Mass AWB’s days are numbered

[rewster]

This is a good point I think people should take more note of the fact that there are a lot of shitty judges appointed by Republicans. Like after Souter, like nothing can be taken for granted anymore and there are a crap load of easy way / rhino judges all over the place that will do things like shit on the Second Amendment just because it's less politically uncomfortable for them when they write their stupid decision.

If you are a moron or just plain stupid, judges don't have to have a political name !!!!!

 

[HARRYM]

Well, also because of Separation of Powers.

Maybe RINOs are hands-off because they're cowards, but why they SHOULD be hands-off is because Congress isn't supposed to have anything to do with managing the Judiciary. That's fine by me.

Good ole days I guess. Ever since the Oldsmobile Killer "Borked" Robert Bork I said the repercussions from that would be permanent. Whoever controls the courts will control the fate of America. Justice is blind is now extinct like the dinosaurs and it's never coming back. Judges, especially on the Left are making laws, not enforcing them. The Trump Real Estate trial is such a farce the Judge doesn't even hide it. Yet the decision he has already made will have severe consequences for Trump and its nothing more than dirty politics.

If RINOS had done their jobs instead of taking care of themselves first America would be on better ground, but they didn't. Populism/MAGA is all that's left now. For better or worse we have to roll with it.

 

[LakeTrout]

More correctly, one that you implied and, when confronted, are now trying to deny that you raised.

Defining "that a particular point" is a bit of a trick Collapsing a somewhat disjointed paragraph in your post #265 to the salient points results in the following:

"[C]it[ing] an example of a rifle not on [a] list ..... as being as effective as an AR15, is .... not at all part of the debate about whether assault weapons are more dangerous than any firearm not on the list."​

​

That's a rather remarkable lack of internal consistency. I can see why you've decided that you're not defending it.


It's remarkable how often people unable to articulate their position in a clear, consistent, straightforward manner can think of no response other than to resort to insult when called on it. Huh.

I think you’re having a conversation with yourself at this point. There’s really nothing left to say if you still don’t get it. I only care that “assault weapons” are in fact more capable, for the aforementioned purposes, than many firearms that aren’t called assault weapons, like bolt actions. Anything else you want to talk about, please talk about with someone else. You’re trying to have a debate with me about something I’m not interested in and I don’t care about. Have a good day.

 

[Joeldiaz]

It did. Maybe they used it themselves for Heller. But for Bruen they said all the other courts need to use it too. Hence its new for all the other courts.

SCOTUS doesn’t need to come out and tell other courts to use a certain methodology, they should already be doing that by virtue of being an inferior court and being bound by SCOTUS precedent. The Bruen test is only “new” for all other courts because other courts were going nuts and misapplying Heller (as confirmed by Bruen) for the better part of a decade. Anyone who actually read Heller in somewhat good faith could clearly understand what the Heller/Bruen methodology was, but anti-gunners are gonna do what they always do and find ways to get around it.

 

[PappyM3]

SCOTUS doesn’t need to come out and tell other courts to use a certain methodology, they should already be doing that by virtue of being an inferior court and being bound by SCOTUS precedent. The Bruen test is only “new” for all other courts because other courts were going nuts and misapplying Heller (as confirmed by Bruen) for the better part of a decade. Anyone who actually read Heller in somewhat good faith could clearly understand what the Heller/Bruen methodology was, but anti-gunners are gonna do what they always do and find ways to get around it.

Fact, until Bruen, courts were still using two-step tests and SCOTUS wasn’t remanding cases back for reconsideration… until after Bruen with the declaration that they couldn’t use 2-step tests and had to use text, history and tradition. Bruen DID in fact establish that two-step tests were unconstitutional and gave us text, history and tradition as the rule. So while Bruen mentioned not being about kinda of guns, it was tangentially because of the 1-step rule to use going forward.

 

[Toast]

You’re trying to have a debate with me about something I’m not interested in and I don’t care about. .

And yet you keep coming back and replying.

 

[milktree]

Yeah, you know how much money I’ve wasted being a law abiding citizen in Massachusetts?

I hope they burn the whole thing to the ground and all my magazines and machine guns are worth about two cents That’s what I will have to do for your freedom.

Anyone who disagrees with this is a statist "I got mine" gun grabber.

The amount of money I'd "lose" if a magazine ban and "assault weapon" ban went away is enough to buy a bunch of really nice toys.

I'd be 100% OK with all that "value" going away.

 

[Coyote33]

the new “GOSAFE” bill. It targets gas operated semi autos.

So, a gas operated Remington 742, which has taken many a deer, and a gas operated 10/22, which has taken many a milk bottle or soda can, are now going to be illegal?

What about piston-operated?

 

[Darksideblues42]

So, a gas operated Remington 742, which has taken many a deer, and a gas operated 10/22, which has taken many a milk bottle or soda can, are now going to be illegal?

What about piston-operated?

Basically, they are targeting all semi-autos.

Because the gas acts on a piston, or the recoil is caused by gas (in their eyes) it will all be illegal.

 

[PappyM3]

So, a gas operated Remington 742, which has taken many a deer, and a gas operated 10/22, which has taken many a milk bottle or soda can, are now going to be illegal?

What about piston-operated?

10/22 is recoil operated. I believe the Rem 742 is as well.

 

[Darksideblues42]

10/22 is recoil operated. I believe the Rem 742 is as well.

Doesn't matter to these F*^ks - the "gas" makes recoil, therefore, they are gas operated.

 

[LakeTrout]

10/22 is recoil operated. I believe the Rem 742 is as well.

We make distinctions between the different forms of semi auto mechanisms such as piston, DI, blowback, etc. However, this bill does not. All of the mechanisms above work by the effect of expanding gasses that operate the ejection of the spent shell and the auto loading of the next round. And that’s essentially how gas operated is defined in this bill.

 

[Dennis in MA]

I’m wondering if NAGR is trying to set this up to be the next AWB case to work it’s way up the courts. IIRC, aren’t there at least 3 major cases (CA, IL, MD) working their way up the system? This may be another one.

I wonder if the judge, who might be middle-of-the-road or leaning just slightly left, considers, "Well, there are 3 other cases that will decide this anyhow. I'm just going to ignore the injunction and let it all ride out somewhere else."

Sad... just sad.

No. It's sad that Trumptalk has weaseled its way into our lexicon. LOL

Congress could intervene and push the judges to comply but they won't because republicans and by and large extremely cowardly. They fear the media backlash "How dare you pick on this poor defenseless little judge who's just trying to do their job". The system will continue unabated until its eventual collapse. The real left (not democrats or the progressive left) is salivating at the idea of replacing it all with a marxist utopia and had already said democrats get the bullet too.

So let's say that every single GOP member of Congress - Mitt Romney included - wants to intervene. You're still well short of any sort of majority. I'm trying to figure out, forget what they COULD do, which is nothing, why you think that if a minority party banded together they could somehow create a majority.

 

[pupchow]

We make distinctions between the different forms of semi auto mechanisms such as piston, DI, blowback, etc. However, this bill does not. All of the mechanisms above work by the effect of expanding gasses that operate the ejection of the spent shell and the auto loading of the next round. And that’s essentially how gas operated is defined in this bill.

Troy Industries will be leading from behind.

 

[Toast]

They are a target of the new “GOSAFE” bill. It targets gas operated semi autos.

Sure, but that's just a straight "we hate semi-automatics" bill, as opposed to an "assault weapon" bill. In fact, the word "assault" appears nowhere in the text of the bill as I am typing this.

 

[Garys]

Sadly, some federal district judges and even some circuits seem to be persisting in using the two step test in judging 2A cases.

It would be nice, but won't happen, if SCOTUS sua sponte took the cases and issued orders for the inferior courts to comply with Bruen. I think the best we'll see is a lot of cases GVRed with orders to reconsider in light of Bruen.

It's part of the long game the Democratzis like to play in order to run out the clock until they can once again reshape SCOTUS.

Fact, until Bruen, courts were still using two-step tests and SCOTUS wasn’t remanding cases back for reconsideration… until after Bruen with the declaration that they couldn’t use 2-step tests and had to use text, history and tradition. Bruen DID in fact establish that two-step tests were unconstitutional and gave us text, history and tradition as the rule. So while Bruen mentioned not being about kinda of guns, it was tangentially because of the 1-step rule to use going forward.

 

[Joeldiaz]

I wonder if the judge, who might be middle-of-the-road or leaning just slightly left, considers, "Well, there are 3 other cases that will decide this anyhow. I'm just going to ignore the injunction and let it all ride out somewhere else."

No that’s not it. The fact of the matter is that this judge is an old fashioned law and order conservative judge. These judges are often times the worst when it comes to 2A, even worse than the liberal judges. They are of the belief that the only people who should have access to guns are cops.

 

[dixidawg]

View: https://youtu.be/4EmgATo8L-s?si=sCJXP2ehBJmZdpoS

 

[Horatio_Alger_Jr]

No. It's sad that Trumptalk has weaseled its way into our lexicon. LOL

, what???

 

[kalash]

I made it pretty clear that I’m addressing the claim that assault weapons aren’t any more dangerous than any other firearm. I specifically used bolt actions to disprove that claim.

I’m avoiding your point because it is not what I was addressing at all. The proposition that assault weapons aren’t any more dangerous than any other firearm is false if there are firearms that assault weapons are more dangerous than. I’m using the ability to kill more targets faster as what I assume the AWB proponents consider dangerous. So that proposition fails simply because assault weapons are far more effective than bolt actions.

What definition of "assault weapon" are you using? Because it sounds like what you actually mean is "semi-auto", in which case why not just say that?

 

[Coyote33]

Going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing if this doesn't get "fixed" ("settled"?) by about a year from now, it is not going to happen in our favor at all.

 

[LakeTrout]

What definition of "assault weapon" are you using? Because it sounds like what you actually mean is "semi-auto", in which case why not just say that?

I was referring to a specific post where the claim that “assault weapons” are no more deadly or dangerous (I forget which and don’t feel like searching at the moment) than firearms not on the list. Prior to that the MA AWB was mentioned and this current bill was mentioned as an AWB. I’m assuming the definition we are referring to is at minimum in line with the current MA AWB.

I’m fine with using semi auto rifles as an example, because the impending ban that is the subject of this thread seems to define what is banned that way. My claim would then be that a semi auto rifle is more dangerous in the hands of someone intending to commit mass murder, than a firearm not subject to the ban such as a bolt action.

If we want to define it as semi auto, then the original post that I objected to would read something like “semi-autos are not any more dangerous than non auto-loading firearms”. I still think that’s not true. I think it’s something that people who live in AWB states try (and fail) to convince others to show that an AWB is a bad idea. But I don’t think it’s a convincing argument to anti-gunners or people on the fence. And it’s not a convincing argument to me either.

There are convincing arguments to be made against semi auto bans and AWBs. But you have to make one of those in order to make a difference to someone who is undecided, and not just try to pretend that a semi-auto rifle in the hands of a mass murderer isn’t more dangerous than its equivalent in a bolt action.

Also I’ll add that yes I get it that it’s not the firearm that’s dangerous. Don’t need to be flamed for that and don’t care to go down that rabbit hole. I know firearms aren’t dangerous on their own. What I mean to say that someone like a mass murderer is more capable for committing such acts when he or she or whatever pronoun it uses has an autoloading firearm vs. say a bolt action.

 

[Quite_Exasperated]

Exactly. The 'ol guns are icky argument. Total splitting of hairs. All firearms are inherently dangerous. The rationale by some of these judges is beyond the pale of anything remotely rational because (1) they have a personal agenda against the plain meaning of 2A (let's be honest -- we don't need Bruen's or Heller's reasoning when the written words of the 2A could not be more clear) and (2) they have zero understanding of firearms. The irony is that a handgun is far more dangerous because it is concealable. The only reason lunatics use an AR is because they see it on TV and in video games. It is actually harder to manipulate than a pistol. The Virginia Tech killer used two pistols, one of which had 10 round mags. He killed almost two dozen people.

We’re our own worst enemy…

Politicians: “Any gun with a foobar is dangerous and should be outlawed”.

Gun owners on a public forum: “Can you believe how stupid politicians are? They think foobars are dangerous but it’s really the flagobis that’s dangerous”.

Politicians: “Any gun with a foobar or flagobis is dangerous and should be outlawed”.

Gun owners on a public forum: “Can you believe they’re trying outlaw foobars and flagobis’?”

Look at how detailed the most recent gun bills are about features that should be outlawed…now on to the pistol bans!

 

[71montess]

We’re our own worst enemy…

Politicians: “Any gun with a foobar is dangerous and should be outlawed”.

Gun owners on a public forum: “Can you believe how stupid politicians are? They think foobars are dangerous but it’s really the flagobis that’s dangerous”.

Politicians: “Any gun with a foobar or flagobis is dangerous and should be outlawed”.

Gun owners on a public forum: “Can you believe they’re trying outlaw foobars and flagobis’?”

Look at how detailed the most recent gun bills are about features that should be outlawed…now on to the pistol bans!

I think they also have turncoat true gun guys advising them . It's obvious to me.

 

[Picton]

Anyone who disagrees with this is a statist "I got mine" gun grabber.

The amount of money I'd "lose" if a magazine ban and "assault weapon" ban went away is enough to buy a bunch of really nice toys.

I'd be 100% OK with all that "value" going away.

This.

It’s “equity” I’d be proud to lose.

 

[LakeTrout]

I think they also have turncoat true gun guys advising them . It's obvious to me.

It’s true. There’s a ton of people who love guns and love owning them but do not want the general populace to own them too. Lots of cops, 3 letter agents, etc. fit into this category.

 

[Joeldiaz]

SCOTUS needs to sack up and take more 2A cases to stop this horse crap. We're going to lose our already iffy (looking at you Roberts and Kavanaugh) 6-3 majority probably in the next 1-5 years as either Alito or Thomas will assuredly die or retire. We’re also almost guaranteed to lose the presidency in 2024, So SCOTUS needs to kick things into high gear

 

[Hydrocarbonate]

It’s true. There’s a ton of people who love guns and love owning them but do not want the general populace to own them too. Lots of cops, 3 letter agents, etc. fit into this category.

Rules for thee and not for me, it’s almost like these restrictions just deter normal citizens from exercising the same rights (shortage of FFLs, lack of ammo sellers, mass premium for any firearm, stigma of gun ownership, making gun ownership some kind of “privilege”).

 

[Broc]

SCOTUS needs to sack up and take more 2A cases to stop this horse crap. We're going to lose our already iffy (looking at you Roberts and Kavanaugh) 6-3 majority probably in the next 1-5 years as either Alito or Thomas will assuredly die or retire. We’re also almost guaranteed to lose the presidency in 2024, So SCOTUS needs to kick things into high gear

Alito is 73 and Thomas 75. You expect they will die in 1-5 years?

 

[Joeldiaz]

Alito is 73 and Thomas 75. You expect they will die in 1-5 years?

It’s not out of the realm of possibility. At those ages if someone looks at you wrong it’s a potential death sentence. I also said die or retire. They don’t have to kick the bucket to leave SCOTUS.