Federal Government Backs Supreme Court Challenge To AR-15 Bans

L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
53,888
Reaction score
146,862
Location
livingston county

Federal Government Backs Supreme Court Challenge To AR-15 Bans​


The federal government is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to side with gun owners challenging state and local bans on AR-15-style rifles.

In a brief filed Friday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to overturn rulings from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits, which upheld AR-15 bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, respectively.
"The AR-15 rifle is unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes," the federal government argued.
The cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, have been consolidated for Supreme Court review.
The Justice Department is siding with challengers in the debate.


"Today, AR-15s are lawful at the federal level and in 40 States, with law-abiding citizens using them for lawful purposes such as self-defense, target shooting, and hunting," the government said.
"Legislatures may not ban arms in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes."

Federal Government Backs Supreme Court Challenge To AR-15 Bans<!-- --> | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com www.zerohedge.com
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
38,574
Reaction score
42,979
Location
Western NY
Drinkthekoolaid said:
NY will simply say,
AR15s aren't banned here.


They will play the word game and nothing will change for us.
Click to expand...
It will all depend on how thorough the SC ruling is. Normally not very specific but if the word assault rifle is equated to an AR-15 or they say they encompass semi automatic rifles that have detachable magazines this could dispel a lot of what you are mentioning here. If they wrap in mag limit bans then bingo we could be onto something g.
 
VietnamEraVet

VietnamEraVet

.308 Win
U.S. Military
Messages
4,434
Reaction score
9,398
Location
Ex WNY as of 08/2018. Screw FUAC & FUKH too!
Robin said:
Whatever the outcome, it will have the Roberts watermark. Totally unsettled and full of enough loophole that states like this shithole can maintain their progressive march toward the abyss.
Robin
Click to expand...
Roberts is a traitorous POS who has been selling out conservatives ever since he has been a judge. He restricts SCOTUS from taking more than about 80 cases a year when they used to hear TWICE that number. So naturally, that slows down the number of 2A victories we would otherwise have. And further delays them for years as a result. And we also get watered down decisions that get ignored by states like New Yorkistan.

Can’t forget that he “saved” Obamacare by calling it a tax and then voting with the 3 libtards. Fuck him over that!

And it wouldn’t not surprise me if he is the John Roberts who is listed in the flight logs as having flown to Epstein’s island, although I am guessing we will never know.
 
Criticalt

Criticalt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,940
Reaction score
17,059
Location
WNY
Saltwater60 said:
It will all depend on how thorough the SC ruling is. Normally not very specific but if the word assault rifle is equated to an AR-15 or they say they encompass semi automatic rifles that have detachable magazines this could dispel a lot of what you are mentioning here. If they wrap in mag limit bans then bingo we could be onto something g.
Click to expand...
According to Mark Smith, at least one of the two "assault weapon" cases that SCOTUS will be hearing contains detachable mags, pistol grips, barrel shrouds....and everything else.

This was the thing ive been saying for years. An assault weapon alone case won't work for us, assault weapons are NOT banned in NYS.

A decision that assault weapons are legal, doesn't protect detachable magazines or cosmetic features.

But, Mark assures me these two cases are very well researched and well written. A couple of his papers are included in the cases to support our side. He says if either of these cases go our way, NYS will need to scramble to find another way to control MSRs.

Of course NYS will just make a special permit to own one, which costs $500 a year, and will require 20 hour saftey courses every year......or some crap like that.
 
L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
53,888
Reaction score
146,862
Location
livingston county
Criticalt said:
According to Mark Smith, at least one of the two "assault weapon" cases that SCOTUS will be hearing contains detachable mags, pistol grips, barrel shrouds....and everything else.

This was the thing ive been saying for years. An assault weapon alone case won't work for us, assault weapons are NOT banned in NYS.

A decision that assault weapons are legal, doesn't protect detachable magazines or cosmetic features.

But, Mark assures me these two cases are very well researched and well written. A couple of his papers are included in the cases to support our side. He says if either of these cases go our way, NYS will need to scramble to find another way to control MSRs.

Of course NYS will just make a special permit to own one, which costs $500 a year, and will require 20 hour saftey courses every year......or some crap like that.
Click to expand...
They will just change the wording and they will be good to go for another 30 years
 
Saltwater60

Saltwater60

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
38,574
Reaction score
42,979
Location
Western NY
Criticalt said:
According to Mark Smith, at least one of the two "assault weapon" cases that SCOTUS will be hearing contains detachable mags, pistol grips, barrel shrouds....and everything else.

This was the thing ive been saying for years. An assault weapon alone case won't work for us, assault weapons are NOT banned in NYS.

A decision that assault weapons are legal, doesn't protect detachable magazines or cosmetic features.

But, Mark assures me these two cases are very well researched and well written. A couple of his papers are included in the cases to support our side. He says if either of these cases go our way, NYS will need to scramble to find another way to control MSRs.

Of course NYS will just make a special permit to own one, which costs $500 a year, and will require 20 hour saftey courses every year......or some crap like that.
Click to expand...
Time will tell.
 
byron

byron

.308 Win
Messages
3,789
Reaction score
14,579
Location
prattsburgh ny
spat said:
Do you know how hard it is to even find tar for sale retail now ?

Had one of the driveway sealer guys tell me you need a license to buy it.

Wonder why that is....
Click to expand...
Banned Coal-Tar Sealants: In many places, pavement sealers made from coal tar are completely banned due to environmental and health concerns. For example, states like New York, Minnesota, and Virginia have strict bans outlawing the sale and application of coal-tar sealers. You cannot buy them legally at all, with or without a license.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,603
Reaction score
16,854
Location
Rochester
byron said:
Banned Coal-Tar Sealants: In many places, pavement sealers made from coal tar are completely banned due to environmental and health concerns. For example, states like New York, Minnesota, and Virginia have strict bans outlawing the sale and application of coal-tar sealers. You cannot buy them legally at all, with or without a license.
Click to expand...
so what does NY use when they decide a great idea for a road surface is loose stone and oil? (maybe they have a secret desire to kill motorcyclists and people in convertibles?)

I know the oil they use is fairly thick and sticky. I've had to scrub it out of my arm after wiping out on my bicycle (two stiches in my elbow for THAT little adventure).

I know... we should "macadam" these politicians. Then we can have the fun of "tarring" and "stoning" at the same time!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top