? V Link to news story... http://www.wcvb.com/news/supreme-court-leaves-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-bans-in-place/40135548 People only like states' rights when it's states' rights to do stuff they like. The 2A isn't a states rights issue, and I don't understand why some retards can't fathom that. The 2A reserves the right to be armed to the PEOPLE. This is not the domain of states rights, anymore than it is appropriate for some states to deprive minorities or women the right to vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:31:02 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
" (source: CT Mirror and Fox Ct affiliate) Legislatures in response to the mass murders of 26 children and staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit unanimously rejected gun owners’ claims of a Second Amendment right to own large-capacity magazines and military-style weapons such as the AR-15, the popular semi-automatic rifle used in the massacre. "We hold that the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment, and that the challenged individual provisions are not void for vagueness,” the court concluded in a 57-page decision by Judge Jose Cabranes." FUCK YOU Jose Cabranes. Pretty objective reporting there. And WTF? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:31:47 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another This Not over |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:36:48 AM EDT
[#41]
OP doesn't know what the SCOTUS is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:37:35 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was not a SCOTUS decision, it was the 2nd circuit court of appeals. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:43:10 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another This is correct, which results in leaving the lower court ruling in place. That is also what would happen if they actually heard the case and ended up in the typical 4/4 tie. All things "conservative leaning" will result in 4/4 ties until Scalia's seat is resolved one way or the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:45:02 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is correct, which results in leaving the lower court ruling in place. That is also what would happen if they actually heard the case and ended up in the typical 4/4 tie. All things "conservative leaning" will result in 4/4 ties until Scalia's seat is resolved one way or the other. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another This is correct, which results in leaving the lower court ruling in place. That is also what would happen if they actually heard the case and ended up in the typical 4/4 tie. All things "conservative leaning" will result in 4/4 ties until Scalia's seat is resolved one way or the other. Yes, but only in the 2nd circuit. A SCOTUS decision would make it precedent for the entire country. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:49:29 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, but only in the 2nd circuit. A SCOTUS decision would make it precedent for the entire country. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They declined to take the case, no decision one way or another This is correct, which results in leaving the lower court ruling in place. That is also what would happen if they actually heard the case and ended up in the typical 4/4 tie. All things "conservative leaning" will result in 4/4 ties until Scalia's seat is resolved one way or the other. Yes, but only in the 2nd circuit. A SCOTUS decision would make it precedent for the entire country. The current make-up of the SC is leading to ties on a lot of politically divisive issues. Ties leave the lower court ruling in place unless/until they're heard at a later date by a full court and an actual decision comes down. No precedent is set because no decision is made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 11:53:16 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
FUCK. Discuss. First, the OP derped by claiming; "BREAKING: SCOTU'S upholds CT and NY weapons bans." SCOTUS didn't uphold anything they simply refused to hear the challenge. So OP should really change the title to reflect what the court actually did. Second, at best if the court did take up the case was to issue a split 4-4 opinion which (from what I understand) would have left the CT law in place, while at the same time lending an air of Constitutionality to it. At WORST would have been if Roberts or any of the four flipped to side with the progressives on the court. Such a flip would have enshrined CT's AWB into Constitutional law. 
By not taking up the case it actually was a good thing, especially in the wake of the Orlando murder/terrorist attack that would have bound to color one or more of the Justices emotions. Currently nothing has changed. Bad for CT of course but good that a AWB wasn't ruled Constitutional by SCOTUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 12:06:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People only like states' rights when it's states' rights to do stuff they like. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Isnt this a state issue? Each state gets to regulate things like capacity but what they cant do is say you cant own this gun or that. Am I missing something? Dont get me wrong, i dont like it at all but it seems like this is the way the SC looked at it? V Link to news story... http://www.wcvb.com/news/supreme-court-leaves-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-bans-in-place/40135548 People only like states' rights when it's states' rights to do stuff they like. When states signed on to become part of the union, the ceded certain powers, numerated in the constitution. The Bill of Rights covers all citizens of the nation, and the states are not supposed to have power to limit the rights enumerated in them. The states don't have the power to limit your speech, and it doesn't have the right to limit the 2nd. The federal government is supposed to protect the citizens from infringement of those rights. If the states were supposed to have the power to limit those enumerated rights, they would also have the rights to keep women or blacks from voting etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 12:06:49 PM EDT
[#48]
dupe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 12:25:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When states signed on to become part of the union, the ceded certain powers, numerated in the constitution. The Bill of Rights covers all citizens of the nation, and the states are not supposed to have power to limit the rights enumerated in them. The states don't have the power to limit your speech, and it doesn't have the right to limit the 2nd. The federal government is supposed to protect the citizens from infringement of those rights. If the states were supposed to have the power to limit those enumerated rights, they would also have the rights to keep women or blacks from voting etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isnt this a state issue? Each state gets to regulate things like capacity but what they cant do is say you cant own this gun or that. Am I missing something? Dont get me wrong, i dont like it at all but it seems like this is the way the SC looked at it? V Link to news story... http://www.wcvb.com/news/supreme-court-leaves-connecticut-new-york-assault-weapons-bans-in-place/40135548 People only like states' rights when it's states' rights to do stuff they like. When states signed on to become part of the union, the ceded certain powers, numerated in the constitution. The Bill of Rights covers all citizens of the nation, and the states are not supposed to have power to limit the rights enumerated in them. The states don't have the power to limit your speech, and it doesn't have the right to limit the 2nd. The federal government is supposed to protect the citizens from infringement of those rights. If the states were supposed to have the power to limit those enumerated rights, they would also have the rights to keep women or blacks from voting etc. The Framers would strongly disagree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2016 12:27:09 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was not a SCOTUS decision, it was the 2nd circuit court of appeals. Heller still holds but we need some new SCOTUS judges |
|
|
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.
