US Circuit Court has ruled in our favor

[handejector]

Why do I get an infraction for discussing the latest vacancy on the Supreme Court, yet this political thread develops legs?

Bad form.
Answer inbound- wait for it.
Maybe you drifted into general politics. Everything I see here is focused on a GUN issue.

from the TOS-
DO NOT FLAME THE STAFF
Do not post staff complaints on the open forum. They have the final say. Any decision made by the administrators and moderators is final and must be respected. They're charged with making this community as enjoyable for as many people as they possibly can by enforcing our Rules and standards. They cannot always please everyone with the decisions made.
If you receive a Reminder or Infraction, read the Rules before asking why.
If your thread or post is deleted, consult the rules before contacting the staff.

 

[Old TexMex]

Legal issues often turn on the distinction between a difference in degree versus a difference in kind.

In Heller, the case where the Supreme Court held that the right of the People to keep and bear arms belonged to people (duh), the case turned in part on the difference between long guns and handguns being a difference in kind. Some people needed the handgun kind of gun to be able to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

The difference between a bolt action rifle and a semi-auto rifle able to accept a detachable magazine is also a difference in kind, so banning the Evil Black Rifles might not be Constitutional. Some people need an EBR like some need a handgun.

On the other hand, the difference between a 10 round magazine and a 30 round magazine is merely a difference in degree. You do not need a 30 round magazine to exercise your right to keep and bear arms. So the argument would go.

IMHO, it would be Constitutional, and I might be convinced to support, a law which allowed the possession of 30 round magazines in the home and their use at the range, but which prohibited their unsecured possession outside of those circumstances. This would allow for self defense in the home and practice at the range, and it would make them available to people in times of disaster and other emergent circumstances. However, it would provide a law enforcement tool against those who would engage in drive by shootings or take loaded high cap mags into places where they could commit large scale murder and mayhem.

My two cents worth.
YMMV

I am to assume those who would "make them available to people in times of disaster and other imminent circumstances" are the same as those who provided the "Fast and Furious" weapons?

 

[cmj8591]

With the passing of Antonin Scalia this decision has now been cast in a whole new light. It will surely end up at the SJC and I don't see how the future composition is going to be in our favor. It's more likely than not that the next justice will be appointed by the next Clinton administration. We are in for some dark days my friends.

 

[ladder13]

This weekend changed everything for the forseeable future.

 

[DevilDog72]

It is not o v e r not by a long shot. We will prevail my friends, take heart and remember Winston Churchill...." never give in, never give in never, never, never give in....."

We have a majority in the House and Senate.

And not everything has changed, it has only made it more difficult.

Remember, the 2nd A was to keep an over bearing Government at bay not just to provide us the means of personal defense. I believe our Founders provided that the most modern of firearms of the day was our God given right to own and not be infringed... I don't care if it means we have 100+ round magazines... we should be able to have and own the same firearms our military have... without restriction. I will never support or even condone anything less.

I do not believe for a minute we are finished, more interesting yes but, no, its not over yet.