Can Someone Aware Me on SCOTUS Position on Gun Control?

[James_Madison_Lives]

aka if a bunch of libs are elected next year to Congress do we have a bulwark, given the current make up of SCOTUS, against a national ban an "assault weapons" and high capacity mags? I'm trying to understand how worried we should be.


https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/06/15/can-gun-control-still-pass-muster-in-the-supreme-court/the-supreme-court-has-strengthened-gun-rights-and-limited-gun-control

In 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller that a federal handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. Two years later in McDonald v. Chicago, the justices held that state and local governments also could not prohibit handguns. Over the last six years, a bevy of challenges have been filed against various firearm laws. For the most part, the lower courts of appeal have upheld them. On appeal, the gun-shy Supreme Court has refused to intervene in every Second Amendment case since McDonald. In December 2015, Justices Thomas and Scalia castigated their colleagues’ complacency, as the inferior courts “relegat[ed] the Second Amendment to a second-class right.”

[oyarde]

If you were a lawyer and then a judge you would know the second amendment only protects hunting with a muzzle loader after purchasing several licenses at great expense . You know because those liberty minded guys did not want to pay the kings tax , so they took over and raised everybodys tax .

[Anti Federalist]

If?

They already have been... and more than a few are not "libs" but full blown authoritarian communists.

You should be very concerned...I would not place any faith in SCROTUS as a bulwark at all.

If you have not already, you should join the 2nd Amendment lobby of your choice today

[oyarde]

If?

They already have been... and more than a few are not "libs" but full blown authoritarian communists.

You should be very concerned...I would not place any faith in SCROTUS as a bulwark at all.

If you have not already, you should join the 2nd Amendment lobby of your choice today

Correct. And buy more ammo .

[TheTexan]

Are you worried they are gonna take your AR-15?

I don't think you need to be worried.

SCOTUS only bans weapons that would be useful in modern warfare. E.g. explosives, silencers, rocket launchers, etc

I'm pretty sure your "ar-15" is safe, as long as you can make the case that its primary use is for hunting and definitely not for warfare.

If you can prove its for hunting purposes only, then its protected by the 2nd amendment.

[oyarde]

If they take your AR 15 you can always put your bayonet on a pole and make a lance or pike out of it .

[Danke]

Are you worried they are gonna take your AR-15?

I don't think you need to be worried.

SCOTUS only bans weapons that would be useful in modern warfare. E.g. explosives, silencers, rocket launchers, etc

I'm pretty sure your "ar-15" is safe, as long as you can make the case that its primary use is for hunting and definitely not for warfare.

If you can prove its for hunting purposes only, then its protected by the 2nd amendment.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANKgTjUD69U

[Anti Globalist]

I'm sure most of the people SCOTUS supports gun control. Even the judges that call themselves conservative secretly support it.

[TheTexan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANKgTjUD69U

When hunting wild hogs you've got to have no mercy, no hesitation . For they will show you none .

Pigs are very destructive creatures .

[Swordsmyth]

Roberts can't be trusted but the SCOTUS is the most pro-gun it has been in a long time.
That doesn't mean they are ready to enforce the 2ndA as it should be enforced though.
If RBG finally dies and is replaced by ACB I would expect to see some improvement in 2ndA rulings.

[James_Madison_Lives]

Are you worried they are gonna take your AR-15?

I don't think you need to be worried.

SCOTUS only bans weapons that would be useful in modern warfare. E.g. explosives, silencers, rocket launchers, etc

I'm pretty sure your "ar-15" is safe, as long as you can make the case that its primary use is for hunting and definitely not for warfare.

If you can prove its for hunting purposes only, then its protected by the 2nd amendment.

I am most concerned with a ban on semi-autos and high capacity mags, and being forced to fight future tyrannical governments with bolt action rifles. I'm sure that's what they are aiming for, they know patriots would be hopelessly outgunned in any firefight.

[TheTexan]

future tyrannical governments

In the far, far hypothetical future, I'm assuming

[ATruepatriot]

I am most concerned with a ban on semi-autos and high capacity mags, and being forced to fight future tyrannical governments with bolt action rifles. I'm sure that's what they are aiming for, they know patriots would be hopelessly outgunned in any firefight.

This would be a serious mistake in assumption. The Iraq enemy demanded that the snipers be called off in Iraq. When the enemy wants a particular tactic stopped to the point where they will negotiate about it, it must be an effective tactic. One man familiar with how to survive in his local surroundings and a good rifle can become such a threat that they can completely confuse and demoralize the enemy in mass. Patience and one carefully selected target at a time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Zaitsev_(sniper)

[James_Madison_Lives]

This would be a serious mistake in assumption. The Iraq enemy demanded that the snipers be called off in Iraq. When the enemy wants a particular tactic stopped to the point where they will negotiate about it, it must be an effective tactic. One man familiar with how to survive in his local surroundings and a good rifle can become such a threat that they can completely confuse and demoralize the enemy in mass. Patience and one carefully selected target at a time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Zaitsev_(sniper)

Iraqis also had AK-47s the way we have .22s.

[brushfire]

If you can prove its for hunting purposes only, then its protected by the 2nd amendment.

That, and you can positively ensure that it doesnt have a barrel shroud. If it has one of those "shoulder thingies that goes up", you can kiss that gun goodbye.

[ATruepatriot]

Are you worried they are gonna take your AR-15?

I don't think you need to be worried.

SCOTUS only bans weapons that would be useful in modern warfare. E.g. explosives, silencers, rocket launchers, etc

I'm pretty sure your "ar-15" is safe, as long as you can make the case that its primary use is for hunting and definitely not for warfare.

If you can prove its for hunting purposes only, then its protected by the 2nd amendment.

Should have happened 10 years ago. They should have been remodeled and branded as HR-15 or CR-15 and removed them as the "AR" stigma years ago even though they are the same firearm. "Hunting Rifle" or Civilian Rifle" But the "military" marketing point was too lucrative as a sideline sales pitch... damn greedy dummies. It still needs to be done right now before it goes any further down this road. Are they smart enough to do this? apparently not and it has now lead us to this situation with the mass ignorance about "AR".

[Stratovarious]

Are you worried they are gonna take your AR-15?

I don't think you need to be worried.

SCOTUS only bans weapons that would be useful in modern warfare. E.g. explosives, silencers, rocket launchers, etc

I'm pretty sure your "ar-15" is safe, as long as you can make the case that its primary use is for hunting and definitely not for warfare.

If you can prove its for hunting purposes only, then its protected by the 2nd amendment.
The second amendment is not about hunting.

[Stratovarious]

They will eventually demonize the Daisy Repeating BB Rifle, it will be banned.


: )

[TheTexan]

Should have happened 10 years ago. They should have been remodeled and branded as HR-15 or CR-15 and removed them as the "AR" stigma years ago even though they are the same firearm. "Hunting Rifle" or Civilian Rifle" But the "military" marketing point was too lucrative as a sideline sales pitch... damn greedy dummies. It still needs to be done right now before it goes any further down this road. Are they smart enough to do this? apparently not and it has now lead us to this situation with the mass ignorance about "AR".

You have a great point.

https://gunprime.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pix265585747.jpg

^ evil killing machine

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0447/1729/products/promo-ar-15-rifle-skin_grande.jpg?v=1555984659

^ innocent hunting rifle, protected by the 2nd amendment

[TheTexan]

The second amendment is not about hunting.

https://media.giphy.com/media/Fml0fgAxVx1eM/giphy.gif

[Stratovarious]

You have a great point.

https://gunprime.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pix265585747.jpg

^ evil killing machine

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0447/1729/products/promo-ar-15-rifle-skin_grande.jpg?v=1555984659

^ innocent hunting rifle, protected by the 2nd amendment

We should be allowed to own anything that LEO Agencies posses as well as military infantry.
Mostly for protection against 'a' rogue government.

[ATruepatriot]

You have a great point.

https://gunprime.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/pix265585747.jpg

^ evil killing machine

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0447/1729/products/promo-ar-15-rifle-skin_grande.jpg?v=1555984659

^ innocent hunting rifle, protected by the 2nd amendment
"
The Hunting rifle will be more dangerous of course, because it is "stealth and camouflaged" and it is all about aesthetics. That will be the next point they make... But is it city cammo or country cammo? Why is it that we use shotgun sites when we should be using long range thermal optics when it comes to long term cause and effect?