Latest "assault weapons" ban ruling

[Landrover]

When the 2A was written everyone had flint lock muskets, meaning the people had the same weapons the military had. So the way I see it, I should be able to own anything the military has now.

I agree, I want a BIG RED BUTTON on my desk that is connected to about 100 guided missiles!

[Mike D]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SOLID EAGLE]

you misspelled 'remove from the bench'.

You misspelled 'flogged'.

[Mudslinger]

sent from my iphone using tapatalk pro

absolutely!

[jlinville]

When the 2A was written everyone had flint lock muskets, meaning the people had the same weapons the military had. So the way I see it, I should be able to own anything the military has now.

That's how I see it also!

[jaytx]

You misspelled 'flogged'.

Last I looked treason was punishable by more than flogging.

[PVDT]

I think this bears repeating. V O T E. Get your friends to do it. Get your relatives to do it. Get your neighbors to do it. The left has a head of steam right now and they will roll right over us if we don't!!

That's exactly right! There's a lot of folks "asleep" these days...or they just like to keep their heads in the sand.

[bzzboyz]

So he has this statement....

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear Arms,’ ”

Then this one....

“Young also rejected attempts by the gun-rights group to challenge the ban on the grounds that AR-15s are extremely popular in the U.S.

"This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted."

I'm no constitutional or legal expert but didn't he just contradict himself? are not mutable Didn't he mute them in his first statement?

[Dukota01]

Federal judge upholds Massachusetts "assault weapons" ban.
What does he mean by, "in the absence of federal legislation"?

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear Arms,’ ” Young wrote in a 47-page ruling. “In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large-capacity magazines. Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens. These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-06/massachusetts-s-ban-on-assault-weapons-upheld-by-federal-judge

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

What does he mean? It means he has no fricken clue what "the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to 'bear arms' " really means. It means he doesn't think that the average citizen should have weapons that allow them to be capable of keeping the govt in check.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dukota01]

Essentially yes, they will impose some kind of buy back plan I’m sure failing your voluntary sell back they will then make it a crime to own one.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't think they have any "buy back" planned. It's either sell it out of state, destroy it or take it and turn it in. Those were the options I saw listed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Lawhunter]

They are testing the waters to see how many people will comply.

[monsterspike]

I don't think they have any "buy back" planned. It's either sell it out of state, destroy it or take it and turn it in. Those were the options I saw listed.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

better do it within 60 days. after that the fine is 1,000 per day per gun.

[Hamshire]

How is this realistically going to be enforced? That’s if it’s not deemed unconstitutional, which it is.

[Artos]

When this argument is presented, I simply state that 'we the people' back then had the same weapons & advantage as those trying to impose tyranny.

The 2nd is simply about the ability of the free man being able to defend oneself from that same sort of tyrannical govt or threat...the founding fathers were brilliant and technology & time matter not with your insignificant argument on the weapons being ball & powder.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Mike D]

When this argument is presented, I simply state that 'we the people' back then had the same weapons & advantage as those trying to impose tyranny.



The 2nd is simply about the ability of the free man being able to defend oneself from that same sort of tyrannical govt or threat...the founding fathers were brilliant and technology & time matter not with your insignificant argument on the weapons being ball & powder.

Yep.

The people had the most advanced weapons available at the time it was written and it should be no different now.

Funny how the liberal agenda believes the Constitution is a “living document” that evolves with time, until it doesn’t fit their agenda.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro