After Orlando Shooting, Supreme Court Due to Consider Assault Rifle Ban Case

[Grand Torino]

http://fortune.com/2016/06/13/after-orlando-shooting-supreme-court-due-to-consider-assault-rifle-ban-case/

 

Less than a week after an apparent lone-wolf terrorist used an AR-15 assault-style weapon to carry out the deadliest mass-shooting in U.S. history—leaving at least 50 dead at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla.—the constitutionality of a ban on such weapons is scheduled to come before the U.S. Supreme Court.

At a regularly scheduled conference on Thursday, the Court will decide whether to grant full review of the case, Shew v. Malloy, which challenges Connecticut laws enacted after the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The shooter in that attack, mainly using an AR-15, murdered 20 children and six educators. (An AR-15 was also used in December’s terror-motivated shootings at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, Calif., which killed 14 people. And it was one of three weapons used at the Aurora, Colo. movie theater shooting in July 2012, which killed 12 people.)

Quote

The betting money is that the Court will not take the case.

Read more.

[DWARREN123]

Why not go after the people who do the shooting!

[Glenn]

8 minutes ago, DWARREN123 said:

Why not go after the people who do the shooting!

Because the Gov. Really doesn't give a rat's ass about the victims. All they care about is more control over the people. If they can take away one class of guns it is not much of a leap to ban them all.

[shotgunshooter]

Why not go after the people who do the shooting!

That makes too much sense. We can't do anything that makes people feel uncomfortable. Where's a safe space when you need one?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[A.J. Holst]

The only way to stop a bad guy from getting a gun is remove guns from society.

Except in the case of the bad guy making and using an improvised firearm; good thing there are laws against stuff like that.

Are you kidding me, with a little practice and a properly functioning weapon, how much havoc could one cause with a single shot, double barrel shotguns or 5 - 10 round fixed box magazine long gun.

 

[Caster]

50 minutes ago, Gotthegoods said:

The only way to stop a bad guy from getting a gun is remove guns from society.

 

 

People really believe this.  

I worked for many years as a tool & die maker and I can assure you, there will ALWAYS be guns.  Even the more difficult to manufacture 'Ammunition' ain't impossible.  

Guns are here, they will NEVER leave.  Not until our tyrannical government has exterminated every one.  

[Scorpion Equalizer]

6 minutes ago, Caster said:

 

Guns are here, they will NEVER leave.  Not until our tyrannical government has exterminated every one.  

 

It has been estimated that governments have exterminated 150 million people over the last hundred years. What makes our tyrannical government any different now? The mindset of our leaders in DC appear to be no different than those tyrants that murdered their own people.

[Caster]

No other tyrannical government has ever faced such a heavily armed people as Americans.  

 

Guys I know we all think we are in the know around here.  We like to think we understand JUST how much hardware is in the hands of the American people.  Maybe some of you do.

BUT it's my contention that the average American would be flabbergasted to know the truth of it.  Any number that analysts come up with falls short.  As I said, having worked in a machine shop for many years, what's been bought in broad daylight is only part of it. 

Between 43 nations there were 47 billion rounds of small arms ammunition used in WWII.  There's something like 12 billion rounds sold a year.  With all the gotdang hoarders.....well..damn!!!

 

Take one redneck saving ammo for the last 2 decades and he's got 10K rounds of (centerfire .22's don't count here)

The media and the sheeple would be *GASP!!!*  I would think there are more than a few here that would say "Humph, big deal.  I got twice or three times that."  Of course I don't expect anyone to voice that one.  LOL.

 

People need to worry about their CONTINUED rights.  Taking your gun away is a friggin joke if I ever heard one.  

Edited June 17, 2016 by Caster

[DaveTN]

I don’t think the SCOTUS will hear this… but who knows?

If they do; I think the present court will leave these decisions at a state level.

[crossfire]

15 hours ago, shotgunshooter said:

That makes too much sense. We can't do anything that makes people feel uncomfortable. Where's a safe space when you need one?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[bud]

.

Edited July 18, 2016 by bud

[Dennis1209]

It's ridiculous on the play of words! An assault rifle (AR) is a military weapon designed to function in full auto mode and human assault in combat. Try to regulate and describe what an assault weapon is and is not and all of a sudden it covers most sporting arms.

The AR-15/10 needs to be labeled and referred to as what it is, a modern sporting rifle (MSR) MSR-15. That in and of itself would do wonders on its image, would you agree?

As a former military man given a preference on long guns in CQC, I'd chose a 12 gauge auto / pump with a 7 round magazine tube using buckshot over a MSR-15 with 30 rd. banana magazine of 5.56 / .223. It's easy to feed, much more effective and versatile in any situation. Yep, the ole 12 gauge assault shotgun (AS-00 Buck). 

 

 

 

 

 

[Hozzie]

We can complain all we want about the name, but to most people, an AR is synonymous with assault rifle and you and I aren't going to change that discussion no matter how many "talks" we have with people.   

We need to focus on solutions, not a name.  For me, a simple solution starts with making a free, optional background check system for individuals.   No laws need to change as criminals don't worry about them anyway, but I suspect most here would be open to using a simple pass/fail check system based on very basic information.  Devil would be in the details on making sure what constitutes a fail and how to fix it, but easy and free availability would go a long way in my view.  

 

Take away the term mandatory and I bet a lot of opposition drops.  I believe most responsible gun owners would feel better knowing whomever they are selling to is good to go, but don't want the hassle of driving to an ffl or log that goes along with a mandatory check.   This way if someone has an hcp, you don't have to do a check if you are comfortable with it like I am.  

Edited June 17, 2016 by Hozzie

[bud]

.

Edited July 18, 2016 by bud

[Hozzie]

Bud, I think it is important to not overlook some facts.   Gun shows themselves don't require a background check.  I am not saying they need one, but let's not act like there is a requirement at gun shows to do a background check.  Yes, if you buy from a dealer you have to do a background check, but it isn't because you are at a gun show that it is required.  Many people are looking to do person to person transactions that don't require a background check and is also perfectly legal at a gun show.  The internet purchasing is another issue which of course already requires a background check (well sort of since you can buy from a board such as TGO and have a gun shipped in state without a background check).  It's obviously harder now due to the shipping companies policies, but still perfectly legal if they would ship to an individual.

My simple point, you aren't required to do background checks at a gun show or even the internet as a whole for every transaction.

Edited June 17, 2016 by Hozzie

[bud]

.

Edited July 18, 2016 by bud

[Hozzie]

I agree, but we as gun owners who do know also shouldn't say emphatically that it isn't true, because in some cases it is.  

[bud]

 

.

Edited July 18, 2016 by bud

[Oh Shoot]

15 minutes ago, bud said:

....

Also, they present it as fact that you can buy from the Internet without a background check, and don't mention that any commercial seller of firearms has to ship to an ffl that will then require the background check.

Just a note: anyone has to do the same with interstate transaction.

- OS

 

[GlockSpock]

It's ridiculous on the play of words! An assault rifle (AR) is a military weapon designed to function in full auto mode and human assault in combat. Try to regulate and describe what an assault weapon is and is not and all of a sudden it covers most sporting arms.

The AR-15/10 needs to be labeled and referred to as what it is, a modern sporting rifle (MSR) MSR-15. That in and of itself would do wonders on its image, would you agree?

As a former military man given a preference on long guns in CQC, I'd chose a 12 gauge auto / pump with a 7 round magazine tube using buckshot over a MSR-15 with 30 rd. banana magazine of 5.56 / .223. It's easy to feed, much more effective and versatile in any situation. Yep, the ole 12 gauge assault shotgun (AS-00 Buck). 

 

 

 

 

 

Well. The AR stands for Armalite.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Glenn]

It makes me ill to say this but I think we will see a armed rebellion within 10 years. People are mad as hell and will eventually reach the point of no more. We're not going to take it anymore.

[DaveTN]

5 hours ago, bud said:

The Supreme Court could say it's a new  rule that gunshow transactions require background checks and so do Internet purchases. 

No they couldn't.

[shotgunshooter]

It makes me ill to say this but I think we will see a armed rebellion within 10 years. People are mad as hell and will eventually reach the point of no more. We're not going to take it anymore.

When do you think we will reach this point? I would personally love to know what you think will send us over the edge. I don't know if we as a society are capable of saying no more and fighting back.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Oh Shoot]

4 hours ago, Glenn said:

It makes me ill to say this but I think we will see a armed rebellion within 10 years. People are mad as hell and will eventually reach the point of no more. We're not going to take it anymore.

 

7 minutes ago, shotgunshooter said:

When do you think we will reach this point? I would personally love to know what you think will send us over the edge. I don't know if we as a society are capable of saying no more and fighting back.

Fighting back against who? Unless you're facing confiscation at your front door, who are you going to start shooting at? Sniping at members of Congress and SCOTUS justices? An expeditionary force to occupy DC?  Or what?

- OS

Edited June 18, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[shotgunshooter]

Fighting back against who? Unless you're facing confiscation at your front door, who are you going to start shooting at? Sniping at members of Congress and SCOTUS justices? An expeditionary force to occupy DC?  Or what?

- OS

OS, there are very few things I would fight and die for. Even fewer that I would kill for. I'd just like to hear Glenn's thoughts on the matter. As long as we have Republicans controlling the House and/or Senate and a Democrat in the White House I don't think confiscation could happen. Even if guns were made illegal logistically it would be impossible. Who knows what will happen with this election and future Supreme Court decision. I'd like for Hillary to stay out of office but I have a feeling she is going to take the White House and appoint a justice who is extremely anti-2A.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk