starwatcher

Does SCOTUS have the ability to strike down laws not brought up for challenge? In my fantasy world, every gun control case they get they should strike down other related gun control laws. Make it painful/risky for anti's to attempt to institute new laws. In this case a full auto reg/bans.

If SCOTUS rules broadly and lower courts and states respect that ruling (hahah) how much you want to bet those red flag, order of protection cases will be handled openly like other court cases instead of like divorce/family/juvie court cases. Imagine making that decision, do you want to fight that red flag and have something searchable against your name or just take it discretely. That could really torpedo someone's job, housing, and prospective relationships searches.

glows in the dark

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-appeals-court-calls-bidens-ghost-gun-limits-unlawful-2023-11-10/ I think this is the same case.

Let them declare the state a sensitive area, but require the government be held accountable for every crime committed within the sensitive area. You get robbed, the government is required to make you whole, you get assaulted the government pays for your medical bills. So on and so forth. If the government can find the perpetrator then the government has to go after them for reimbursement.

COVID restrictions and shutdowns gave politicians a play book on how to suspend rights. It's a shame the majority of the nation just went along with those extraordinary emergency powers politicians granted themselves.

I kind of like the subtle implication that the American government would implement a "Global totalitarian state"

Their career and pension vs someone else's rights. No one should wonder which they will choose.

When asked the machine gun question our side could have done a much better job: Something to the effect of; "It is quite possible that Bruen does find the NFA unconstitutional, but I'm not here to argue that law/case. Today I'm here to argue about a ban on commonly owned semi automatic arms." Then when Easterbrook goes on his tommy gun tangent, bring it back that there might be a challenge to the NFA per Bruen, but also state that its not known if tommy guns were commonly owned at that time. (who the heck knows that off hand unless it was thoroughly researched before hand) Then when Easterbrook and Wood flexibly define what a "ban" is you need to pull out that the NFA didn't ban automatic weapons as tightly as this AWB does to AR-15s. its easy to hindsight this but the 2nd amendment side really wasn't polished.

Don't forget your children might be too small to hold a rifle but they are perfect for squad operated weapons. Need to drill into them how to use mortar firing tables.

This really depends on your definition of banned. In a way machine guns aren't even banned today. That is if you don't mind getting a FFL 7 (or others) with SOT 2 in a friendly state.

He's off his rocker, doesn't have a clue on current laws and tried to straw-man arguments; "this isn't about an AWB this is about stinger missiles."

His idea of an automatic weapon is taken straight from the movies. From what I know, it takes significant effort to keep the firearm on target let alone trying to "sweep" it around.

I'd love to see some arthritic guy taken to a range and asked to shoot an automatic firearm. I just hope the camera man is in a concrete bunker. Easterbrook is a clown.

Stingers, bumpstocks, grenades, oh my

a "more dangerous" goes to an interest balancing argument

the fix is in It'll need to go to SCOTUS. This new guy knows the actual laws

You can ACQUIRE a M-16 This is pathetic, how can judges rule on 2nd amendment issues if they don't even know current laws.

How are these judges arguing a SCOTUS decision? This judge reference a dissenting opinion as an actual ruling of SCOTUS?

Congress didn't ban the machine gun in 1938 I'm afraid that these judges are so ignorant to the laws.

Wow, these judges are woefully ignorant on current regulations. "Grenades might become common" Yea after everyone gets a tax stamp for every grenade they own, in the few states that don't currently outlaw them.

Which side is talking now. If it was pro 2nd she should have said machine gun ban is unconstitutional.

Its like everyone forgot about the weapons used in WW2. Is the Garand, BAR, and others are a joke to these people?

Which judge is taking her to task right now?

She can't get away from interest balancing arguments. Going towards early 20th century gun regulations, which aren't valid per Bruen