[JoinOrDieSaidBenFranklin]

Here is from the NY Times Editorial page. Comment urged...


The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia last week persuasively ruled that the Constitution allows the District to ban possession of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines of bullets and to require citizens to meet sensible standards for registering guns.


This ruling underscores a principle set forth in the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep handguns at home for self-defense. The Supreme Court said in that case that the right is “not unlimited” and doesn’t protect guns “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” And it specifically suggested that jurisdictions could ban the possession of the military’s M-16 rifle because it is “dangerous and unusual.”

The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.

It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.

[BenLuby]

Ah. Another 'cosmetic ban'. Just because it looks like an 'assault weapon' doesn't make it one.
That's like putting a Lamborghini body on a Yugo. It's still a Yugo. These judges are either legally stupid or pushing their agenda and hoping the rest of the country is just that stupid.
(I'm not going to get into the magazine issue.)

[alsaqr]

i'm not surprised that anti-gun federal judges voted against the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS decision was not a ringing endorsement of our Second Amendment rights either. That decision laid the ground work for a wide intrepretation by the federal appeals courts. Those varying decisions by the appeals courts will have to be worked out by SCOTUS.

[fmj]

Originally Posted by alsaqr

i'm not surprised that anti-gun federal judges voted against the Second Amendment. The SCOTUS decision was not a ringing endorsement of our Second Amendment rights either. That decision laid the ground work for a wide intrepretation by the federal appeals courts. Those varying decisions by the appeals courts will have to be worked out by SCOTUS.

and now that the SCOTUS is tipped the other way (liberal, anti gun zealots pushing their agenda)....

[BenLuby]

Originally Posted by fmj

and now that the SCOTUS is tipped the other way (liberal, anti gun zealots pushing their agenda)....

it's not tipped yet. The Obamanites haven't yet managed to take control of all of it.

[fmj]

Originally Posted by BenLuby

it's not tipped yet. The Obamanites haven't yet managed to take control of all of it.

it was a fine balance to begin with, all it took was the two he appointed to flip it IMHO.

Chief Roberts, Scalia and Alito are the only really truly solid friends we have...Kennedy and Thomas are crap shoots which way they will swing half the time and we KNOW where Sotomayor and Kegan are firmly rooted

[BenLuby]

Kennedy and Thomas, when you analyze the majority of their votes, try very hard to follow the constitution, regardless of what and who appointed them.
If we're lucky the retard will be out shortly. (If the right can find a sane candidate).

[fmj]

Originally Posted by BenLuby

Kennedy and Thomas, when you analyze the majority of their votes, try very hard to follow the constitution, regardless of what and who appointed them.
If we're lucky the retard will be out shortly. (If the right can find a sane candidate).

As much as i try to look at it as the beer bottle being half full, i dont hold out much hope. I doubt the GOP, Libertarian, or Tea Party will find anything worth voting for so i will end up voting AGAINST the idiot.

And i really fear the idiot is gonna get a second term...there are just too many stupid people in this country that simply DO NOT get it!

[alsaqr]

Yep, Carter was a failure as president. However, Carter did not bring you any new gun control laws or ban any guns from import.

[fmj]

Originally Posted by alsaqr

Yep, Carter was a failure as president. However, Carter did not bring you any new gun control laws or ban any guns from import.

Did you mean to put this comment here ...

http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f97/open-carry-prohibited-california-49591/

it would seem to fit better.