Thank Goodness The Robes Are Looking Out For Us

[arakboss]

Supreme Court leaves Illinois assault weapons ban in place as it sidesteps new cases on the right to bear arms

Gun rights advocates say the law barring AR-15s and other similar weapons violates their right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

www.nbcnews.com

Read More

 

[Alexx1401]

Supreme Court leaves Illinois assault weapons ban in place as it sidesteps new cases on the right to bear arms

Gun rights advocates say the law barring AR-15s and other similar weapons violates their right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment.

www.nbcnews.com

People have been trying to warn those who will not participate to NOT rely on courts to save them. Many refuse to get involved in any way. Many more support the people hosing them. Then expect a black robe to step in and save them. Elections do have consequences.

 

[RVTECH]

If assault weapons are now banned in IL why are the ones still on display in the picture in the article?

They have tags and appear to be for sale.

 

[littleneck]

Thomas says they should wait for the lower court to finish ruling before taking on the case. Maybe they will do just that.

"The Seventh Circuit's decision illustrates why this Court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers.

...

In my view, Illinois' ban is "highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common sem- iautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes." Friedman, 577 U. S., at 1042 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not "Arms" pro- tected by the Second Amendment.

...

But, if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America's most common civilian rifle, we can-and should review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The Court must not permit "the Seventh Circuit [to] relegat[e] the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808134225700298984

View: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1808134225700298984

 

[arakboss]

Thomas says they should wait for the lower court to finish ruling before taking on the case. Maybe they will do just that.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1808134225700298984

View: https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1808134225700298984

Thomas also said something like, they should consider what firearms we should be able to own.

That doesn't sound good to me, especially coming from Thomas.

Edit:
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion saying he hopes the court in due course takes up the question of what types of weapons can be restricted.

The appeals court ruling upholding the Illinois ban "illustrates why this court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers," Thomas said.

 

[arakboss]

Thomas also said something like, they should consider what firearms we should be able to own.

That doesn't sound good to me, especially coming from Thomas.

Edit:
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion saying he hopes the court in due course takes up the question of what types of weapons can be restricted.

The appeals court ruling upholding the Illinois ban "illustrates why this court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers," Thomas said.

The easy answer is the 2A covers all of them.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Thomas also said something like, they should consider what firearms we should be able to own.

That doesn't sound good to me, especially coming from Thomas.

Edit:
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a separate opinion saying he hopes the court in due course takes up the question of what types of weapons can be restricted.

The appeals court ruling upholding the Illinois ban "illustrates why this court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers," Thomas said.

The easy answer is the 2A covers all of them.

But to say so would be to "overturn" significant parts of Miller, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen



Because like I've said before, these decisions all depends on the NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and FOPA Hughes Amendment being "Constitutional"; especially with the language of "Dangerous and Unusual weapons" and the "common use test", as well as talking about arms ban cases.

 

[arakboss]

But to say so would be to "overturn" significant parts of Miller, Heller, McDonald, and Bruen



Because like I've said before, these decisions all depends on the NFA 1934, GCA 1968, and FOPA Hughes Amendment being "Constitutional"; especially with the language of "Dangerous and Unusual weapons" and the "common use test", as well as talking about arms ban cases.

I would be satisfied if they did away with all that BS

 

[CamoDeafie]

I would be satisfied if they did away with all that BS

Agreed but it has been made clear by the SCOTUS that "some arms limitations/restrictions on 2A is OK"

Edit, Heller is the decision that says 2A is "not an absolute Right" (see Rahimi as well)

 

[arakboss]

Agreed but it has been made clear by the SCOTUS that "some arms limitations/restrictions on 2A is OK"

Edit, Heller is the decision that says 2A is "not an absolute Right" (see Rahimi as well)

I can always dream.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I can always dream.

Same. The day NFA and all other Fed level gun control laws are relegated to the dustbin of history in favor of smaller Fed govt and more liberty and the freedom for tinkerers to build/design whatever they want without running afoul of zealots whoring for agencies, will be a bright day

 

[Old Dog]

Agreed but it has been made clear by the SCOTUS that "some arms limitations/restrictions on 2A is OK"

Edit, Heller is the decision that says 2A is "not an absolute Right" (see Rahimi as well)

SCOTUS has become skittish.. nay, they're chickening out.

So Washington's AWB will stand, and our legislators and new governor will be further emboldened next January.

BOHICA.

 

[Tinman357]

So Washington's AWB will stand, and our legislators and new governor will be further emboldened next January.

I've been trying to find out the status of the fight against the bans/restrictions in WA. No real luck.

Any of the big boys (GOA. SAF. ETC) have anything in the ring? Or is everyone waiting on the outcome of the SCOTUS rulings?

 

[CamoDeafie]

I've been trying to find out the status of the fight against the bans/restrictions in WA. No real luck.

Any of the big boys (GOA. SAF. ETC) have anything in the ring? Or is everyone waiting on the outcome of the SCOTUS rulings?

Seems everyone waiting for the Miller v Bonta and Duncan v Bonta lawsuits in the 9th Circus to get to SCOTUS (again maybe?)

 

[BrentN]

I've been trying to find out the status of the fight against the bans/restrictions in WA. No real luck.

Any of the big boys (GOA. SAF. ETC) have anything in the ring? Or is everyone waiting on the outcome of the SCOTUS rulings?

Well, the way I see it, at least another year of rights delayed (therefore rights denied according to some, even civil rights activists..). I guess the game is to keep pumping money into the groups looking out for the 2A here on the west coast, knowing full well the fight will be lost at the state level, and then lost at the circuit level, to hopefully be taken up by the SCOTUS in some future year, where by then they are hopefully still looking at and trying to abide by the US Constitution. Likely not enough sand in my hourglass to see this come to fruition.

 

[BrentN]

Seems everyone waiting for the Miller v Bonta and Duncan v Bonta lawsuits in the 9th Circus to get to SCOTUS (again maybe?)

Yeah, keep waiting.

 

[Old Dog]

I've been trying to find out the status of the fight against the bans/restrictions in WA. No real luck.

Any of the big boys (GOA. SAF. ETC) have anything in the ring? Or is everyone waiting on the outcome of the SCOTUS rulings?

Couple lawsuits pending on the mag capacity limits and associated appeals, but the more critical stuff, definitely waiting on the SCOTUS action. Which, as we found out yesterday, ain't happening anytime soon.

With this latest non-action by SCOTUS, look for more AWBs to be introduced in additional states in their next legislative sessions.

And unless we see a "red wave" in November, I'm betting on a federal UBC law, fed law on waiting periods for all 50 states and probably more.

 

[PiratePast40]

Couple lawsuits pending on the mag capacity limits and associated appeals, but the more critical stuff, definitely waiting on the SCOTUS action. Which, as we found out yesterday, ain't happening anytime soon.

With this latest non-action by SCOTUS, look for more AWBs to be introduced in additional states in their next legislative sessions.

And unless we see a "red wave" in November, I'm betting on a federal UBC law, fed law on waiting periods for all 50 states and probably more.

Unfortunately, this is the most likely outcome. The ninth can delay their hearings indefinitely and wait until the makeup of SCOTUS changes, and then hold the hearings with their pre-determined outcome.