Will SCOTUS take up Snope v Brown - assault weapons ban by states

[OwnTheRide]

This is a good first step. I am serious when I state this, but I believe based on the history of privateers in revolutionary times, that all arms held by private citizens are equal to that of standing armies. The 2nd if interpreted in that matrix includes private ownership of any and all arms akin to the government, up to and including nuclear weapons.
In a nutshell, if you can afford it, you can have it.

I disagree. "Arms," IMO, refer to "weapons commonly carried by a soldier of his time." So, today, that would include rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, RPGs, and grenades. It would cover tracers, armor-piercing, incendiary, hollow point, and FMJ ammo. It might extend to things like drones and shoulder-launched anti-air weaponry.

But soldiers do not carry nukes. Now, if soldiers carrying small suitcase nukes becomes a thing - and a common one, at that - then it would be covered.

 

[GOPerfect]

Really? I think they'd be a destructive device...

But I 100% agree as to the reason people don't get them is the acquiring side. I've always thought that.

I'm a 2A absoluteist.

"So a 5 year old should be able to..."

Yes. I know, shudder to think people might have to do their jobs as parents, but yes is the answer, for me.

Many will say they are 2A absolutest, they are not.

 

[GOPerfect]

I disagree. "Arms," IMO, refer to "weapons commonly carried by a soldier of his time." So, today, that would include rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, RPGs, and grenades. It would cover tracers, armor-piercing, incendiary, hollow point, and FMJ ammo. It might extend to things like drones and shoulder-launched anti-air weaponry.

But soldiers do not carry nukes. Now, if soldiers carrying small suitcase nukes becomes a thing - and a common one, at that - then it would be covered.

When the Founding Fathers used the word "arms" in the Second Amendment, they meant weapons that could be used for self-defense and to protect the community. Covers near everything

 

[OwnTheRide]

When the Founding Fathers used the word "arms" in the Second Amendment, they meant weapons that could be used for self-defense and to protect the community. Covers near everything

Well, consider the reality of it, then. If courts somehow decided that the 2A covered nukes (which they absolutely, positively, would never do), then the government could no longer prevent us from obtaining the materials and equipment to build them. Some number of people would build them, and some small portion of that would cause a major accident, while some other small portion would use it for terrorism. A constitutional amendment would swiftly follow, banning the possession of nukes.

This discussion is beyond moot. We're talking about something that would never happen, that would be rapidly undone if it could happen.

 

[Darth]

Many will say they are 2A absolutest, they are not.

I assure you i am, as I'm sure you already believe.

 

[spat]

I disagree. "Arms," IMO, refer to "weapons commonly carried by a soldier of his time." So, today, that would include rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, RPGs, and grenades. It would cover tracers, armor-piercing, incendiary, hollow point, and FMJ ammo. It might extend to things like drones and shoulder-launched anti-air weaponry.

But soldiers do not carry nukes. Now, if soldiers carrying small suitcase nukes becomes a thing - and a common one, at that - then it would be covered.

Does this qualify as "arms" ?

Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[spat]

Well, consider the reality of it, then. If courts somehow decided that the 2A covered nukes (which they absolutely, positively, would never do), then the government could no longer prevent us from obtaining the materials and equipment to build them. Some number of people would build them, and some small portion of that would cause a major accident, while some other small portion would use it for terrorism. A constitutional amendment would swiftly follow, banning the possession of nukes.

This discussion is beyond moot. We're talking about something that would never happen, that would be rapidly undone if it could happen.

There is nobody being stopped from possessing nukes by the law.

The route you are suggesting is just far too expensive for all but the .00001% richest people.

The entire country of Iran can't just make their own from scratch.

There are only a handful of people on the earth who have the money to go it alone, and when you're worth a few hundred billion, you can afford enough lawyers that the law isn't a significant obstacle.

And, like all other gun laws, anyone who wants to use one for nefarious purposes isn't going to give a shit if you made them illegal.

"I'd like to nuke Boston, but nobody will give me the permits for the nukes...."

 

[spat]

When the Founding Fathers used the word "arms" in the Second Amendment, they meant weapons that could be used for self-defense and to protect the community. Covers near everything

Look at what stuff is covered in "arms control treaties".

The full nuclear arsenal of the US and Soviet Unions, then Russia were regulated in a series of "Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties"

The government certainly considered nuclear ICBMs as arms when they signed those.

 

[Cavalry]

I disagree. "Arms," IMO, refer to "weapons commonly carried by a soldier of his time." So, today, that would include rifles, pistols, shotguns, machine guns, RPGs, and grenades. It would cover tracers, armor-piercing, incendiary, hollow point, and FMJ ammo. It might extend to things like drones and shoulder-launched anti-air weaponry.

But soldiers do not carry nukes. Now, if soldiers carrying small suitcase nukes becomes a thing - and a common one, at that - then it would be covered.

I agree with your belief of "bearable" has merit as the word literally means to carry, but why limit (infringe) ourselves? The current standard is text, history and tradition.

Privateers at the founding of the country had ships equipped with non bearable weapons equal to the navy of any nation. Our forefathers were pretty smart guys. Since privateers existed at the time if they has qualms with the concept they would have written the 2nd differently or at a minimum there would have been a note of that in the Federalist Papers.

 

[VietnamEraVet]

Yep, and this can take decades.
I believe the 3 cases you're referring to, Snopes, the magazine case....forget the name, and another that are in conference.....have a very slim chance of being granted Cert this session. They have been overlooked 2x since Jan 10th. According to Mark Smith, there is less than a 5% chance they will be granted this time.....but there IS a chance.

There were three cases: Snopes Case #24-203 (AR-15 ban), Ocean State Tactical Case #24-131 (mag capacity), and Gray v Jennings Case #24-309. Gray has been denied cert, and the other two are in limbo. No word whatsoever. Mark Smith (Four Boxes Diner) has covered extensively. I suspect as many others do that SCOTUS will fuck us and refuse cert. I believe that Roberts is absolutely a traitor, and that Barrett is wishy washy to the point of being useless. Won’t surprise me if Roberts gets exposed someday as being blackmailed by Dems and other deep staters to do their bidding. I’m betting he is the “John Roberts” listed in the “Epstein Lolita Express“ flight logs.

 

[Tisto]

There were three cases: Snopes (AR-15 ban), Ocean State Tactical (mag capacity), and another I cannot recall right now. The third case has been denied cert, and the other two are in limbo. No word whatsoever. Mark Smith (Four Boxes Diner) has covered extensively. I suspect as many others do that SCOTUS will fuck us and refuse cert. I believe that Roberts is absolutely a traitor, and that Barrett is wishy washy to the point of being useless. Won’t surprise me if Roberts gets exposed someday as being blackmailed by Dems and other deep staters to do their bidding. I’m betting he is the “John Roberts” listed in the “Epstein Lolita Express“ flight logs.

True that both the Snopes and Ocean State cases remain in limbo, but I tend to think that they will remain there for next season. If SCOTUS wanted to deny cert, they likely would have done so already. It is my belief that SCOTUS has refused to act on either case because they believe the new Trump administration will issue directives that make the cases moot.

While I wish they had taken the cases this term, they may very well take them next fall.

 

[Grimscale]

It is my belief that SCOTUS has refused to act on either case because they believe the new Trump administration will issue directives that make the cases moot.

Better that they do their jobs, even if Trump moots it later, than leave American citizens suffering under tyrannical "laws" and their civil rights infringed.
The only thing that might make this acceptable is if those violated citizens can later sue the politicians who infringed on the Constitution and "win the lottery".

 

[spat]

Better that they do their jobs, even if Trump moots it later, than leave American citizens suffering under tyrannical "laws" and their civil rights infringed.
The only thing that might make this acceptable is if those violated citizens can later sue the politicians who infringed on the Constitution and "win the lottery".

And a SCOTUS ruling is a lot stronger than an EO.

The EO only lasts until the next Dem gets in the white house.

Reversing a SCOTUS decision takes a lot more.

 

[Cooolone]

The process itself is corrupted... When the "State" or Govt can make changes that apply instantaneously, and the challenge must work its way through the courts taking decades to amend, it is bizarre that this is considered ok!

So at the onset, when a State exhibits malfeasance towards it's subjects, ie, citizens, they're all already at a disadvantage if they comply. This is one reason States will not provide Non-Compliance information, like in NY with the Safe Act and others that followed.

Any Law, if course that cannot be law if enacted with unconstitutional provisions... Should be escalated immediately to the top of the pile! Like in NY where the Judge ruled against the CCIA saying that it was in all probability Unconstitutional, but nonetheless he only rules on a small part of it instead of throwing it all out and forcing the Legislature to reinvest and comply with the higher order of Constitutional Compliance... No, he chickens out!

Anyways...

 

[Beerman]

And a SCOTUS ruling is a lot stronger than an EO.

Hochul is consumed by laughter.