- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: No Federal Appeals Court Has Held Assault-type Weapons are 2A Protected.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:14 pm to SouthernHog
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:14 pm to SouthernHog
quote:
I don't think we've ever had an accurate definition of "assault weapons".
Well that’s cause it’s a made up term.
1
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:14 pm to texridder
quote:
declined to review
Do you understand what this term means?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:16 pm to UpToPar
quote:
You want to put this into context, or are you going to pretend that this is really what the court said?
I was quoting from the 4th Circuit.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:17 pm to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Which is kind of the opposite of the 1939 decision upholding restrictions on sawed-off shotguns because they were NOT typical military weapons.
ETA United States v Miller
The Miller decision was wrong and had no real opposition. Short barreled shotguns were in fact used by the military at the time.
I know that wasn't your point and your point was correct.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:28 pm to texridder
quote:
The Supreme Court in November 2017 declined to review the 4th Circuit decision cited in the OP.
You keep posting this as though it means anything legally outside of the US 4th Circuit. Supreme Court denials of certiorari do not convey any opinion of the Supreme Court on the merits of the case and have no legal effect on other US Circuits.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:29 pm to Centinel
quote:
declined to review
Do you understand what this term means?
Yea. It means they declined to review it.
One reason could be is that there doesn't seem to be a clear dispute between the circuits.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:29 pm to LSULaw2009
quote:
You keep posting this as though it means anything legally outside of the US 4th Circuit. Supreme Court denials of certiorari do not convey any opinion of the Supreme Court on the merits of the case and have no legal effect on other US Circuits.
What you some kind of lawyer or something buddy?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:30 pm to Centinel
Only in my day job, lol
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:36 pm to texridder
quote:
was quoting from the 4th Circuit
Busted. You quoted the Heller Court and failed to include the entire quote. It ends up stating the exact opposite of what you claim it says. You are just another dishonest liberal. Surprise surprise.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:36 pm to LSULaw2009
quote:
You keep posting this as though it means anything legally outside of the US 4th Circuit. Supreme Court denials of certiorari do not convey any opinion of the Supreme Court on the merits of the case and have no legal effect on other US Circuits.
I post it in response to specific posts.
It's a fact.
It is also a fact that 3 other circuits that have made similar rulings, giving legal to a total of 4 circuits..
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:38 pm to texridder
The Truth about Assault Weapons
The link is a slideshow and does a good job of explaining the differences between them and other guns.
The link is a slideshow and does a good job of explaining the differences between them and other guns.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:38 pm to texridder
You post it as if it is some sort of indication of the courts stance.
You are either intentionally deceptive or extraordinarily ignorant. Which is It?
You are either intentionally deceptive or extraordinarily ignorant. Which is It?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:40 pm to texridder
ive got 3 words for you
Caetano. V. Massachusetts
Caetano. V. Massachusetts
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:42 pm to Rougarou13
quote:
I don't think we've ever had an accurate definition of "assault weapons".
Well that’s cause it’s a made up term.
The 4th Circuit opinion does not show that Maryland defined assault weapon, per se, but instead provides a list of the banned weapons, which I have posted.
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:49 pm to texridder
quote:
texridder
Behold, an enemy to the nation.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:51 pm to texridder
And absolutely zero Federal Circuit Court decisions carry binding precedent over the country as a whole.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:54 pm to Carson123987
quote:
ive got 3 words for you
Caetano. V. Massachusetts
Not sure that case is applicable.
From Wiki with footnotes
quote:
The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.
First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]
Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11]
Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:57 pm to texridder
I get it now. You just don't understand what you are reading. The case is saying the Massachusetts courts were wrong and that heller allows for ownership of the stun gun. It was decided unanimously. That is a huge blow to the "point" you are trying to make and is on point.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 2:59 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
You post it as if it is some sort of indication of the courts stance.
You are either intentionally deceptive or extraordinarily ignorant. Which is It?
I just posted it as a fact.
I wouldn't want to horn in on your extraordinarily ignorant posts.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 3:00 pm to texridder
Denial of cert is not dispositive.
Of course, you wouldn't know that.
Of course, you wouldn't know that.
This post was edited on 2/22/18 at 3:01 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News