CA appeals court rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to AK platform

[R_Bert]

From TTAG

 

CA appeals court rules 2nd Amendment does not apply to AK platform

 

Legal minds - your take?

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/10/robert-farago/breaking-ca-court-appeals-2a-doesnt-apply-ak-platform-rifles/#comments

[JohnC]

Cali and it's citizens never cease to amaze me.

How easily people can be indoctrinated and propagandized in to being left-wing useful idiots that give up all their freedom and money to the mighty govt.

[PolePosition]

I like how she has her finger hooked around the trigger. How can somebody who cannot even hold a firearm in a safe manner, decide what Americans can and cannot possess?

[R_Bert]

I like how she has her finger hooked around the trigger. How can somebody who cannot even hold a firearm in a safe manner, decide what Americans can and cannot possess?

She (it??) has nothing directly to do with the ruling (although it is pleased). That is old file photo. Edited October 22, 2013 by R_Bert

[Guest ThePunisher]

As always, Kalifornistan is the state that sets precedent in every anti-constitutional policy which other states slowly follow. It's just a matter of time before the SHTF. We either take back our country and kick the commies out of government, or we surrender all our freedoms. Don't know about anyone else, but I'm too old and ornery to become a comrade.

[RED333]

I do not thing that will fly in the SCOTUS.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Problem is California is the petri dish for the nation. Every single national law regarding guns or the enviroment was first enacted in California.

[JAB]

Geez, do these so-called judges not even read history?  The whole, entire purpose for the 2A is so that the People can resist a tyrannical government.  It wasn't about, "the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense . . ."  Not at all.  Those things were considered 'givens' at a time when most folks in our country had some common sense.  In fact, I once read that there was a ruling in Tennessee in the early 1800s that denied one guy's 'right' to carry a bowie knife and the reasoning was that such a knife is not a military weapon and that it is only military type weapons that might, conceivably, be used to resist government forces that are really protected by the Federal and Tennessee state Constitutions.  In other words, not only does the 2A apply to "military type" weapons, it was mostly intended to protect the right to keep and bear such weapons.

 

To me, such rulings and courts as this are irrefutable evidence that the system is so flawed, bastardized and corrupted that it will never be fixed by working within that same, flawed system.  Attempting to do so is the metaphorical equivalent of jousting at windmills.

Edited October 22, 2013 by JAB

[Guest TankerHC]

And they would be exactly right because that is exactly what Scalia wrote in his decision. If you haven't read Heller I would suggest doing it. It's not the big pro gun decision everyone makes it out to be. Scalia did what everyone wanted. He left the decision on which guns you can own up to the States and Federal Government. You have the right to keep and bear arms, which arms is not up to you. Disagreeing with the 4th circuit means disagreeing with the Heller decision. Which is why this needs to make its way to the Supreme Court fast. This could turn out to be a bad thing or a really good thing if the Supreme Court would decide against restrictions. And I know just the man who could make it happen and is in the right place. A dollar to a donut says Paul Clement will be in front of the Supreme Court arguing this in the next 12 months. And he will win. Just my guess.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[Guest TankerHC]

The more I think about this the more excited I get about it. This is a good thing. This could force the Supreme Court to decide once and for all. But of course Roberts is a dark Horse.

Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2

[bersaguy]

Some how I think after the last Blunder Roberts made on ACA I don't think he will be that stupid twice and will most likely follow  Scalia's lead on this issue.................jmho

[Guest TankerHC]

Before anyone thinks I am a nut and delusional maybe I need to explain my position. This is a battle we needed to fight. WE The NRA and WE The People needed this very battle to get clarity on the Heller decision. If the NRA leadership isn't doing backflips, Id be surprised. The California Democratic Supermajority in their House just stepped on their dks in a major major way. Banning features on weapons, banning certain types of bullets is another, but banning an entire class of rifles is an entirely different thing altogether. Why do you think there has not been an outright ban anywhere on an entire class of weapons? "We will ban the number of bullets" or "we will ban what kind of grip" or "we will make you make your guns California compliant". Nope, these people in California are testing Scalia's writings in his decision to the limit. It would surprise me greatly if the NRA did not fight this in a major way, and win. And it will be a win for all of us. 

 

The California Democratic Supermajority just handed us the powder to fill our Cannons.

 

I cant see it any other way, this is a positive, not a negative. Its not even a setback for the 2A, its a coming battle that COULD lead to a lot of changes.

 

But then again, there is Roberts.

Edited October 22, 2013 by TankerHC

[Guest TankerHC]

Some how I think after the last Blunder Roberts made on ACA I don't think he will be that stupid twice and will most likely follow  Scalia's lead on this issue.................jmho

 

I believe your right.

[Oh Shoot]

I do not thing that will fly in the SCOTUS.

Some how I think after the last Blunder Roberts made on ACA I don't think he will be that stupid twice and will most likely follow  Scalia's lead on this issue.................jmho

 
You don't understand. Scalia has opined that it may well be reasonable to exclude certain firearm types under 2A.
 
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those â€œin common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
 
So, what weapons would he (and the other justices) decide you don't have a right to keep and carry? What weapons would he decide are dangerous and unusual? We don't know till the rubber hits the road with a case on an individual type weapon, like the case under discussion here, if it works it way up.
 
- OS

Edited October 22, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JohnC]

I've said this before, but you should never fight a battle over rights, especially 2A rights, when the anti-constitutionalists (your enemies of freedom and rights) are in power.

We have one SCOTUS justice who showed us that being labeled a conservative does not guarantee he or she will automatically rule on the side of the peoples rights and the constitution via the ACA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro v2.2

[Oh Shoot]

I've said this before, but you should never fight a battle over rights, especially 2A rights, when the anti-constitutionalists (your enemies of freedom and rights) are in power.

 

It's reasonable to assume the current one is the most conservative SCOTUS we'll see for the next 25 years. Or more.

 

Matter of fact, if it doesn't swing lib before BHO leaves office it'll be a miracle, since it only takes one to make a diff. Besides the lottery on which geezer might croak first,  Kennedy might not wait out the rest of Hussein's term, and he surely won't for another Dem presidency after him.

 

- OS

Edited October 23, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[JohnC]

It's reasonable to assume the current one is the most conservative SCOTUS we'll see for the next 25 years. Or more.
 
Matter of fact, if it doesn't swing lib before BHO leaves office it'll be a miracle, since it only takes one to make a diff. Besides the lottery on which geezer might croak first,  Kennedy might not wait out the rest of Hussein's term, and he surely won't for another Dem presidency after him.
 
- OS

I share your thoughts and concerns for sure. It worries me deeply. but with the one who flipped on the constitutionality of the ACA, I'm far too afraid to take any 2A rights battles up there.

[Oh Shoot]

I share your thoughts and concerns for sure. It worries me deeply. but with the one who flipped on the constitutionality of the ACA, I'm far too afraid to take any 2A rights battles up there.

 

Sometime by one of Hillary's terms, once the court is so far left you won't be able to see it without binocs,  the libs will be nudging gun issues along to them every chance they get.

 

- OS

[Guest TankerHC]

Sometime by one of Hillary's terms, once the court is so far left you won't be able to see it without binocs,  the libs will be nudging gun issues along to them every chance they get.

 

- OS

 

Let them win the House and keep the Senate. no nudging, the speed at which massive gun control will go into effect will make their actions on the ACA seem like a snails pace.

[Oh Shoot]

Let them win the House and keep the Senate. no nudging, the speed at which massive gun control will go into effect will make their actions on the ACA seem like a snails pace.

 

They'll ultimately still need SCOTUS to sanction the anti-gun measures they'll enact, though, just like as with the ACA.

 

- OS

[Guest TankerHC]

They'll ultimately still need SCOTUS to sanction the anti-gun measures they'll enact, though, just like as with the ACA.

 

- OS

 

The laws can go in effect immediately. If they are brought before the Courts, then they will make a decision. The problem is I dont see them making a few new laws, they will make a LOT of new laws that could take years to get through the Courts unless injunctions are in place, by then the Courts should be well established on the Liberal side. Im no legal expert, but seeing how this Administration recently brought up an 1892 decision completely unrelated to the case they were fighting, they will probably re-introduce the full force of Norris Laguardia in the Gun Control debate. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Oh Shoot]

The laws can go in effect immediately. If they are brought before the Courts, then they will make a decision. The problem is I dont see them making a few new laws, they will make a LOT of new laws that could take years to get through the Courts unless injunctions are in place, by then the Courts should be well established on the Liberal side. Im no legal expert, but seeing how this Administration recently brought up an 1892 decision completely unrelated to the case they were fighting, they will probably re-introduce the full force of Norris Laguardia in the Gun Control debate. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

 

That was all exactly my point. Once they have a three branches of government, it follows they will have SCOTUS locked up also. Actually, all they need is the next 11.5 years of a Dem prez and Senate for the SCOTUS part,  and of course, the basic balance could actually change almost overnight.

 

What would one more Sotomayor or Kagan and one less Kennedy or Scalia have done to Heller and McDonald? Well, it would have still been 5-4, but the other way.

 

- OS