If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
These judges don't give a shit about those opinions, there's no penalties for not following them. They're just playing the game game until SCOTUS eventually flips and Heller and Bruen will be reversed. I hate to be a Debbie downer but that's their plan.
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.
From Alito's concurrence in Bruen:
W was a conservative Dem.
The conservative legal minds weren't on board with previous judicial picks ?
This case will go nowhere. It’s still on interlocutory appeal, which means there has been no final judgement in the case. We’ve had multiple gun related cases go all the way up to SCOTUS seeking similar injunctive relief (Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, VanDerStock v. Garland, NAGR v. Naperville, etc). All of them have been denied. SCOTUS will not act unless a case has been fully decided on the merits at the inferior court level. There are other AWB/mag ban cases much further along than this one (Miller v. Bonta, Duncan v. Bonta, Bianchi v. Frosh, etc.) that stand a much better chance of getting to SCOTUS sooner.
Don't forget that last August SCOTUS refused to overturn the IL AWB enacted after the Highland Park mass shooting , which was in and of itself interesting in that Highland Park already had a local AWB in place that SCOTUS refused to overturn (Freidman V. Highland Park - 2015). That refusal was one of the driving forces behind Bloomberg directing his organizations to concentrate on local actions.
I agree with your overall sentiment, but this is where you go off the rails a little bit. If you don’t think that an AR15 is a better killing tool, be it self defense or mass murder, than a bolt gun, you’re being dishonest. There’s a reason the military stopped fighting with bolt guns (except in very niche applications) once auto loading firearms became available.
I'm sorry but that's silly (to put it politely). What's so special about an AR-15 mechanically? What's so unique about the way it functions? Why are you comparing it to a bolt gun and not to a Garand, M14, Carbine, Mini-14, etc? Semi-auto technology has been around for a very, very long time.
Class Action lawsuits are bad in a 2A context. Typically, a 2A plaintiff seeks a court declaration deeming a gun control law unconstitutional, followed by an order preventing its future enforcement. Therefore, resorting to a class action isn't crucial for the 2A movement to achieve its goal of eliminating unconstitutional laws. Moreover, class actions necessitate a separate litigation process to address various unrelated questions, such as the adequacy of the plaintiff's lawyer, determining class members, and assessing the plaintiff(s) as suitable class representatives. Additionally, the financial burdens associated with class action litigation, including the preparation and publication of Class Notices and allowing potential class members to "opt out," make the use of the class action tool largely unnecessary in the 2A context.
I’m comparing it to a bolt gun because bolt guns don’t fall into the definition of what is considered an “assault weapon”. That seems like a logical train of thought to me and not silly.
It didn’t, actually. The Bruen test is really just the Heller test, but dumbed down in a way that inferior courts are supposed to be able to understand it. The Bruen methodology is the exact same methodology that SCOTUS used when deciding Heller. Using that test, they determined that history says the only kinds of arms that can be banned are those deemed to be “dangerous and unusual.” Which is how we got the common use test.
His point is that there are a number of semi-auto guns not considered "assault weapons" that are effectively the same. You quoted him listing a number of them, including a Mini-14.
Eliding the point of the other person is not a strong position either. Mini-14s don't meet the typical "assault weapon" definition, yet the rate of fire, reload rate, capacity, etc. are indistinguishable from an AR15, and to date they are not a primary target of the bans.
He asked why I compared it to a bolt gun, and I quoted and responded to that specifically. I actually clearly stated in my post that I’m comparing it to a bolt gun because they don’t fall under the definition of “assault weapon”.
That's all well and good, but now you're avoiding my point, specifically why an AR-15 is an "assault weapon" but a Mini-14 is not. A Mini-14 is just as effective at killing multiple targets, but it's not on the list. The only apparent reason is cosmetic issues, which would seem to put your "they're on the list because they're more effective at killing" proposition to the test.
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 absolutely 100% never proposed this. All one ever done was debunk the claim that “assault weapons” are not any more dangerous than any firearm not on the list.
I’m going to say something controversial here: It only takes one shot to kill someone. A bolt gun or a semi-auto can both do that. We’re not talking belt feds or full auto select fire machine guns.
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:
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.
