- 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 4:02 pm to Centinel
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:02 pm to Centinel
quote:
I'm beginning to suspect that he's not a lawyer.
I'm beginning to suspect he eats tide pods.
When all else fails, throw in a devastating tide pod put down.
Ouch. That hurt.
1
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:02 pm to texridder
quote:
Hey, BOZO, I was discussing the 4th Circuit's opinion on the Maryland law.
And when it is pointed out to you that the US Supreme Courts opinion is a stark contrast from the opinion of the 4th Circuit...you should humbly apologize for a thread with such an awful premise. Instead you double down...even the strict scrutiny standard pointed out by the other poster was a big hint for you. The 4th Circuit acknowledged Maryland used the intermediate scrutiny standard. If you would have read the ruling you would have seen that.
I thank you for continuing to entertain us with your bizarre mixture of hubris and ignorance.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:03 pm to texridder
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:03 pm to BBONDS25
I think this is appropriate here too:
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:04 pm to texridder
Strange for this thread to focus on "Assault-type Weapons" -- talk about vague -- when firearms have always been subject to regulation. For example, prohibitions on concealed weapons date WAY back. More recently, Congress restricted what it (clumsily) defined as "assault weapons" before those restrictions were lifted. So, of course, "Assault-type Weapons," whatever that may mean, could be regulated. The Supreme Court is loathe to tell the elected branches (or the states) precisely how it may regulate firearms and has made it clear that the 2A cannot be ignored. The specific contours of our 2A rights are likely to be established by Congress and state governments, just as they are presently (e.g., the ban on fully automatic weapons).
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:04 pm to Centinel
(no message)
This post was edited on 5/27/23 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:04 pm to texridder
quote:
What are you talking about? Oh, I see, because I won't give you a page number for everything you pick at, I didn't read the case. Try again.
No. You didn't read the case because the quote you are referring to comes from page 9 of the decision. It isn't a direct quote, but whatever site you pulled it from got it from page 9 of the ruling.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:08 pm to BBONDS25
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:09 pm to UpToPar
quote:
From which page of the 4th Circuit's opinion? Your quote said "The Heller Court said, ..."
My post was about the 4th Circuit's opinion on the Maryland Statute regarding banning assault style weapons. And I linked the text of the entire opinion.
You want to discuss the 4th Circuit's opinion and its reasoning?
No, I guess not.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:20 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
No. You didn't read the case because the quote you are referring to comes from page 9 of the decision. It isn't a direct quote, but whatever site you pulled it from got it from page 9 of the ruling.
Since it's obvious that you don't want to, or are not capable of, discussing the 4th Circuit's opinion and its reasoning ---
I'm going leave now as I have something more important to do -- pop some popcorn and go watch an episode of Law and Order.
Carry on.
(I purposefully made a Law and Order reference so that you can keep up your sophomoric banter in my absence to keep yourself amused.)
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:22 pm to texridder
quote:
Since it's obvious that you don't want to, or are not capable of, discussing the 4th Circuit's opinion and its reasoning ---
I'm going leave now as I have something more important to do -- pop some popcorn and go watch an episode of Law and Order.
Carry on.
(I purposefully made a Law and Order reference so that you can keep up your sophomoric banter in my absence to keep yourself amused.)
That's an odd way to say you're leaving because you got your arse kicked all over this thread.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:22 pm to texridder
quote:
Since it's obvious that you don't want to, or are not capable of, discussing the 4th Circuit's opinion and its reasoning ---
this level of fail we saw just 1 week ago with Losh.
my god man.
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:23 pm to CptBengal
It's always fun when some tard tries to argue court opinions like he's some expert and the PoliBoard lawyers catch wind
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:24 pm to texridder
Unlike you, I read the decision. The 4th Circuit made two critical errors that stun me. The dissent points them out. They, like you, completely misrepresent what the Heller decision says and they allowed the intermediate scrutiny standard to be applied. I don't know why cert was denied...probably because 99 something percent of cases have very denied. Or perhaps they are eyeing a different case coming through the system. I don't know. But the language the 4th Circuit uses is the opposite of the US Supreme Court.
What else about it would you like to discuss?
Or are you going to keep up with the hilarious quips about law and order and DUIs?
What else about it would you like to discuss?
Or are you going to keep up with the hilarious quips about law and order and DUIs?
Posted on 2/22/18 at 4:25 pm to texridder
Weird post.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News