Given the 2dA prefatory clause, weapons suitable for militia service are military weapons. It would be absurd for a court to aver that the founding fathers intended that militias oppose enemy soldiers using inferior arms unsuitable for that task. No army equips its troops with semi-auto weapons which have been obsolete since the end of WW2. Troops are able to infrequently use their select fire rifles while set on full auto/burst because those troops are supported by heavier weapons such as belt fed machine guns for suppressive fire. If full auto/burst fire capability is unnecessary, militaries would not be insisting on issuing select fire rifles.
As a citizen of Illinois and damn near lifetime resident, I should be able to sue Pritzker and the state for this BS... just sayin. It's going on a year now and it SUCKS!
Thank you, The Reload. Definitely looking forward to getting rid of Sen. Cornyn for his trespassing on our 2A rights over the years (and glad too that Sen. Scott failed in securing the Senate Leader; his 'Parkland Capitulation' is egregious) Thank you too for stepping through what SCOTUS might be thinking and waiting for: Robust fact-finding, analysis, and decision-making from our federal inferior courts.
Where does the second amendment prohibit the ownership of military weapons? It only states "arms". There are some US citizens own tanks, cannons, and machineguns; though these US citizens are among the wealthiest, they still own and operate them, as they can afford the Tax certificate and the high cost of ammo. a 20mm cannon shell costs about $37.00; making it a very expensive toy.
The whole idea of the 2nd amendment is to keep a tyrannical government in check. So why would the court restrict the people from having reasonable parity with the government wrt to common small arms.
Stephen: A couple of lawyers I’ve asked have told me that MD (and other states) are likely mis-reading Scalia’s remarks in the Heller decision that imply M16s may be banned. He was posing a hypothetical, not stating a position. I suspect that if/when SCOTUS takes the Snope case, we will hear a clarifying remake on this statement authored by Thomas and/or Alito.
That section of Heller is dicta. Although, it's not clear there is a majority on SCOTUS to strike down the NFA's effective new full-auto ban. Still, it's unlikely SCOTUS would agree with how the Seventh Circuit rationalized banning AR-15 sales given how popular ARs are among civilian gun owners.
@ It’s dicta, but not necessarily in the way that it’s often read. I don’t think the NFA is going away, but the ban on post-86 MGs was in the FOPA, and I can imagine that going away. But yes, we’re in violent agreement that when it comes to semi-auto rifles like the AR-15, SCOTUS is highly unlikely to regard a ban as constitutional. I’ve also said before (other comments) that long term, I think that the gun control movement is going to have to accept that AWBs are now impractical as policy, due to the sheer numbers of ARs in circulation now.
I think if you apply Bruen the way Thomas intended, as he outlined in Rahimi, then you'd probably have to strike down the NFA or at least the total ban on new civilian fully-auto sales. However, it doesn't seem there's a majority willing to go that far. I think Cargill is another example of that. The main concern was the ATF acted without Congress. Even the more conservative members seemed to believe Congress could ban bump stocks if they wanted and didn't take issue with the full-auto ban underlying the ATF's rule. I wrote about it at the time here: thereload.com/analysis-a-puzzling-aspect-of-the-supreme-courts-bump-stock-ruling-member-exclusive/
It seems as if the Supreme Court is waiting for the most comprehensive case to come forward or an amalgam of cases to combine into one so as many avenues of attack on ARs as possible can be addressed at one time. A decision that leaves no wiggle room for additional attacks on the platform or other similar platforms is the desired outcome. All modern firearms were either modeled after or adapted and adopted as military arms at some point. The Navy uses or has used single shot 22 rimfire rifles for training sailors.
Anti-gun laws are inherently racist, and the judge did a great job mentioning the riot/massacre that happened in the town where the court was located. Regardless of the unconstitutionality of the bans in several states, statistics don’t support the so called common sense laws that Democrats insist on passing. In addition to that, there have been several shootings/murders in Chicago that were committed by repeat felons, which PICA does absolutely nothing to stop or prevent. The argument for public safety is also irrelevant, because violence has been on a downward trend, with a slight increase during the pandemic. If more judges were unbiased, and served the people, instead of the political party they belonged to, there wouldn’t be so much discussion surrounding the Second Amendment. Also, Judge Iain Johnston’s ruling on concealed carry on the CTA, and subsequent demand that the IL AG office explain themselves for blaming a mass shooting, on his ruling says a lot. Lastly, the several definitions of a mass shooting, the changing of the age range to include 18-19 year olds as kids, the inclusion of suicide victims, and data on school shootings favors the collection of data to support Democratic propaganda.
@@evagelosdrinis7656 They are very hard to prove, which should tell you exactly what you need to know about Alex Jones and this case. But some people want to be lied to. This isn't the place for that kind of content. It's very easy to find elsewhere. Have a good one.
The judge has ordered a hearing on the auction. But it's not clear that will change the outcome from the reporting I've read. We'll see what happens after the hearing in a week or so.
Given the 2dA prefatory clause, weapons suitable for militia service are military weapons. It would be absurd for a court to aver that the founding fathers intended that militias oppose enemy soldiers using inferior arms unsuitable for that task. No army equips its troops with semi-auto weapons which have been obsolete since the end of WW2. Troops are able to infrequently use their select fire rifles while set on full auto/burst because those troops are supported by heavier weapons such as belt fed machine guns for suppressive fire. If full auto/burst fire capability is unnecessary, militaries would not be insisting on issuing select fire rifles.
He also mentioned that an H3 hummer civilian is not the same as a hummer used in the military, even though they look similar
As a citizen of Illinois and damn near lifetime resident, I should be able to sue Pritzker and the state for this BS... just sayin. It's going on a year now and it SUCKS!
Thank you, The Reload. Definitely looking forward to getting rid of Sen. Cornyn for his trespassing on our 2A rights over the years (and glad too that Sen. Scott failed in securing the Senate Leader; his 'Parkland Capitulation' is egregious)
Thank you too for stepping through what SCOTUS might be thinking and waiting for: Robust fact-finding, analysis, and decision-making from our federal inferior courts.
All guns law are infringement.
Under Bruin banning full auto firearms is unconstitutional.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED 1776
Where does the second amendment prohibit the ownership of military weapons? It only states "arms". There are some US citizens own tanks, cannons, and machineguns; though these US citizens are among the wealthiest, they still own and operate them, as they can afford the Tax certificate and the high cost of ammo. a 20mm cannon shell costs about $37.00; making it a very expensive toy.
The whole idea of the 2nd amendment is to keep a tyrannical government in check. So why would the court restrict the people from having reasonable parity with the government wrt to common small arms.
They don’t want us to protect ourselves so easily.
Stephen: A couple of lawyers I’ve asked have told me that MD (and other states) are likely mis-reading Scalia’s remarks in the Heller decision that imply M16s may be banned. He was posing a hypothetical, not stating a position. I suspect that if/when SCOTUS takes the Snope case, we will hear a clarifying remake on this statement authored by Thomas and/or Alito.
That section of Heller is dicta. Although, it's not clear there is a majority on SCOTUS to strike down the NFA's effective new full-auto ban. Still, it's unlikely SCOTUS would agree with how the Seventh Circuit rationalized banning AR-15 sales given how popular ARs are among civilian gun owners.
@ It’s dicta, but not necessarily in the way that it’s often read. I don’t think the NFA is going away, but the ban on post-86 MGs was in the FOPA, and I can imagine that going away. But yes, we’re in violent agreement that when it comes to semi-auto rifles like the AR-15, SCOTUS is highly unlikely to regard a ban as constitutional. I’ve also said before (other comments) that long term, I think that the gun control movement is going to have to accept that AWBs are now impractical as policy, due to the sheer numbers of ARs in circulation now.
I think if you apply Bruen the way Thomas intended, as he outlined in Rahimi, then you'd probably have to strike down the NFA or at least the total ban on new civilian fully-auto sales. However, it doesn't seem there's a majority willing to go that far. I think Cargill is another example of that. The main concern was the ATF acted without Congress. Even the more conservative members seemed to believe Congress could ban bump stocks if they wanted and didn't take issue with the full-auto ban underlying the ATF's rule.
I wrote about it at the time here: thereload.com/analysis-a-puzzling-aspect-of-the-supreme-courts-bump-stock-ruling-member-exclusive/
It seems as if the Supreme Court is waiting for the most comprehensive case to come forward or an amalgam of cases to combine into one so as many avenues of attack on ARs as possible can be addressed at one time. A decision that leaves no wiggle room for additional attacks on the platform or other similar platforms is the desired outcome.
All modern firearms were either modeled after or adapted and adopted as military arms at some point. The Navy uses or has used single shot 22 rimfire rifles for training sailors.
Have FOID, will travel for your collection. LEE, OGLE or WHITESIDE counties. Cash!
Anti-gun laws are inherently racist, and the judge did a great job mentioning the riot/massacre that happened in the town where the court was located. Regardless of the unconstitutionality of the bans in several states, statistics don’t support the so called common sense laws that Democrats insist on passing.
In addition to that, there have been several shootings/murders in Chicago that were committed by repeat felons, which PICA does absolutely nothing to stop or prevent. The argument for public safety is also irrelevant, because violence has been on a downward trend, with a slight increase during the pandemic. If more judges were unbiased, and served the people, instead of the political party they belonged to, there wouldn’t be so much discussion surrounding the Second Amendment. Also, Judge Iain Johnston’s ruling on concealed carry on the CTA, and subsequent demand that the IL AG office explain themselves for blaming a mass shooting, on his ruling says a lot.
Lastly, the several definitions of a mass shooting, the changing of the age range to include 18-19 year olds as kids, the inclusion of suicide victims, and data on school shootings favors the collection of data to support Democratic propaganda.
1a Alex Jones has freedom of speech just as you and I do. Lawfare was waged against him.
Liable and slander aren't protected speech. This is why having journalistic standards is important. Alex Jones did this to himself.
@@TheReloadSite Both of the above are almost impossible to prove you sound like a RINO not a Populist.
@@evagelosdrinis7656 They are very hard to prove, which should tell you exactly what you need to know about Alex Jones and this case. But some people want to be lied to. This isn't the place for that kind of content. It's very easy to find elsewhere. Have a good one.
All guns law are illegal.
People would want your channel shut down also.. I do not watch Alex Jones or Info Wars.
What we do is nothing like what Alex Jones does. We have standards for our reporting. He makes up lies for a living to sell dupes scam products.
Standards for some and not for others. We will see who prevails. Thank you for engaging. I side with Jones.
I think the alex jones bid is in some turmoil
The judge has ordered a hearing on the auction. But it's not clear that will change the outcome from the reporting I've read. We'll see what happens after the hearing in a week or so.